Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Green Jobs Are a National Scandal - More bankruptcies are to come.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | October 7, 2011 | Deroy Murdock

Posted on 10/11/2011 9:08:35 AM PDT by neverdem

Green Jobs Are a National Scandal
More bankruptcies are to come.

Solargate is just the tip of the iceberg.

This cliché within a mixed metaphor reflects the madness of President Obama’s obsession with “green jobs.” It would be bad enough if this disaster were limited to possible criminality at Solyndra — the solar-panel maker that Obama stimulated with loan guarantees, despite repeated warnings about its rickety finances.

“The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra,” Obama proclaimed at its Fremont, Calif., headquarters on May 26, 2010. Not quite. Solyndra’s August 31 bankruptcy transformed 1,100 green jobs into pink slips and marinated taxpayers in $527 million of red ink.

But many green-jobs programs that have not been raided by the FBI — as Solyndra was last September 8 — nonetheless are fiscally reckless enough to merit a five-alarm national scandal.

Consider these other green bankruptcies:

SpectraWatt, Inc., of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., scored $500,000 from the Energy Department in June 2009 and $150,000 from the National Science Foundation in June 2010, Bloomberg reports. Last August 19, the solar-power company went bust.

Evergreen Solar was stimulated with $5.3 million of Massachusetts government cash and praised by the White House for helping to “kickstart the economy.” Evergreen went bankrupt last August 15.

Mountain Plaza, Inc., went bankrupt in 2003. Nonetheless, its “truck-stop electrification” technology won $424,000 in EPA stimulus funds administered by Tennessee’s transportation department. Yet again, Mountain Plaza filed for bankruptcy in June 2010.

Notwithstanding its February 2009 bankruptcy and default on a $58 million loan from BNP Paribas, Wisconsin-based Olsen’s Mill Acquisition was stimulated with $10 million in January 2010, along with Olsen’s Crop Services. Jeff Bollier of the OshKosh Northwestern reported that Olsen’s Mill “buys crops grown by farmers across the eastern and central parts of Wisconsin and sells it to end users such as Utica Energy’s ethanol plant on State Highway 91.” ADM purchased the defunct operation’s assets last month.

Beyond outright bankruptcies, Team Obama has subsidized projects that may be neither fraudulent nor failed, per se, but severely abuse taxpayers:

As the Wall Street Journal reports, cash-strapped Americans are changing babies’ diapers less frequently and doubling down on diaper-rash ointment. What a perfect time for Team Obama to subsidize foreign solar companies! Energy last June 18 gave Solar Trust, an American subsidiary of Germany’s Solar Millennium, a $2.1 billion loan guarantee for a Blythe, Calif., solar-power facility. Last June, Energy handed Spain’s Abengoa Solar a $1.2 billion guarantee for its Mojave (Calif.) Solar Project and backstoppped $1.45 billion last December for Abengoa’s Gila Bend, Ariz., outpost.

On September 28, Energy approved a $737 million loan guarantee for Nevada’s SolarReserve Project. It promises 600 construction jobs at $1.23 million each and 45 permanent jobs at $16.4 million per position. Energy also guaranteed $337 million for Sempra Energy’s Mesquite Solar Project in Arizona. Its 300 construction jobs cost $1.12 million each, while its seven permanent positions equal $48.1 million per job created. The only good news here is that this program ended September 30. So its damage is done.

In Seattle, an Energy grant provided $20 million to weatherize homes. Sixteen months later, this outlay has generated 14 administrative jobs at $1.42 million apiece. How many homes have been retrofitted? Three.

Energy’s Better Buildings Neighborhood Program has fared better in Toledo, Kansas City, and Phoenix. In those locales, $65 million has underwritten 72 jobs. That comes to $902,777 each. Overall, this initiative has spent $508 million in 41 states and “created or saved” 600 jobs — a real bargain at $846,666 apiece.

