Posted on 06/25/2009 4:42:59 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.
The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Because he wants 18 percent unemployment here?
Actually, he's hoping to outdo them.
It amazes me that statements like this go unchallenged. The logic defies even rudimentary economic analysis. Very simply, if we employ large amounts of people, in well paying jobs, to create energy - then by definition; the energy will be very costly.
We now produce an adequate amount of energy using very few people. If we change that to producing adequate amounts of energy using large amounts of people - the price will go up accordingly. It just can't happen both ways. "Plentiful high paying energy jobs" and "cheap energy" are mutually exclusive propositions.
more clearly explained at:
http://drilldown.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/07/the_green_jobs_myth.thtml
“a wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent “
So that he and his Communist playmates can eliminate the honest jobs and replace them with government jobs.
It amazes me that statements like this go unchallenged. The logic defies even rudimentary economic analysis. Very simply, if we employ large amounts of people, in well paying jobs, to create energy - then by definition; the energy will be very costly.
We now produce an adequate amount of energy using very few people. If we change that to producing adequate amounts of energy using large amounts of people - the price will go up accordingly. It just can't happen both ways. "Plentiful high paying energy jobs" and "cheap energy" are mutually exclusive propositions.
more clearly explained at:
http://drilldown.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/07/the_green_jobs_myth.thtml
He says it will clean up the environment, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign fuel.
None of this is true..He's insane.
sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.