Well, this is odd: a news item about green jobs that actually does a decent job of scratching the surface of the premise that the government can simply create jobs (implicitly, net jobs) by throwing other peoples’ money at an idea via mandates and subsidies — and the taxes to pay for them.

The piece doesn’t go so far as to call the greens out on their strange argumentation, which would be too much to expect, but consider how they expose themselves nonetheless. First, when challenged on the supposed virtue of requiring the population to spend more for their energy, the greens change the subject.

“Neal Lurie, an American Solar Energy Society spokesman, said [a calculation illustrating the cost of solar power] ‘doesn’t quite pass the sniff test’.” Ummm, why not? Because, “The sun is free.” Right. But the point is that solar energy — what we’re talking about, and mandates for which you are promoting – is bloody expensive. So at least the piece notes how expensive solar is — even if this non-response is presented as an actual response.

Then someone just has to offer some crazy opinion like “the social value of an energy source is how FEW jobs are created by unit energy output,” like Joseph Somsel, a nuclear engineer in San Jose interviewed for the piece. Another rake notes “If you have two people making the same amount of energy that one person used to make, would you want to describe that as creating one new job?” Hamilton asked. “I would say no, you’re significantly reducing productivity. Ultimately, creating jobs has to do with promoting productivity.” The nerve! Imagine, daring to posit that upon scrutiny it might not really be all that great a selling point to emphasize that it takes an awful lot more workers to produce the same (actually, far less and far less reliable) energy. And, well, those inefficiencies trickle down to cost other people their jobs, as well.

To which the greens said oh it’s not about all that anyway. “[D]irect comparisons of the energy production from fossil fuels and green sources aren’t appropriate. Green energy is being adopted for its benefit to the environment, [green interviewee X] said. . . . “

So if it requires a whole lot more people (and money) to produce a whole lot less, that’s not the point (insert Curly doing the left-hand-right-hand-left-hand over his face. . . ) Ignore the logic for a moment just to question the whole choice — their choice — to fight the battle for their mandates, subsidies, and taxes to pay for them on “jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs” in the first place.

Remember how “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” turned out not to mean in any way shape or form what it connoted — producing more domestic oil — and wasn’t about “foreign oil” at all? Instead, that whole “foreign” thing was thrown in as a presumably poll-tested distraction? Well, any time they’re pressed on the economic facts, Greens turn out that the mantra of “green jobs” in similar fashion — in this case, with the extra word being “jobs.” But this isn’t about the jobs — it’s the green agenda wrapped up in something that — who knows? — just might fool or soothe enough voters to get passed into law.

The good news: When an opposing movement can’t answer a simple question without playing games, you know you might be on the right side of the issue, even if you know nothing else.