FACT: In Spain, For Every GREEN JOB Created, 2 1/2 Are LOST !!!

[Vast LWC]

Since you read the study instead of just relying on some one else's opinion of it, you understand that your quote doesn't actually come from the study but is widely claimed in articles about the study. The actual quote from the study is:

Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries.

Page 8, numbered point 9:

"Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries."

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

But since you read the study instead of relying on some one else's opinion about it, you understand that the high cost of electricity is not relevant to the study's calculation that for every green job created 2.2 other jobs were destroyed.

Also from the study, page 9, point 16:

"The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the
relatively most electricity-intensive companies and industries away, seeking
areas where costs are lower. The example of Acerinox is just such a case."

Since the cost of electricity was significantly LOWER than in countries from green sources than from oil or other sources, as I pointed out, this statement is patently false.

Using government statistics, the study compares the amount of investment necessary to create a green job with the amount of investment needed to create, on average, a job in the rest of the economy and it found that the investment needed to create one green job would have created 2.2 jobs if it had been otherwise invested in the economy. Essentially the study argues that the opportunity cost of creating one green job is 2.2 other jobs.

I understand that economic conditions at any particular time may mean the number could be higher or lower than 2.2

Conditions which the study failed to take into account, at all. Conveniently.

but the fact that it costs more than twice as much, according to Spanish government figures, to create one green job as to create one job in the rest of the economy, it seems likely that a rapid, large scale conversion to green energy such as Spain has had will produce a net loss of jobs for the economy.

Initial investments in new fields of industry tend to be expensive. That is the nature of R&D, and the nature of setting up new industries, period. Costs become cheaper as the field expands.

The study argues that exactly where in the economy these jobs will be lost will depend on how the enormous cost of the green conversion is paid for. This would have to be done by some combination of raising electricity rates, raising taxes or continuing to pay interest on the accumulating debt.

Except, again, the electiricty rates listed in the study did not rise as fast as electricity rates from oil.

The person who wrote the study seems to be intentionally ignorant of external factors.

I wonder why that might be?

According to
the National Energy Commission, the price of a comprehensive energy rate (paid by
the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31% to begin to repay the
historic debt generated by this deficit.

And, if they kept relying on other forms of energy, prices would have risen 400%, with the price of oil, during the same period.

This would mean the bulk of the jobs lost would be in the most energy intensive industries. If taxes were raised consumption and investment would be reduced throughout the economy and jobs would be lost throughout the economy. Continuing deficits and a growing debt, of course, will eventually mean either higher taxes of fewer services to pay for the interest and may cause some private sector businesses to pay higher interest rates, so in this case, too, jobs would be lost throughout the economy.

The study also warns that Spain's forced conversion to green energy is producing a bubble that may eventually lead to a period of higher unemployment and perhaps a recession when the goal of producing 20% of Spain's electricity through green energy is reached and all the jobs involved in manufacturing and building the capacity to produce green energy are lost.

Of course, there's no reason to think the US experience would be exactly like Spain's, but on the other hand, there's no reason to think it would be entirely different, so imo, it would be prudent to demand a detailed economic analysis of the costs and benefits we might see from a rapid, large scale government subsidized conversion to green energy such as Obama seems to want before going ahead with it.

In summary, the author of the study seems to ignore the effect of external forces on the Spanish Economy, and does not compare the rise and fall of the economy with relative rises and falls in the rest of the world's economies.

And since there were radical swings in most world economies during this period, this is a fatal error in the methodology of the study.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fat chance that MARXIST Obami Salami would initiate such a study.

This much needed analysis MUST BE DONE.

But, let's say some non-biased, non-political organization would underwrite such a vital study, with the predictable results similar to the Spain study.

DO YOU THINK MARXIST OBAMI SALAMI AND HIS LIEBTARDS WOULDN'T OBFUSCATE IT AND/OR SQUELCH IT ?!?!?

Sigh, more talking points.

You do of course realize that the Spanish government is much more socialist than the US government, right?

ROFL.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Since you read the study instead of just relying on some one else's opinion of it, you understand that your quote doesn't actually come from the study but is widely claimed in articles about the study. The actual quote from the study is:

Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries.

Page 8, numbered point 9:

"Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries."

