Its been said before, many times, but now we have a US think-tank, the Beacon Hill Institute is saying it: "green jobs are a cost not a benefit." The researchers have looked at a number of influential studies, including the UNEP report on "Green Jobs: Towards Sustainable Work in a Low-Carbon World," and find that they are "critically flawed".

View full article here

Regrettably, no amount of Reason or pragmatism will dent the beliefs of the faithful. 'Greenery' has acquired the status of a religion; every bit as radical & dangerous as ( i mustn't mention it lest be accused of 'low-grade phobia').
Were it not for fear of adding to perceived pollution, these nutters would happily burn at the stake rather than see the light.
I fear that we shall have to wait for the catastrophe which will overtake us...as usual, the Germans have a good acronym for this: GAU.....(Grösste Annehmbare Unfall)...hope I got that right.

Brilliant Richard - well said. Have linked.

"Were it not for fear of adding to perceived pollution, these nutters would happily burn at the stake rather than see the light."

Not a chance.They will let us go to the wall. After it has gone tits up,they will walk away and play with a new toy. I wish I would be getting a quid for every one of them who says, "I always said it was wrong".

If I understand the director of the Science Museum in London (one Chris Rapley, a climate change scientist, speaking in this video about plans for the museum http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video ... the-future), it will be necessary to "decarbonise our energy supply by about 2015" (this is at about 3 minutes into the video). At first I thought he meant the museum's energy supply, but no, it seems he means the UK and presumably also the entire world. And yes, he did say 2015, not 2050. This is completely insane. Is he a NuLab appointee? He mentions Mandelson without spitting, so I suppose he must be. Watch the video, it's bonkers.

I don't think that the consequences of "decarbonising our energy supply" will bother Rapley he is passionate about <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/31/uknews?gusrc=rss&feed=science"> population control.</a>

The objective, of course, is dependency. Once the government, media, and big business get together on an issue, there is little chance of stopping it. Services, information, and products are all things that have to be provided for us, and when you are told that, by law, you must do thus and such it creates a scheme of dependency. The purveyors of such trash may believe their own drivel, or not, but as long as they are allowed to maintain their power and the perks of office they will not care. And once they are out of office there will be lavish quasi-private sector jobs (think of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as prime examples) provided for them, in some cases created and/or bolstered by laws they themselves passed. Without a thriving and truly free private economy, in which market forces and not government dictates are allowed to determine choices, there remains only one option: government. If you cannot get a government job, then you will be a second class citizen, outside of the rungs of power de facto. That is, until the government collapses under the weight of its own schemes, which is sure to happen eventually.