You may have noticed an odd contradiction: Promoters of “green” energy and “green” initiatives almost always offer reassurances that their plans are cost-effective and “will pay for themselves.” But time and again, those initiatives have to be propped up by government subsidies and tax dollars — precisely because they can’t sustain themselves.
Corn-based ethanol is one example. It was touted as a way to clean up the environment and end our dependence on foreign oil. It did neither, yet taxpayers are on the hook for billions of dollars worth of subsidies to corn growers and ethanol producers. Wind and solar energy also get lots of tax dollars, because it is more expensive to produce energy in those ways than it is from sources such as coal and nuclear.
The latest scheme comes from Connecticut. Lawmakers there are backing a bill that would waive up to $10,000 in education loans for students who earn degrees in “green technology” and related areas. They hope to persuade students to go into those fields.
But if there is really a strong market for “green” jobs, why should that sort of inducement even be necessary? Wouldn’t young people — who supposedly are extremely environmentally aware — flock to “green” studies and “green” jobs if “green” industries were as successful and robust as environmentalists claim?
Of course, backers of the legislation are not playing up the unappealing fact that if the state forgives loans for one group of students, taxpayers and other students must make up the difference.
Government needs to be reducing — not increasing — its market-distorting interventions.