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf



Also from the study, page 9, point 16:

"The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the
relatively most electricity-intensive companies and industries away, seeking
areas where costs are lower. The example of Acerinox is just such a case."

Since the cost of electricity was significantly LOWER than in countries from green sources than from oil or other sources, as I pointed out, this statement is patently false.



Conditions which the study failed to take into account, at all. Conveniently.



Initial investments in new fields of industry tend to be expensive. That is the nature of R&D, and the nature of setting up new industries, period. Costs become cheaper as the field expands.



Except, again, the electiricty rates listed in the study did not rise as fast as electricity rates from oil.

The person who wrote the study seems to be intentionally ignorant of external factors.

I wonder why that might be?



And, if they kept relying on other forms of energy, prices would have risen 400%, with the price of oil, during the same period.

This would mean the bulk of the jobs lost would be in the most energy intensive industries. If taxes were raised consumption and investment would be reduced throughout the economy and jobs would be lost throughout the economy. Continuing deficits and a growing debt, of course, will eventually mean either higher taxes of fewer services to pay for the interest and may cause some private sector businesses to pay higher interest rates, so in this case, too, jobs would be lost throughout the economy.

The study also warns that Spain's forced conversion to green energy is producing a bubble that may eventually lead to a period of higher unemployment and perhaps a recession when the goal of producing 20% of Spain's electricity through green energy is reached and all the jobs involved in manufacturing and building the capacity to produce green energy are lost.

Of course, there's no reason to think the US experience would be exactly like Spain's, but on the other hand, there's no reason to think it would be entirely different, so imo, it would be prudent to demand a detailed economic analysis of the costs and benefits we might see from a rapid, large scale government subsidized conversion to green energy such as Obama seems to want before going ahead with it.

In summary, the author of the study seems to ignore the effect of external forces on the Spanish Economy, and does not compare the rise and fall of the economy with relative rises and falls in the rest of the world's economies.

And since there were radical swings in most world economies during this period, this is a fatal error in the methodology of the study.

Since the study does not base its conclusion that 2.2 jobs will be lost for each green job created on the price of electricity or on general economic conditions, these issues are irrelevant to its conclusion. Using government statistics, the study points out that it requires 2.2 times the capital investment to create one green job as it would to create one job, on average, in the rest of the economy, so by forcibly diverting this investment capital into the green energy industry, 2.2 jobs are lost for each green job created. In essence, the study is saying, this is an inefficient use of capital and the cost of this inefficiency is 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created.

As for the cost of producing green energy, if you include the need to repay the enormous capital investment required to set up green energy production facilities, the Spanish government estimates that if it were repaid by end users of electricity, electric rates would have to be increased by 31% for decades. Since Spain is only shooting for 20% of its electricity to be produced from green sources, that means the real cost of green electricity is more than 2 1/2 times the direct production costs if you include the cost of the capital needed to set it up. It should be obvious that if the cost of producing electricity from green sources, including the cost of capital, were truly less than producing it from fossil fuels, there would have been no need for the Spanish government to step into the process, or for the US government to do so, since private investors would have already seen the opportunity for profit and financed the changeover themselves.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yea.....I heard the same thing from this guy in a bar. I think his name was Jimmy or something like that. But he sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

Maybe that's because he had read this story.



Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study - Bloomberg.com

or this one



Reuters.com

which includes the caution,

Conservative bloggers have seized on the study to show that Obama’s green energy push will cost the U.S. some 6 million jobs — although others have injected a note of skepticism.

The Wall Street Journal, for example, notes on its Environmental Capital blog that the study is fuzzy on exactly which jobs were destroyed in Spain and suggests that Calzada, as the founder of a libertarian think tank, might not be completely objective.

So should we dismiss this study as fraudulent because the author, a professor of economics at a Spanish university, is a libertarian and risk sending our already batterred economy into a period of higher deficits and higher unemployment or should we wait until there are further studies to determine how many jobs will be lost by converting to green technology alongside Obama's promises of how many will be created?

