Environmentalists think that the loss of jobs from the new coal plant regulations are necessary collateral damage. Investors.com covers a piece in Huffington Post by William S. Becker, which says that the coal and oil country loss of jobs related to environmental programs are collateral damage, an “evolutionary step in technology and the economy” and a move toward “economic progress.”
Becker’s Huffington Post article is a piece of rather tortured logic blaming coal on flooding in Bangladesh and other environmental ills and saying that government forcing technology will displace jobs just like the switch from typewriters and dial telephones. The government didn’t write regulations forcing the elimination of typewriters and dial telephones over a defined time or require non-existent technologies for their continued use. But these new rules are supposed to put money in each consumer’s pocket. I’m not sure how making things more expensive put’s money in my pocket.
His solution to job losses: job training and more government spending. Job training only works if the training is for jobs that are in demand and going unfilled. That hasn’t been the case for most government jobs training programs.
I wonder how the elitists would feel if their incomes were lost as “collateral damage?” Is there a federal jobs training program for non-government experts who write Presidential Climate Action Plans?