Posted on 02/26/2010 8:34:48 AM PST by TonyInOhio
In this morning's Washington Post, Suni Sharan, director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, questions the validity of "the assumption that a 'clean-energy' economy will generate enough jobs to mitigate today's high level of unemployment."
And yet, as he writes, "'green jobs' have become a central underpinning of the Obama administration's rationale to promote clean energy." He explains that "the near-term expected levels of investment in and adoption of renewable sources of energy mean that net job creation should top out in the tens of thousands, as opposed to the desired hundreds of thousands or more."
Sharan concludes that "for the purpose of creating jobs, then, a 'clean-energy economy' will not offer a panacea" and that "those who take great pains to tout the 'job-creation potential' of the green space might just end up inducing labor pains all around."
He is onto something. However, the reality is much worse. As we know, President Obama has spent much time praising Spain as being a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. A role model, Spain?
This study, from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain shows that the reality is quite different. After examining Spain’s experience with an aggressive wind-power program, the researchers concluded, among other things, the cost of creating a green job in Spain was 571,000 Euros each (so roughly $800,000) and for each green job created 2 private jobs were lost.
The study also makes predictions in case the president pursues his green job policy.
"Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. could lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals a tendency that means the U.S. should expect such an outcome."
0bama’s “green jobs” means picking up trash on the roadside with a pointy stick. But as an SEIU member, you’ll be well paid.
What the hell is a green job anyway? Where would one go apply for such a thing?
Seriously, what is a green job? Please, someone describe one to me, I can’t take it anymore.
Would the people who offer to come to your house for a fee & poop scoop your yard be considered practicioners of green jobbery?
They don’t carry them anymore.
So I went to Lowes.
They don’t carry them anymore.
I asked the clerks why? They said “they are trying to force the use of CFL bulbs”. I said all my down spots are on dimmers and I can’t use CFL bulbs. They said 65 watt is the highest they will carry now in incandescent BR40.
Welcome to Obama’s America. Where “they” “force” you to use what “they” dictate.
FUBO
Well, getting rid of overpaid union workers isn’t the worst thing in the world if costs come down.
OTOH, a colleague of mine pointed out (http://smartgridanalysis.com/blog/?p=43) that people will likely use even more electricity if you reduce the cost of it.
This administration is a hoax.
Enough jobs? How about any jobs? Going green is shown to be a net loss, and subsidized one at that.
You can’t defy the basic economics of it, you trade a viable, cheap, energy based type of production for an expensive, government-subsidized one, this will be the result.
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.