The whole point is none of those skeptics have enough of a case to completely dismiss the fact that GREEN ENERGY IS the way of the future. Private investors with the big bucks aren't even looking at oil projects anymore. They are smart enough to know that the return on their dollar can only increase by investing in alternative energy. Try taking a look at some of the more successful energy producing technocrats, like Siemens (and also peruse their entire website, then come back and tell us where the future lies).

Siemens USA Website - Siemens Share USA

Green energy will probably be a growing part of the way to the future, but the issue here is whether a government subsidized conversion to green energy now will create more jobs than it destroys or whether it will destroy more jobs than it creates. This is an important issue because Obama has chosen to try to sell a massively expensive federal program to shift much of our electricity production from fossil fuel sources to green sources with the argument that this will create jobs and grow the economy.

The study concludes that given the present state of technology, the cost of creating one green job is more than twice that of creating, on average, one job elsewhere in the economy, so that diverting large amounts of investment capital to a green conversion will cost 2.2 jobs for each green job created. Moreover, while the direct production costs of electricity from green sources are competitive with the cost of electricity from fossil fuel sources, if you include the cost of capital needed to set up green facilities, electricity from green sources is much more expensive.

What this means is that before a green conversion is even economically neutral, let alone creates jobs or grows the economy, substantial improvements in the technology will have to occur so that the direct production costs are low enough so that even with the cost of capital included electricty from green sources will be at least competitive in price with electricity from fossil fuel sources. When this happens, there will be no need for a government program since private investors will see an opportunity for profit and finance the green conversion themselves.

 

[Vast LWC]

Since the study does not base its conclusion that 2.2 jobs will be lost for each green job created on the price of electricity or on general economic conditions, these issues are irrelevant to its conclusion. Using government statistics, the study points out that it requires 2.2 times the capital investment to create one green job as it would to create one job, on average, in the rest of the economy, so by forcibly diverting this investment capital into the green energy industry, 2.2 jobs are lost for each green job created. In essence, the study is saying, this is an inefficient use of capital and the cost of this inefficiency is 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created.

As for the cost of producing green energy, if you include the need to repay the enormous capital investment required to set up green energy production facilities, the Spanish government estimates that if it were repaid by end users of electricity, electric rates would have to be increased by 31% for decades. Since Spain is only shooting for 20% of its electricity to be produced from green sources, that means the real cost of green electricity is more than 2 1/2 times the direct production costs if you include the cost of the capital needed to set it up. It should be obvious that if the cost of producing electricity from green sources, including the cost of capital, were truly less than producing it from fossil fuels, there would have been no need for the Spanish government to step into the process, or for the US government to do so, since private investors would have already seen the opportunity for profit and financed the changeover themselves.

The study specifically went into detail about how jobs would be lost from the factors mentioned, as I quoted.

But, putting that aside for now, what jobs would the 2.2 jobs consist of?

Would they be long-term renewable jobs with a continuing demand, or would they just be make-work jobs that would dissappear when the need for them dissappeared?

And, while we're on the subject, doesn't the government creating NEW jobs in green technology then create new offshoot jobs to support the industry?

It's not this is a situation where there will not be a continuously increasing need for energy, because there will be. And an increasing demand for natural resources, which will make the Green industry keep expanding with the demand.

Or are you somehow denying that there will be future increases in energy costs due to expanding demand and limited resources? Especially since during the time of the study itself, energy cost for fossil fuels increased by 400%?

People called Al Gore crazy when he pushed congress to out massive funding into internet development, but he didn't seem so crazy 10 years later, much less 25 years later.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Since the study does not base its conclusion that 2.2 jobs will be lost for each green job created on the price of electricity or on general economic conditions, these issues are irrelevant to its conclusion. Using government statistics, the study points out that it requires 2.2 times the capital investment to create one green job as it would to create one job, on average, in the rest of the economy, so by forcibly diverting this investment capital into the green energy industry, 2.2 jobs are lost for each green job created. In essence, the study is saying, this is an inefficient use of capital and the cost of this inefficiency is 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created.

As for the cost of producing green energy, if you include the need to repay the enormous capital investment required to set up green energy production facilities, the Spanish government estimates that if it were repaid by end users of electricity, electric rates would have to be increased by 31% for decades. Since Spain is only shooting for 20% of its electricity to be produced from green sources, that means the real cost of green electricity is more than 2 1/2 times the direct production costs if you include the cost of the capital needed to set it up. It should be obvious that if the cost of producing electricity from green sources, including the cost of capital, were truly less than producing it from fossil fuels, there would have been no need for the Spanish government to step into the process, or for the US government to do so, since private investors would have already seen the opportunity for profit and financed the changeover themselves.

