This article from NRO exposes the whole "jobs" fantasy -- there is more where the below came from:
Surely, however, a decade of subsi dizing renewable energy means that Ger many now produces substantial amounts of it, and has freed itself from dependence on foreign powers? No. Wind power represents about 6 percent of German electricity generation, and solar power is a mere tenth of that. Most German electricity is generated from natural gas, and Germany obtains 40 percent of its gas from Russia, a figure projected to rise to as much as 60 percent by 2020.
What about strengthening the middle class? Well, consumers have borne the cost of the policy. They paid over $100 billion to subsidize wind and solar power over the last decade, with the costs of the subsidies accounting for 7.5 percent of household electricity prices.
As for the climate effect, subsidizing green energy is an extremely expensive way of reducing emissions. The price for a permit to emit one ton of CO2 under Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme — the mar ket cost of reducing emissions — is about $20. Reducing emissions by subsidizing wind power works out to a cost of $80 a ton. For solar power, the cost is a staggering $1,050 a ton.
Finally, the policy has not even supported innovation. The study found that “claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are unsupportable: In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.” Given that even Secretary Chu admits that we need “Nobel-level breakthroughs” in energy technology to have any hope of reducing emissions by 2050, locking in these existing technologies through green-jobs programs would in deed be counterproductive.
The story is the same in Spain, which set out to be the world leader in solar technology. A study by a team from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid led by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez found that the opportunity costs of public investment in renewable energy were very high, resulting not just in significant numbers of jobs destroyed or never created, but in unsustainable bubbles in the renewables sector...
5 Comments •
Comments:
When I wrote this in July 2009 for the American Conservative Party blog, Spain had 4 million jobless, and an unemployment rate of 17.4%, which is about double that of the rest of Europe; this was (and still may) be the highest unemployment rate of all European countries. Further, analysts were predicting unemployment momentum in Spain was ready for a 20% unemployment rate, and they were expecting it to reach 23%. I’m not sure where Spain is today (I need to write a follow-up article), but it clearly shows green jobs are a fantasy for economic betterment.
Now, you would surmise, that if “green jobs” were the panacea that President Obama claims, then they would have protected Spain somewhat, and at the very least, Spain should have the same unemployment rate which the other European Nations have, which do not have “green jobs”. Ironically, President Obama doesn’t believe that Americans are intelligent enough to use the Internet to see exactly what Spain’s real unemployment numbers are like.
Could we have the same numbers as Spain, if this bill becomes law? We are similar to Spain in that we have an immigration problem, and have an older demographic, although obviously every variable between the countries is not the same. For every so called “green job ” in Spain, they have lost 2.2 traditional jobs; or 9 carbon- based jobs for every 4 ‘’ green jobs “created. In the US, how many jobs will we shed? Why hasn’t the President provided those figures to the US people? After all, this is his model.
REASONS WHY THIS ENERGY BILL AS A LEGISLATIVE PRODUCT IS FLAWED
[1] The estimated cost to a family is by leading economists is $ 1,600 to $3,200 per year. The C.B.O. has estimated it will cost about $175 per family. Who is correct? The estimated economic cost to the nation for this program is estimated about 1.9 trillion dollars. Can either be afforded?
[2] As detailed above, this program in Spain, which Obama calls his model, has the highest unemployment rate in Europe, and that rate is currently 17.4%. Does the U.S. really need these high unemployment numbers, when we already have a 9.4% unemployment rate, and are in a deep recession?
[3] Our chief competitors, India and China, have not signed on to reduction of carbon emissions, although Obama insists that when we show our moral leadership, by signing on to an Energy Program first, they will follow. Unfortunately, Obama never learned the meaning of this phrase which is, “those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.” When the U. S. jumped into “free trade” we naively expected that our competitors, such as Mexico and Asia, would follow better environmental standards, and pay their workers a fairer wage. We were rewarded with sweat shops which employed minors, paid them nothing, and sold us lead laced toys from China. For China and India, our planet’s greatest polluters, why do we expect them to change because we do?
[4] Should we dare put restrictions on our imports, forcing India and China to meet our CO2 or Carbon Dioxide emission standards, we risk starting a trade war, where they can and will refuse our exports.
[5] States which utilize fossil fuels will be heavily penalized, because their whole economy is based on using Carbon fuels. Either the economies of these states will collapse, or President Obama will have to issue many of these pollution permits free of charge to this section of the nation for years. We cannot expect revenue from selling pollution permits to pay for the President’s Energy Program. Where will the money come from? This is a punitive bill because it punishes those who use carbon based fuels, to stop their carbon emissions. But a great deal of renewable energy and the technologies which enable us to use them, are not immediately developed, nor are they available, forcing companies to pay fines, while at the same time they are being forced to develop the new methods.
[6] Spain lost an enormous amount of its manufacturing base, and it has currently under 3 million employees employed in manufacturing. They recently lost 500,000 jobs as companies lost profits by keeping up economically with the new “cap” on carbon emissions. Eventually, these companies moved on to other nations, which did not impose these extra costs on them. In the US, our manufacturing base, could in a massive case of indirect outsourcing, move to China and India, where they do not have “caps” on emissions, and most likely will never enact such legislation. It is predicted that China will be the biggest consumer of oil by 2024, which they will need in order to fuel their cars and companies. This raises questions of basic economic security for the US. We are taking this big risk, should we follow the high ground and pass this law. It is a fallacy to believe that the Chinese will be so influenced by our moral leadership, that they will join us, into doing something that they perceive is not in their own best interest.
[7] On the security issue, while it is true we need to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil in the best interest of the country, that point is check mated by the fact, that if we do enact this law, we will lose our steel companies, which will either shut down, or move overseas, as steel is vital to our war effort in producing tanks, armored vehicles, planes and ships.
[8] China, our chief creditor, is already nervous about our bonds, which they are holding because of our bank bailouts, and our stimulus, and this country is becoming very wary of our increasing debt which Obama’s Health, Energy, Education, and Immigration Initiatives will significantly increase making us a poorer credit risk. There is talk, with the OPEC partners, of replacing the dollar as the prime international method of currency with something less volatile and more reliable. Once again, America’s economic security is at risk.
[9] Nowhere in this bill, are nuclear plants mentioned, which are the cleanest user of energy.
[10] We will lose an estimated 2.2 million jobs, and gasoline will rise 77 cents a gallon while diesel will rise 79 cents a gallon if this bill becomes law. In Pennsylvania alone, P.U.C., the state’s utility company, has issued a statement that notes that the president’s Energy Program will cost Pennsylvanians over 66,000 jobs. President Clinton admitted to a Spanish audience at the European University of Madrid, Spain that such an Energy bill would result in a large loss of American jobs, according to the Spanish Newspaper, El Muno, on page 46, May 23, 2006.
[11] There will be various intrusions into American lives if this bill becomes law, for example, Americans will not even be able to sell their homes, until they are judged to be energy efficient, according to the California standard of energy conservation. If these homes are not judged to be fit, then the home owner will have to make the appropriate remedies before selling the home. In today’s economy with the housing slump, is it wise to increase the homeowner’s cost?
[12] In Spain only 1 out of 10 of created “green jobs” were of a permanent nature Do we need a program which is so expensive, and where 90% of the jobs which are created, will end up being temporary ones.
[13] In Spain, each new green job cost the equivalent of $1.2 million to create