In the previous post I cracked on the notion of "green jobs" — not because I don't think a job can be "green" but because those pushing the idea of green jobs have never been too clear about what qualifies as a "green" job. For example, nearly everyone (but not exactly everyone) accepts that wind farms are a green alternative to many other sources of electricity, but does that make windmills "green"? Perhaps not by comparison to solar panels.

Also, if we conclude that windmills are green, does that make the all the manufacturers (including metalcasters) that supply the parts and build the components and supporting equipment green, too?

This is bound to be another area of confusion, but if the carbon tax ideas that emerged last campaign season become actual policy, the confusion is going to be resolved without much concern for the vagaries of these questions. More importantly, it's going to end a lot of real jobs before anyone gets around to determining what a "green" job is, or explains how we'll create 5 million of them.

This always incisive columnist offers a more pragmatic analysis by drawing the link between carbon anxiety and current industrial production figures: "He's going to get a big reduction in CO₂ output whether he wants it or not. Nor will the public be moved to make costly, material changes in its energy habits, especially if the recent global cooling trend continues. What we'll get instead is already depressingly clear: climate pork, or lucrative favors for lobbying interests in the name of global warming that have no impact on global warming."

I'm not dismissing idealism. I'm emphasizing that for ideals to be realized they have to rest on at least some facts and a few common assumptions.