The study specifically went into detail about how jobs would be lost from the factors mentioned, as I quoted.

But, putting that aside for now, what jobs would the 2.2 jobs consist of?

Would they be long-term renewable jobs with a continuing demand, or would they just be make-work jobs that would dissappear when the need for them dissappeared?

And, while we're on the subject, doesn't the government creating NEW jobs in green technology then create new offshoot jobs to support the industry?

It's not this is a situation where there will not be a continuously increasing need for energy, because there will be. And an increasing demand for natural resources, which will make the Green industry keep expanding with the demand.

Or are you somehow denying that there will be future increases in energy costs due to expanding demand and limited resources? Especially since during the time of the study itself, energy cost for fossil fuels increased by 400%?

People called Al Gore crazy when he pushed congress to out massive funding into internet development, but he didn't seem so crazy 10 years later, much less 25 years later.

You are mistaken. The conclusion that 2.2 jobs would be lost for each green job created by based only on the fact that it takes 2.2 times as much investment capital to create a green job as it does to create, on average, a job in the rest of the economy. The study does suggest that additional jobs will be lost because the high cost of capital involved, mostly from government subsidies and loans, will cause either electricity rates to increase, according to calculations from the Spanish government, taxes to increase or the debt to grow; each of these would have a detrimental effect on the economy and on employment, however, the study does not estimate just how large these effects would be and they are in addition to the 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created because of the diversion of capital from the rest of the economy to the green energy conversion.

No one knows what the future will bring. It could be that continued improvements in green technology will drastically reduce the amount of capital investment needed to set up wind and solar production facilities or drastically reduce direct production costs so that even when the cost of capital is added to direct production costs electricity from green sources will cost less than from fossil fuel sources, but if that time comes, there will be no need for a government program because private investors will see an opportunity for profit and finance the conversion themselves. On the other hand, it could be that continued improvements in clean coal technology and in techniques for extracting oil from shale will so expand our supply of fossil fuels and so lower the costs of providing clean energy from them that electricity produced from wind and solar sources will always require capital investments that are so large relative to alternative job creating investments that they will have a detrimental effect on our economy.

The fact is that the push for conversion to wind and solar energy is mostly driven by concerns about climate change and the environment and to a lesser extent by concerns about energy independence and not by economic arguments. However, Obama, quite cynically and dishonestly imo, has tried to sell the idea of a large scale government subsidized conversion to wind and solar energy with the promise it will create jobs and grow the economy. This study shows that Spain's experience indicates that it would, in fact, cost jobs and likely depress the economy.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are mistaken. The conclusion that 2.2 jobs would be lost for each green job created by based only on the fact that it takes 2.2 times as much investment capital to create a green job as it does to create, on average, a job in the rest of the economy. The study does suggest that additional jobs will be lost because the high cost of capital involved, mostly from government subsidies and loans, will cause either electricity rates to increase, according to calculations from the Spanish government, taxes to increase or the debt to grow; each of these would have a detrimental effect on the economy and on employment, however, the study does not estimate just how large these effects would be and they are in addition to the 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created because of the diversion of capital from the rest of the economy to the green energy conversion.

It does NOT state what the 2.2 jobs that it compares the cost of the Green Jobs to are.

It does not in fact state that the 2.2 jobs are "average jobs", whatever that might mean.

And, as I stated previously, if you create 2.2 ditch-digging jobs, you will not be creating a new, evolving, renewable industry. You will be in fact creating a temporary job that will likely dissappear when enough ditches have been dug.

A green energy job will continue to be in demand for the long-term, as energy needs are not going away.

