Purpose-oriented misleading attempts
I know I’ve probably talked about climate change ad nauseum, but VATT (The Government Institute for Economic Research in Finland) recently contributed what must’ve been the most useless study if not ever, at least this year. They state that the EU goal of cutting emissions by 20% by the year 2020 would lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs in Finland. Who knows, maybe that’s even true. But even so, there’s this one tiny fundamental flaw with the study – that it doesn’t take into account the jobs that would be created at all. Oh, and it also conveniently forgets to mention that we’ll lose much more than 60,000 jobs if we don’t tackle climate change.
One has to wonder a couple of things; first, what kind of hidden agenda (and whose agenda) is behind such “research”? Secondly, did they think they could get away with publishing such completely one-sided stuff without getting caught? Seriously. This is precisely the kind of scaremongering we don’t need. By scaring people (or governments) into inaction by presenting spurious bad outcomes and simultaneously dismissing the reality of a certain, big disaster if action is not taken is really nothing short of irresponsible.
Heck, with the workforce shifting constantly to new areas, one could safely make a categorical prediction that Finland will lose 100,000 jobs in the next ten years if <INSERT YOUR FAVORITE TOPIC HERE> is / is not done. Whatever you put there, it’ll be true simply because of constant change and movement in the workforce.
And if we don’t mention the 100,000 or more jobs created elsewhere, it’ll make a much better headline, won’t it?
February 21st, 2007 at 02:08
Amen.
It’s the same with globalization and national governments giving in and taking protectionist measures in order to protect the(ir native) workforce from losing their jobs.
At first, protectionism may seem like an appealing alternative. It most definitely is a policy that will win the general public’s sympathies and support, but as more countries lean towards protectionist behavior, the relative gain of such procedures will pretty soon cease to exist. What we have left then, is a bunch of national economies who have created environments and economical spheres where enterprises will find it harder and harder to do business in as they have lost their competitive edge, and by which they have been lulled into an illusion of not needing to innovate, be productive and contribute to generating prosperity (means) and general well-being (to an end.)
Are anti-globalization activists and politicians (or the researchers at VATT) sure this is the right way to guarantee jobs to citizens (aka voters)? Are they sure it is indeed necessarity to tamper with the workings of the invisible hand?
Like you said, workforce is in the move. Globalization nor emission cutbacks threat the workforce and their jobs as such – in every change there is a possibility. Not all growth is necessarily bad. Not all growth is doomed to cause great pains to our dear planet and its inhabitants. Growth too can be directed so that it creates rather than destroys. Technological innovations and solutions promoting and helping in the fight against climate change are a prime example of actions leading to such growth.
Sorry for preaching. Had to get it out of my system.
February 21st, 2007 at 09:41
Exactly, good points.
And one would think that Finland having all these highly polluting industries, they would be prime candidates for technological innovations on cutting emissions. Yet nobody seems to talk about that – it’s as if the only way to cut emissions from, say, a paper mill is to close it down. Which is hardly the case.