Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
44 of 51 people found the following review helpful
Funny, Factual, Correct, but UnsatisfyingFeb. 12 2011
- Published on Amazon.com
It's too bad that I couldn't give this book 4.5/5 stars, because I am really close to loving this book. The authors legitimately point out the litany of errors, and their consequences, in the "scientific" green energy/green job reports. So many examples from the book could be cited, like the comedy/tragedy surrounding the multitude of definitions or the inadequacy of input-output models. Their points are made in a really sarcastically funny way too, like the "we have the technology to put a man on the moon, but you don't see lunar tourism" passage.
There was hardly much in here that I think can be debated on a factual basis. Of course, agreement on facts never prevented disagreement on policy. Since its from the CATO Institute, obviously I know to expect the "free market is better than anything else we have" viewpoint. But the authors never really attack the argument that negative externalities requires government involvement to internalize costs. This, of course, is the intellectual defense to all the sham research they have criticized. They come close to it, by asking (quite pejoratively) "if green activists think people are too dumb to realize energy savings". I would say that behavioral economics has shown that many people act as if they are "satisficing" not optimizing. Maybe that's just a semantic argument, but I think its a legitimate argument nonetheless. Secondly, that pejorative dismissal misses the point having external costs. That is, its not that people are "too dumb", its that they are causing damage to other elements of the economy. We are both a network and a bunch of atoms.
The book attacks any practical policy implementations that try to address externalities (or just collect rents) and justly so in my opinion. But it still left me wanting more, like what should be done. They mention the X-Prize tournaments. However, I think it is debatable whether such competitive incentives are always best. Sometimes R&D works best by collaborating without expectation of profit sharing. After all, science was invented by people driven for the sake of knowledge alone. Increasing competition might stop some unions from being developed. Of course, it might not. Regardless of where you fall in that debate, it seems unlikely that government tournaments are going to solve the energy/environmental tradeoffs. So much is riding on technological breakthroughs, that profits from the free markets seems like a pretty good prize.
Anyway... definitely buy the book and you will enjoy it. Facts will be useful for the upcoming election. However, it does not ultimately provide any solutions to the environmental/economic situation we face.
18 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Good analysis, but who is the audience?April 19 2011
William Whipple III
- Published on Amazon.com
One line of attack on the "green energy" agenda is to question its primary rationale, namely the theory that catastrophic global warming will result unless human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are drastically reduced.
This book tackles a different question: Assuming that global warming due to carbon emissions might be a problem, is the green energy agenda well designed to achieve the environmental and economic benefits that have been attributed to it?
The authors are four academics (three being economists and/or attorneys) who describe themselves as "professional skeptics." And they do a workmanlike job of questioning the logic and integrity of green energy from various angles.
Having followed the debate about this subject, I was familiar with many of the points. The technical feasibility of a rapid transition to solar and wind power has been vastly exaggerated, while the cost estimates are correspondingly understated. Some environmentalists view nuclear power as "green" because it has the potential of reducing carbon emissions, while others will oppose it to their dying breath. There are numerous environmental objections to the government-supported ethanol program. There is no common definition of the green jobs that are promised, and forecasts are typically expressed on a gross basis (without subtracting jobs that would be eliminated, e.g., in the fossil fuel industries and in industrial operations that would leave the country as the result of higher US energy costs.) Some analysts would count jobs in regulatory compliance areas as a benefit, when they actually represent an economic cost. Claims that green jobs will necessarily provide highly paid, agreeable employment are not credible. Barring the creation of trade barriers, most wind power or solar power equipment would be produced in Asia or Europe versus the US. Etc.
It is nice to have an authoritative source to cite, with a logically organized series of chapters and a handy dandy index. And some of the conceptual points are novel, e.g., demonstration of selective optimism about technological progress in the future (assumed for green energy operations, ignored for traditional energy operations), and repeated demonstration of the Baptist and bootleggers syndrome (people with very different objectives closing ranks to support Sunday closing laws). It is amazing how ready green energy advocates are to trade the taken-for-granted benefits of a free market economy for their vision of what life on earth should be like (e.g., small pastoral communities, locally grown food, no more Wal-Mart).
However, who is the audience? For right wing think tanks and academics, the book is preaching to the converted. Left wing think tanks and academics will not read it. Corporate employees will tend to do whatever suits their own interests.