No one knows what the future will bring. It could be that continued improvements in green technology will drastically reduce the amount of capital investment needed to set up wind and solar production facilities or drastically reduce direct production costs so that even when the cost of capital is added to direct production costs electricity from green sources will cost less than from fossil fuel sources, but if that time comes, there will be no need for a government program because private investors will see an opportunity for profit and finance the conversion themselves. On the other hand, it could be that continued improvements in clean coal technology and in techniques for extracting oil from shale will so expand our supply of fossil fuels and so lower the costs of providing clean energy from them that electricity produced from wind and solar sources will always require capital investments that are so large relative to alternative job creating investments that they will have a detrimental effect on our economy.

Au contraire, we DO know what the future will bring.

We know that there will be increased energy costs and continuous depletion of existing resources. Unless you are hoping for some sort of plague or asteroid that wipes out half the world's population.

Which means that any green energy source we create right now will be invaluable in the near future.

As well there is the strong possibility (in my mind probablility, but for the purposes of this discussion I will say possibility) of global warming, leading to reduced land mass area, war, and starvation.

As far as "Clean Coal" is concerned, it does not exist as of yet. One should not pin their hopes on something that might never exist at all.

The fact is that the push for conversion to wind and solar energy is mostly driven by concerns about climate change and the environment and to a lesser extent by concerns about energy independence and not by economic arguments. However, Obama, quite cynically and dishonestly imo, has tried to sell the idea of a large scale government subsidized conversion to wind and solar energy with the promise it will create jobs and grow the economy. This study shows that Spain's experience indicates that it would, in fact, cost jobs and likely depress the economy.

The study does not in fact show that it depressed Spain's economy, as it did not account for any external influences, as I previously stated.

And I don't beleive that Mr Obama is being dishonest in his hope that Green Jobs will help us grow our economy. I think he truly believes it to be correct, and your cynical view of Mr Obama as some sort of villan is very telling.

I also think George W Bush did what he did for reasons he believed to be for the good of the country. Of course he failed miserably, but I think he meant well.

 

[gautama]

Fat chance that MARXIST Obami Salami would initiate such a study.

This much needed analysis MUST BE DONE.

But, let's say some non-biased, non-political organization would underwrite such a vital study, with the predictable results similar to the Spain study.

DO YOU THINK MARXIST OBAMI SALAMI AND HIS LIEBTARDS WOULDN'T OBFUSCATE IT AND/OR SQUELCH IT ?!?!?

Sigh, more talking points.

You do of course realize that the Spanish government is much more socialist than the US government, right?

ROFL.

Vast LWC+,

Surely you don't believe that we are less socialist than the Spanish Govt because MARXIST Obami Salami, and his stooges like the Crazed Pelosi and the Commie Idiot Holder, etc., PREFER America to be less Socialist.

Surely you are not that STUPID......or are you ?

 

[Vast LWC]

Vast LWC+,

Surely you don't believe that we are less socialist than the Spanish Govt because MARXIST Obami Salami, and his stooges like the Crazed Pelosi and the Commie Idiot Holder, etc., PREFER America to be less Socialist.

Surely you are not that STUPID......or are you ?

Do you seriously expect me to answer that question?

The ruling party of Spain, apart from the inconsequential King, is the Partido Socialista Obrero Español or, in English... (wait for it)

The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party

That's about as socialist as you get.

And yes, I'm quite sure that there is no way that you can prove that Obama has ever expressed any desire to make the United States as socialist as The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. LOL.

 

[Vast LWC]

From the Wiki:

"The PSOE was founded with the purpose of representing the interests of the working class born from the Industrial Revolution with the declared objective of achieving socialism, and inspired by the revolutionary principles of Marxism. Currently, it is a social democratic and Democratic socialist party."

Spanish Socialist Workers' Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you crazy right-wingers want to really see what "socialism" actually means, go to Spain. Then maybe you'll all stop screaming your fool heads off about Obama's very slight socialistic tendencies.

 

[gautama]

Vast LWC+,

Surely you don't believe that we are less socialist than the Spanish Govt because MARXIST Obami Salami, and his stooges like the Crazed Pelosi and the Commie Idiot Holder, etc., PREFER America to be less Socialist.

Surely you are not that STUPID......or are you ?

Do you seriously expect me to answer that question?

The ruling party of Spain, apart from the inconsequential King, is the Partido Socialista Obrero Español or, in English... (wait for it)

The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party

That's about as socialist as you get.

