Climate of Change

With ABC handing over hours of primetime to Obama’s infomercial for socialism (which failed utterly to attract viewers, thus giving the lie to the notion they’ve been kowtowing to him just because he’s a draw) I shouldn’t be surprised by this little piece of enviro-propaganda (enviroganda?) from the AP, furtively titled “analysis,” which I suppose sounds better than “openly shilling for the environmental movement.”
But I am surprised, not so much by the content but by how poorly argued the piece is.

Critics of the House bill brand it a “jobs killer.” Yet it would seem more likely to shift jobs. Old, energy-intensive industries and businesses might scale back or disappear. Those green jobs would emerge, propelled by the push for nonpolluting energy sources.

Has the Associated Press really never heard of the broken windows fallacy?
Let’s pretend for a moment the problem was electricity rather than carbon. Let’s say a group of scientists with computer models has found that our steadily increasing use of electricity is causing a tiny tear in the space-time continuum, which will keep getting larger as we use more electricity. Now, some argue the tear isn’t so bad and might even turn out be a useful waste-disposal mechanism, but politicians and activists insist We Must Do Something and they have the votes.
Now imagine trying to keep a straight face as they tell you moving to more expensive and less convenient non-electric goods won’t cost jobs or hurt people. You won’t mind fanning yourself instead of using an electric fan. Air conditioning is bad for your allergies anyway. We survived without the Internet for most of humanity’s time on this Earth. Candles are perfectly adequate for lighting. Why, we’ll invent new and better forms of these things that don’t require electricity!
But there is no substitute for electricity, and there isn’t for coal and oil either, and waving your arms and chanting “innovation!’ won’t cause any of these magical breakthroughs to appear. Coal is cheap, abundant and fairly energy-dense: perfect for making electricity in fixed plants. Oil is cheap, abundant, even more energy-dense, and has the added feature of being liquid, making it perfect for mobile applications and nationwide distribution.
The rest of the article makes the argument we can do this without hurting the little people.

Not all the higher energy cost would show up in people’s utility bills. Households, as well as business and factories — including those, for example, making plastic for toys — could use less energy, or at least use it more efficiently.

Did you catch that? You see, currently companies and households make no effort to contain costs, so if we make energy more expensive, things could get cheaper! Yes, this really is how the Associated Press thinks economics works.

The poorest of homes could get a government check as a rebate for high energy costs. That money would come from selling pollution allowances for industry.

Translation: “Well, if we only break windows belonging to rich people and corporations (never mind if Grandma’s pension fund owns them) then who could really complain?” This misses the point entirely. I’ll let Frederic Bastiat explain why:

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Our shopkeepers will be forced to spend their six francs on a poorly substantiated environmental scare that even proponents admit has no net economic costs in the lifetimes of most people alive today. We don’t even get a new window in the deal.