What happened to save and create new jobs again?

[DamnYankee]

Climate bill could cost 2 million jobs
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 08/12/09 04:30 PM [ET]

Add another climate bill cost estimate to the growing pile.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.

Environmentalists were quick to criticize the study for underselling the development of climate-friendly sources of power and not releasing other assumptions NAM and ACCF fed into the computer model to get their economic forecast, which takes more of a glass-half-empty view than recent governmental reports.

But the business groups’ figures will likely provide opponents of capping carbon more ammunition and could add to the angst of senators from industrial states. One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes.

And though the impact of the bill will grow over time, the economy will start feeling the effects of the carbon cap almost immediately.

“Industrial production begins to decline immediately in 2012, relative to the baseline,” the report notes.

Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the climate bill, said the business study is overly pessimistic about the development of nuclear power plants and makes other assumptions that raise the costs of a climate cap. For example, the NAM-ACCF study assumes a relatively small amount of international offsets would be available to businesses to help them meet carbon caps.

Even so, Kreindler criticized the study for its lack of details about exactly what assumptions went into the model.

The report’s executive summary, the only version released publicly, does provide some information. Modelers assumed that only 10 to 25 new nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.

The Energy Information Administration, however, assumed 95 plants would be built by 2030, under one scenario.

Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at ACCF, called that projection “ridiculous” given the expense of building a nuclear plant and the length of time it takes to get a permit from nuclear regulators to move forward with construction.

She said the assumptions used in the NAM-ACCF study were based on information gathered from business leaders and energy experts.

“We’ve bent over backward to be generous about how quickly new technology can be put in place” that would help minimize the costs of the climate bill, Thorning said.

The ACCF and NAM study can be found here.

ACCF/NAM Study

Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here EIA-Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, here Economic Analyses | Climate Change - Climate Economics | U.S. EPA and here http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf.


EIA-Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009



Economic Analyses | Climate Change - Climate Economics | U.S. EPA



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf









http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/climate-bill-could-cost-2-million-jobs-2009-

08-12.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Here in Oregon, the one area that we are seeing job growth in, is in alternative energies. Solar and wind. People from other nations are building solar manufacturing plants here. A company from Sweden is dealing in buy a plant to manufacture electric cars here in Portland. Another company is beginning a pilot line on manufacturing a component of solar cells, bringing the cost of the component down from
$5000 a gram, to $10 a gram. And possibly bringing the price of solar cell manufactured with that component down to as little as 0.25 a watt, while creating a near 40% efficient solar cell with ink jet technology. Think of all the power in the amount of roof space on commercial and industrial buildings that this could put to use.

What we are seeing here is a bunch of people that do not want there ox gored. The buggy whip people are banning together to outlaw automobiles.

 

[DamnYankee]

Here in Oregon, the one area that we are seeing job growth in, is in alternative energies. Solar and wind. People from other nations are building solar manufacturing plants here. A company from Sweden is dealing in buy a plant to manufacture electric cars here in Portland. Another company is beginning a pilot line on manufacturing a component of solar cells, bringing the cost of the component down from
$5000 a gram, to $10 a gram. And possibly bringing the price of solar cell manufactured with that component down to as little as 0.25 a watt, while creating a near 40% efficient solar cell with ink jet technology. Think of all the power in the amount of roof space on commercial and industrial buildings that this could put to use.

What we are seeing here is a bunch of people that do not want there ox gored. The buggy whip people are banning together to outlaw automobiles.

One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes.

Are you seeing that much job growth?

 

[Old Rocks]

Look, the people cooping wheels for wagons, the people milling lumber to build wagons, the people that had stables for the horses could all have made exactly the same statements you and these people are making. Someone has to manufacture the platforms for the alternative energy. Someone has to manufacture the batteries or supercapicitors for the vehicles. Someone has to tend the algea vats for the fuel oil.

Things are going to change. Standing in the way of that change is stupid and will result in the person that refuses to recognize the reality of the need for the change losing in the economic game as those around him or her profit on the changes.