And yes, I'm quite sure that there is no way that you can prove that Obama has ever expressed any desire to make the United States as socialist as The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. LOL.

Vast LWC +, Not that ANYTHING will convince you to change that LIEbtard brainwashed mind of yours, but in case there are some people reading our posts who'd like some verification of the OBVIOUS......please refer to the thread by Thinblueline (page 4): "A few words of wisdom from me to you...") for a list of reasons why it should be apparent, even to the totally clueless, that MARXIST Obami Salami is a MARXIST Obami Salami.

 

[Vast LWC]

Vast LWC +, Not that ANYTHING will convince you to change that LIEbtard brainwashed mind of yours, but in case there are some people reading our posts who'd like some verification of the OBVIOUS......please refer to the thread by Thinblueline (page 4): "A few words of wisdom from me to you...") for a list of reasons why it should be apparent, even to the totally clueless, that MARXIST Obami Salami is a MARXIST Obami Salami.

Of course.

Your childish name-calling and ridiculous hyperbole is MUCH more believable and rational than the facts and arguments I presented.

"Nyah, nyah, nyah, Obami Salami! He's a MARXIST and a JERK!!"...

You sound like an 8 year-old.

Why don't you go outside and play, and let the adults continue their conversation now, OK?

 

[gautama]

Vast LWC +, Not that ANYTHING will convince you to change that LIEbtard brainwashed mind of yours, but in case there are some people reading our posts who'd like some verification of the OBVIOUS......please refer to the thread by Thinblueline (page 4): "A few words of wisdom from me to you...") for a list of reasons why it should be apparent, even to the totally clueless, that MARXIST Obami Salami is a MARXIST Obami Salami.

Of course.

Your childish name-calling and ridiculous hyperbole is MUCH more believable and rational than the facts and arguments I presented.

"Nyah, nyah, nyah, Obami Salami! He's a MARXIST and a JERK!!"...

You sound like an 8 year-old.

Why don't you go outside and play, and let the adults continue their conversation now, OK?

VastLWC+

The "nyah, nyah,nyah" crap doesn't fly.

You can't "nyah,nyah,nyah" away the IRREFUTABLE.

Which of the TWELVE IRREFUTABLE FACTS I listed in the other thread do you want to "nyah,nyah, nyah " away you phoney LIEBtard ?????

Assuming even if ONE of my IRREFUTABLE TWELVE FACTS is suspect (which none is).........WHAT ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL TWELVE, YOU PHONEY SOB ???????

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are mistaken. The conclusion that 2.2 jobs would be lost for each green job created by based only on the fact that it takes 2.2 times as much investment capital to create a green job as it does to create, on average, a job in the rest of the economy. The study does suggest that additional jobs will be lost because the high cost of capital involved, mostly from government subsidies and loans, will cause either electricity rates to increase, according to calculations from the Spanish government, taxes to increase or the debt to grow; each of these would have a detrimental effect on the economy and on employment, however, the study does not estimate just how large these effects would be and they are in addition to the 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created because of the diversion of capital from the rest of the economy to the green energy conversion.

It does NOT state what the 2.2 jobs that it compares the cost of the Green Jobs to are.

It does not in fact state that the 2.2 jobs are "average jobs", whatever that might mean.

And, as I stated previously, if you create 2.2 ditch-digging jobs, you will not be creating a new, evolving, renewable industry. You will be in fact creating a temporary job that will likely dissappear when enough ditches have been dug.

A green energy job will continue to be in demand for the long-term, as energy needs are not going away.

No one knows what the future will bring. It could be that continued improvements in green technology will drastically reduce the amount of capital investment needed to set up wind and solar production facilities or drastically reduce direct production costs so that even when the cost of capital is added to direct production costs electricity from green sources will cost less than from fossil fuel sources, but if that time comes, there will be no need for a government program because private investors will see an opportunity for profit and finance the conversion themselves. On the other hand, it could be that continued improvements in clean coal technology and in techniques for extracting oil from shale will so expand our supply of fossil fuels and so lower the costs of providing clean energy from them that electricity produced from wind and solar sources will always require capital investments that are so large relative to alternative job creating investments that they will have a detrimental effect on our economy.

Au contraire, we DO know what the future will bring.

