How joyously expensive Net Zero is!

We might have to revise that rationalist dictionary a little. As we all know, adding the word “social” reverses the meaning. Social justice, social policy and so on. To which we should probably add “progressive”. For progressive economics, on this evidence at least, seems not to be economics:

More than 40 progressive economists have written to Sharon Graham, the leader of Unite, rejecting her claim that Ed Miliband would destroy jobs if he becomes the next chancellor.

Jobs are a cost, it is output that is the benefit. More, or even the same, output using less human labour as the input is an increase in labour productivity and thereby a good thing in economics. We can also put this as the insistence that the point and purpose of economic advance is to destroy jobs. So, not destroying jobs is not a good thing.

In an open letter, academics including Kate Pickett, the author of The Spirit Level; Danny Dorling, a geographer; Daniela Gabor, a professor of economics at Soas University of London; and James Meadway from Verdant, a thinktank, urged her to withdraw the remarks.

They wrote: “The climate transition is one of the largest drivers of industrial job creation in the UK economy. The net zero economy generates output worth over £100bn and employs over a million workers.”

Ah, yes, they are indeed lauding the labour inefficiency of Net Zero.

Note that within the confines of this argument Net Zero might still be worth doing. We’re not commenting upon that, whether or not to broil Flipper, fumes last ice floe and so on. The point is solely about their lauding of lots of jobs. That’s anti-economics, the aim is to reduce the amount of human labour required to perform a task. Such as, say, powering the nation.

Progressive economics is thus as with social justice. The first word in the phrase reverse the meaning of the second.

But then reading the list of signatories we’d probably get to that conclusion anyway.

Tim Worstall