According to Fox News’s Dan Springer, Seattle’s hourly prevailing wage is $12, but this program’s contractors must pay workers $21 per hour, plus pension and benefits. Also, retrofits average $10,000 per home and typically slice annual power bills by $300. Thus, weatherization usually pays off in 33 years. Who stays still that long?

Does Energy hang its head in shame at such fiscal bedwetting? Hardly.

“While communities are advancing their programs at different rates, we are pleased with the progress,” the department recently crowed.

Citing Energy’s data, Investor’s Business Daily reports that subsidies for all energy sources averaged $1.65 per megawatt-hour in 2007. Wind and solar: $24. Similarly, while Obama “invests” up to $48.1 million per job, private employers hire the average individual for $58,510 annually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates.

This entire fiasco helps illustrate what 19th-century French political economist Frederic Bastiat called “that which is seen, and that which is not seen.” While politicians cut ribbons at ceremonies outside green-energy facilities, none will appear at a politically incorrect coal, natural-gas, or petroleum plant that got no loan guarantees — even to create more jobs more cheaply. Far worse, no one sees the companies, products, and jobs that never emerged because Washington politicians vacuumed the pockets of entrepreneurs who might have deployed private capital more productively and innovatively.

When will liberals join the conservative choir that loudly sings against this green-jobs fantasy? While most free-marketeers would convert these funds to tax relief or debt reduction, only blind liberals cannot see that this extravagance impoverishes their favorite causes.

Every dollar that chases a money-losing windmill is a dollar that cannot fund Head Start.

Every million that spawns only one job is a million that cannot finance 270 average Pell Grants for needy college students.

And every billion that vanishes into green bankruptcy is a billion that cannot help impoverished Americans heat their homes with government assistance.

It would be refreshing to see liberals fight as hard for poor people as for solar panels.

Undeterred, the president chases the sun, like a motorist speeding west across the desert as dusk approaches. Obama swears that the sun is within his grasp. Yet it stubbornly remains just beyond the horizon.

Too bad Barack Obama won’t finance his self-defeating solar road trip with his own money.

— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. 



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: boondoggle; cronyism; evergreen; fraud; green; greenenergy; greenjobs; loans; moneylaundering; obamanomics; solar; solarreserve; solyndra; spectrawatt; spending; waste; wind
Head Start? That's been shown to be a waste too!
1 posted on 10/11/2011 9:08:42 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

the REAL scandal is in all the shady illegal crap and the taxpayer money going out the back door in a desperate attempt to keep any more of them from filing bankruptcy before the election


2 posted on 10/11/2011 9:11:19 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I just want my 100 watt light bulbs back.


3 posted on 10/11/2011 9:13:08 AM PDT by stars & stripes forever ( Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There is no such thing as “green jobs” or “green energy”. None of these projects ever made economic sense.

It has always been nothing but a way for politicians to take taxpayer money and give it to their friends, their supporters and themselves.


4 posted on 10/11/2011 9:16:36 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I’d like to see the salaries of the top ten people in these companies. I do not believe that they had an intention to make these companies profitable. They just collected their salaries and bonuses and let the company fail on the dime of the taxpayer. They made their money, what do they care?


5 posted on 10/11/2011 9:17:15 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: detective
There is no such thing as “green jobs” or “green energy”. None of these projects ever made economic sense.

Not always. I'm doing a lighting project for my patio. When compared to low-voltage halogen lighting, the reduction of wattage necessary for LED fixtures resulting in smaller power supplies and smaller wire is sufficient to pay for the additional cost of the "bulbs," never mind their additional reliability and lower operating cost for electricity. So, sometimes it pays.

6 posted on 10/11/2011 9:28:06 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is exactly what happens when you put an idiot with no business experience alongside of the corrupticrats and hopey changey artists.

Can we start an occupy GREEN street?

Thieving rats, I want my money back!!!!!


7 posted on 10/11/2011 9:30:51 AM PDT by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra,” Obama proclaimed ...

Quite unlike Dorothy in the Land of OZ, here in the real world it takes much more than just closing your eyes, and clicking your heels while making a wish to make things happen.