We know that there will be increased energy costs and continuous depletion of existing resources. Unless you are hoping for some sort of plague or asteroid that wipes out half the world's population.

Which means that any green energy source we create right now will be invaluable in the near future.

As well there is the strong possibility (in my mind probablility, but for the purposes of this discussion I will say possibility) of global warming, leading to reduced land mass area, war, and starvation.

As far as "Clean Coal" is concerned, it does not exist as of yet. One should not pin their hopes on something that might never exist at all.

The fact is that the push for conversion to wind and solar energy is mostly driven by concerns about climate change and the environment and to a lesser extent by concerns about energy independence and not by economic arguments. However, Obama, quite cynically and dishonestly imo, has tried to sell the idea of a large scale government subsidized conversion to wind and solar energy with the promise it will create jobs and grow the economy. This study shows that Spain's experience indicates that it would, in fact, cost jobs and likely depress the economy.

The study does not in fact show that it depressed Spain's economy, as it did not account for any external influences, as I previously stated.

And I don't beleive that Mr Obama is being dishonest in his hope that Green Jobs will help us grow our economy. I think he truly believes it to be correct, and your cynical view of Mr Obama as some sort of villan is very telling.

I also think George W Bush did what he did for reasons he believed to be for the good of the country. Of course he failed miserably, but I think he meant well.

The kinds of jobs that would be lost would depend on where the capital would have been invested in the private sector economy if it hadn't been diverted to the green conversion. So if it had been invested in the biotech industry, biotech jobs would be created, if it had been invested in the construction industry, construction jobs would have been created, if it had been invested in the information technology industry, information technology jobs would have been created, etc. How many of these jobs would be long term and how many would be temporary would be the same as it is for the rest of the industry in which they were created, meaning the great majority would likely be long term jobs.

Most of the green jobs create, on the other hand, would be temporary jobs.

Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it
appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, twothirds
of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in
administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out
of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation
and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

So if only one out of ten green jobs created is a long term job, then 22 jobs in the private sector economy would be lost for each long term green job created. And just what kind of jobs are these long term green jobs? How many of them are engineers and technicians and how many of them involve cleaning the toilets and dusting offices or painting lines in the parking lot or answering phones? How many of them would involve digging ditches?

Clean coal gasification plants already exist, and they can be as clean as a wind farm or a solar farm, but until the technology is improved, the cost of producing electricity in this way is still a little higher than with traditional fossil fuel plants, however, it is cheaper to capture pollutants from a coal gasification plant than from a pulverized coal plant, so if emissions standards are significantly increased, it will actually become cheaper to produce clean energy from a coal gasification plant than from a pulverized coal plant. According to the DOE, coal gasification plants will certainly be a part of our clean energy future.

DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's Coal Gasification R&D Program

In addition, the US has enormous deposits of shale oil, estimated a 1.5 to 2.6 trillion barrels, more than half the world's shale oil reserves. Saudi Arabia's proven reserves are only about 267 billion barrels. As the technology for extracting this oil at commercially viable prices continues to improve, the US will have ample oil reserves for our needs for at least many decades, and our coal reserves are estimated to be sufficient to provide all our electricity needs for 200 years. Since we also have the option to increase energy production from nuclear plants, it is clear that we can get along quite well without making large investments in wind or solar energy for at least a century, perhaps two, and if we convert to nuclear energy to the extent France has, perhaps forever, so there is no compelling reason to run up big deficits and increase unemployment in order to force a large scale government subsidized conversion to wind and solar power.

Spain's green conversion has been financed almost entirely through deficit spending and this accumulated debt will have to eventually be repaid either by raising taxes, increasing electricity rates or paying for a larger debt, and all of these things will tend to depress the economy.

If we assume Obama is intelligent and well informed on this issue, then he knows that a program like Spain's will cost more jobs than it will create, and in addition it will run up larger deficits, so when he tries to sell the program as creating jobs as growing the economy, I assume he is lying. The only alternative is to assume he is either stupid or ignorant with regard to this issue. If lying makes him a villain in your mind, so be it.

 

[Ringel05]

And the GORE/Obami Salami LIEbtard Scamsters are STILL puking out their emesis.

Of course you're not taking into account that Spain was the hardest hit country in Europe by the recession and has yet to show any real recovery.

 

[blu]

Vast LWC +, Not that ANYTHING will convince you to change that LIEbtard brainwashed mind of yours, but in case there are some people reading our posts who'd like some verification of the OBVIOUS......please refer to the thread by Thinblueline (page 4): "A few words of wisdom from me to you...") for a list of reasons why it should be apparent, even to the totally clueless, that MARXIST Obami Salami is a MARXIST Obami Salami.

Of course.

Your childish name-calling and ridiculous hyperbole is MUCH more believable and rational than the facts and arguments I presented.

"Nyah, nyah, nyah, Obami Salami! He's a MARXIST and a JERK!!"...

You sound like an 8 year-old.

Why don't you go outside and play, and let the adults continue their conversation now, OK?

VastLWC+

The "nyah, nyah,nyah" crap doesn't fly.

You can't "nyah,nyah,nyah" away the IRREFUTABLE.

Which of the TWELVE IRREFUTABLE FACTS I listed in the other thread do you want to "nyah,nyah, nyah " away you phoney LIEBtard ?????

Assuming even if ONE of my IRREFUTABLE TWELVE FACTS is suspect (which none is).........WHAT ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL TWELVE, YOU PHONEY SOB ???????

you used the same 'proof' in multiple of your items just to get to a higher number of twelve not to mention all 12 of them being textbook examples of logical fallacies

 

[MaggieMae]

Vast LWC +, Not that ANYTHING will convince you to change that LIEbtard brainwashed mind of yours, but in case there are some people reading our posts who'd like some verification of the OBVIOUS......please refer to the thread by Thinblueline (page 4): "A few words of wisdom from me to you...") for a list of reasons why it should be apparent, even to the totally clueless, that MARXIST Obami Salami is a MARXIST Obami Salami.

Of course.

Your childish name-calling and ridiculous hyperbole is MUCH more believable and rational than the facts and arguments I presented.

"Nyah, nyah, nyah, Obami Salami! He's a MARXIST and a JERK!!"...

You sound like an 8 year-old.

Why don't you go outside and play, and let the adults continue their conversation now, OK?

VastLWC+

The "nyah, nyah,nyah" crap doesn't fly.

You can't "nyah,nyah,nyah" away the IRREFUTABLE.

Which of the TWELVE IRREFUTABLE FACTS I listed in the other thread do you want to "nyah,nyah, nyah " away you phoney LIEBtard ?????

Assuming even if ONE of my IRREFUTABLE TWELVE FACTS is suspect (which none is).........WHAT ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL TWELVE, YOU PHONEY SOB ???????

Hmmm, you could be the reason that other thread was dumped into The Lame Zone. Seems we have another troll to deal with on USMB. I notice you have a half-dozen threads already started today. Are you a refugee who lost the battle on another message board and now you're starting your war anew here?

 

[Vast LWC]

Hmmm, you could be the reason that other thread was dumped into The Lame Zone. Seems we have another troll to deal with on USMB. I notice you have a half-dozen threads already started today. Are you a refugee who lost the battle on another message board and now you're starting your war anew here?

Don't remember that pseudonym from the MSNBC boards, though there were plenty of trolls there. Of course they could have changed their name I guess.

 

[midcan5]

Unintended consequences, every person who gets their news from Michelle Malkin ET AL loses brain cells at three times the normal rate. Every Internet reader causes newspapers to close. Every shopper at Wal-Mart causes small business closures. And every outsourced job causes a lost of a local job. Chicken Little where are you?

Debunking The Spanish Study on The Dire Result of Green Jobs Creation | The Green Economy Post: Green Careers, Green Business, Sustainability

"In this update, we have Spain’s response to his claims, proof that his data was falsified, an explanation of how the renewable energy investment did not have the major negative impact on business that Calzada claims, that his analysis was too simplistic to be applied in any real world model, and what most economists believe is the cause of Spain’s high unemployment rate. I will also bring to light extremely relevant facts, that Calzada fails to mention or factor in to the study. I will also review the US’s history and results from renewable energy investments. That’s right we have been investing in renewable energy for years. However, before I go into what is wrong with the study, lets review his conclusions...."