The authors suggest that the general public could use the book as a source of green energy questions (30 questions are listed in the concluding chapter) for candidates for elective office, but I doubt this will work. The material is too involved, diverse and sophisticated for the average reader to absorb and remember. Also, direct contact between the voters and politicians on policy issues is increasingly infrequent, and written communications from voters are recapped without much reflection on the content unless the sender is seen as potential source of campaign cash.
So if green energy is indeed an expensive, ill-conceived experiment in social engineering, as the authors argue, I think a simpler, more straightforward formulation of the issue would be needed to combat it.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
Interesting book but you have to know how to read itMarch 28 2012
Mr. R. Baal
- Published on Amazon.com
This is from the Cato people so you should know where they are starting from. As long as you realise this its an OK read. Much of the information is very USA centric and as such if you are from outside you should be careful about reading USA examples into your own country.
Cato is very disingenuous at times. They complain that the Green lobby uses best case examples to push their ideas while at the same time Cato uses very carefully contrived worst case examples to shoot them down. Examples of this are in the chapter on public transport where only one traffic flow is considered rater than all the traffic flows that the system would carry. On the same chapter they complain that feeder busses don't work because they don't match the passenger load, ignoring that you can in practice change the size of the bus to match the traffic flow. In their examples it seems all cars carry 4 people and all are going to the same destination from the same departure point.
Its like this throughout the whole book, the answer is the motor car now what is your question?
They could have done much better, still if you can get it cheap or from a library its worth a read just don't take things to much to heart.
A LIBERTARIAN CRITIQUE OF "GREEN ENERGY" AND "GREEN JOBS"Nov. 1 2012
Steven H Propp
- Published on Amazon.com
This 2011 book is published by the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank in Washington D.C.). The authors state in the first chapter, "This book is an effort to help you decide whether green energy proposals are worthwhile. Three of us are either lawyers or economists or both, and all of us work at universities, making us professional skeptics. Our skepticism has led us to ask some questions about green energy proposals that we think their supporters haven't answered." (Pg. 2)
They point out, "We need economically sustainable energy sources, not producers hooked on infusions of public money. Environmentalists are right to criticize existing subsidies for forms of energy they do not like... They're wrong to think that that answer to subsidies they dislike is getting their own." (Pg. 20) They assert, "The analytical foundations upon which green economy advocates base their predictions are deeply flawed. The concrete results of following these policies will be a decline in living standards around the globe, including for the world's poorest; changes in lifestyle that Americans do not want; and a weakening of the technological progress that market forces have delivered." (Pg. 25)
They argue, "the premise that reorienting our economy in a 'greener' direction by shifting to 'sustainable' energy production will increase net employment in the economy is not true, because the bulk of jobs in renewable energy sectors are not self-sustaining without subsidies." (Pg. 133) They add, "Claims about job creation should be separated from environmental goals. If one wishes to argue that CO2 emissions must be limited... that is fine... However, to assert that we can have an environmental cake and eat it too---and get wealthier by doing so---is not credible." (Pg. 138)
They suggest, "The net jobs problem is a serious one. The issue is jobs that would have been created had a subsidy not caused resources and jobs to be shifted elsewhere... The proper measure is not total jobs that exist in an area receiving a subsidy but additional NET new employment---jobs that would not otherwise have existed. This is a problem here because green jobs are substitutes for other jobs. An increase in electricity generation from wind, solar, or other sources will substitute energy from, say, coal-fired generation, which in turn will reduce employment in coal mining and processing." (Pg. 146-147)
The contend, "Businesses line up at the trough to gorge themselves on green pork, finding the payoff from their lobbying efforts in a definition here and a tweak to a bill there. Envirionmental pressure groups gain allies for measures they could not win on the merits, buying support by looking the other way while billions are shunted to a firm in a congressperson's district or a program whose eligibility requirements fit only a selected few." (Pg. 212)
While obviously not a book that will appeal to mainstream environmentalists, this is a diverse and challenging book that contains a lot of information relevant to anyone studying the matter of "green energy."
Think before you shut down all those power plantsAug. 16 2014
David L. Olson
- Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition
A biased but convincing (to me) view that radical efforts to cut all carbon emission immediately is impossible and counterproductive. This is a politically charged issue and one should look at both extremes. This treatment is pretty balanced in my view, but I am sure a significant minority in the US (including Barack Obama) would disagree. That's not a negative.