Hey, all those little buddies back in Chi-caga usta do what he wanted, though. He 'organized' 'em, dontchaknow.

Little fish ... big pond.

8 posted on 10/11/2011 9:34:56 AM PDT by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
“I'm doing a lighting project for my patio. When compared to low-voltage halogen lighting, the reduction of wattage necessary for LED fixtures resulting in smaller power supplies and smaller wire is sufficient to pay for the additional cost of the “bulbs,” never mind their additional reliability and lower operating cost for electricity.”

What you are doing is simply choosing one kind of bulb over another for patio lighting. You are not getting multi-million dollar hand outs from the federal government.(At least I don't think you are.)

Individuals and businesses make energy use decisions every day and choose the alternatives that are most cost effective. That is not what is going on here. These are projects that never had any chance of making economic sense and are given huge subsidies and loan guarantees. The politicians defend them as “green energy” creating “green jobs”.

9 posted on 10/11/2011 9:46:40 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: detective
The politicians defend them as “green energy” creating “green jobs”.

May I suggest at least checking the vintage of a FReeper before posting as if that person is a newbie? You can just hover your mouse over their screen name. Having written two books and many articles dealing with green racketeering over the last thirteen years, I have a pretty thorough idea of what "Green Jobs" are about.

The poster was bashing ALL "green" energy technology. I was pointing out that it has its places by providing a tangible example, effectively telling him to be a bit more thoughtful in posting such absolutes.

It's more complex than simply conservation v. generating capacity, and when more than one person are on the same line, it is difficult to make a free market function correctly. When one throws in the cost of transmission lines, plants, and line maintenance, there is an argument for a distributed generation system coupled with aggressive conservation measures, yet without coordinated action on the part of the consumers, it is impossible to make such a transition. As an example, we live in the mountains above Silicon Valley. We effectively get our power for free because of the cost of line maintenance alone, especially tree trimming. It's that distorted. I have removed almost all the trees in the corridor to reduce that cost. Yet if I take the additional conservation and site-generation measures myself to make that maintenance unnecessary on my part, there is no benefit to me; the power company still has to maintain the lines over my property for those who don't. What then in a just system? Things get complicated fast, with lots of disputes in tow.

Pacific Gas & Electric has tried incentive programs to reduce the need for new plants and distribution systems thus offsetting increased demand and it has paid off to a significant degree. The problems arise when they acquire actual control of my consumption patterns. At that point, I want them out. Unfortunately, local government uses codes and other demands as leverage to control the real estate market making site generation more difficult than it should be. We could be generating all the power we want with portable biomass gasifiers and get rid of excess fuels in as clean a manner as possible, but they would rather preclude that citing "clean air" regulations wait for the forest to burn completely and then call it an Act of God. There's a reason for that.

10 posted on 10/11/2011 11:04:01 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
“Having written two books and many articles dealing with green racketeering over the last thirteen years, I have a pretty thorough idea of what “Green Jobs” are about.”

I congratulate you on writing two books. I was not denigrating your knowledge.

I was pointing out in a straightforward way the difference between energy efficiency which is practiced every day and what the politicians call “green energy” which involves huge taxpayer subsidies.

Maybe the problem is semantics. I have seen the term “green energy” used so many times by frauds and corrupt officials that I use the term in quotes. If you use the term to describe conservation, the efficient use of energy and distributed generation then that is not what I was referring to.

I know how to identify freeper start dates. If you were just being sarcastic that's ok. You seem knowledgeable on the subject of energy. Do you work in the energy field?

11 posted on 10/11/2011 12:07:21 PM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: detective
You seem knowledgeable on the subject of energy. Do you work in the energy field?

No, I've been an R&D engineering project manager for industrial processes. One learns a little about a lot that way.

12 posted on 10/11/2011 12:53:34 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; golux; SteamShovel; Bockscar; Thunder90; rdl6989; marvlus; Fractal Trader; Whenifhow; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

13 posted on 10/12/2011 5:09:55 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Bfl.


14 posted on 10/12/2011 5:16:53 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson