First the right, probably through their bloggers, will discount the actual number of jobs. Then they'll attack clean energy as unsustainable (like oil is) and then they'll find some other reason to criticize the president.
Germany tried creating green jobs:
- solar industry per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.
- support for “green” electricity was 2.2 cents/kWh, a 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.
- green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated.
- government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.
Spain tried creating green jobs too:
- for every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost
- only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, being the rest working positions only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies
- since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job”
- those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs
- each “green” megawatt installed destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Please elaborate. As I understand it these jobs will be created through the infusion of massive amounts of capital into companies forging ahead in renewable markets; what jobs are you speaking of that will be destroyed in the process?
A side-comment not on topic with funkedup above...
HAKaddict:
"As I understand it these jobs will be created through the infusion of massive amounts of capital into companies..."
Infusion of capital does not create long term jobs, but instead sets things up for "creating work in the short term" (the thing that Obama said this would not do). Only ongoing revenue with efficient costs sustains long term jobs.
Green energy is an all around good thing to invest heavily in. It's renewable, far cleaner than fossil fuels, will invigorate the economy, decrease our dependency on foreign energy sources, and create jobs. How could anyone oppose this?
radu: I don't want to sound condescending, but I'd wager that the private sector is not investing heavily in green energy is probably due to the absolutely obscene amounts of money they currently make on fossil fuels.
Developing sustainable energy sources is a matter of common sense for our country. It's the only policy that makes sense in the long term. It's a shame we didn't invest in developing sustainable sources long ago. We could've been producing our energy rather than depending on the unreliable oil market (not to mention depending on a resource that is going to run out, and pollutes the atmosphere). I hope this investment marks the beginning of a clean energy revolution in the US...it's about friggin' time.
Environmental damage is rarely paid for by the polluters and when it is, it is a tiny percentage of the overall cost. We already pay through the nose for fossil fuels but we don't see the true cost at the pump.
Jobs that exist as a function of the capital that will be taken from us to be allocated elsewhere.
How is it so difficult to understand this? You know that capital input draws labor yet you don't seem to consistently apply that universally.
Now, you may argue that the jobs lost are not better than the jobs gained(I'll avoid that for the sake of keeping on point) but you cannot ignore the very fact you note, which (put crudely and ignoring caveats of malinvestment and bad incentives and so on) is that money creates jobs. It takes no effort to infer that if you redistribute that money, you redistribute jobs that chase it.
dailymail as a source really? That said even if true the issue isn't providing subsidies but how they've been implemented and possibly stupidity. Also inefficiency surrounds us daily picking out one industry is disingenuous.
What about nuclear energy? I remember they pledged like 5 billion towards that, but did anything come of it?
Also, he said we'll soon be able to make 40% of the batteries, but will we still be dependent on lithium? Seems like we'll be replacing oil with another resource that is mainly found in the Middle Eastern and the South American countries that all have unstable governments and tons of violence.
But you know, America is awesome. We'll figure something out. If we could pretty much screw up half a continent for bananas, I'm sure that the lithium deal will all be sorted out.
And once those new green industries start making money for their investors and we start lowering our dependence on imported oil from people that want to kill us for our freedom, what will you say is wrong with it then?
Take a look at the technological advances and progress the space program brought us (and the rest of the world) NONE of those things would have happened without government investment.
You need to do your research because the clean energy sources you're describing do not exist.
Wind "could" be viable only if the turbines go up in places with enough year round wind to actually power the turbines. These things have to be able to pay for themselves when the subsidies run out. It hasn't worked so well for Germany & Spain.
tucson27Aug 17, 2010Buried
This is the kind of investment we need to be making. America's future is tied to technology. We must invest to compete.
dangercollieAug 17, 2010Buried
First the right, probably through their bloggers, will discount the actual number of jobs. Then they'll attack clean energy as unsustainable (like oil is) and then they'll find some other reason to criticize the president.
And donate another million to the RNC.
naasukAug 18, 2010Buried
What?
dutchguilder2Aug 18, 2010Buried
Germany tried creating green jobs:
- solar industry per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.
- support for “green” electricity was 2.2 cents/kWh, a 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.
- green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated.
- government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.
Spain tried creating green jobs too:
- for every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost
- only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, being the rest working positions only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies
- since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job”
- those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs
- each “green” megawatt installed destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/green-jobs-resources/
spritomAug 18, 2010Buried
Ah...but the 800,000 number was a calculated number. It's calculated to sound good in a speech.
hakaddictAug 17, 2010Buried
Please elaborate. As I understand it these jobs will be created through the infusion of massive amounts of capital into companies forging ahead in renewable markets; what jobs are you speaking of that will be destroyed in the process?
spritomAug 18, 2010Buried
A side-comment not on topic with funkedup above...
HAKaddict:
"As I understand it these jobs will be created through the infusion of massive amounts of capital into companies..."
Infusion of capital does not create long term jobs, but instead sets things up for "creating work in the short term" (the thing that Obama said this would not do). Only ongoing revenue with efficient costs sustains long term jobs.
novenatorAug 18, 2010Buried
Green energy is an all around good thing to invest heavily in. It's renewable, far cleaner than fossil fuels, will invigorate the economy, decrease our dependency on foreign energy sources, and create jobs. How could anyone oppose this?
thesamolAug 18, 2010Buried
radu: I don't want to sound condescending, but I'd wager that the private sector is not investing heavily in green energy is probably due to the absolutely obscene amounts of money they currently make on fossil fuels.
thetehAug 18, 2010Buried
Developing sustainable energy sources is a matter of common sense for our country. It's the only policy that makes sense in the long term. It's a shame we didn't invest in developing sustainable sources long ago. We could've been producing our energy rather than depending on the unreliable oil market (not to mention depending on a resource that is going to run out, and pollutes the atmosphere). I hope this investment marks the beginning of a clean energy revolution in the US...it's about friggin' time.
leftamiAug 18, 2010Buried
Environmental damage is rarely paid for by the polluters and when it is, it is a tiny percentage of the overall cost. We already pay through the nose for fossil fuels but we don't see the true cost at the pump.
asus3000Aug 18, 2010Buried
The free market creates jobs, government only spends money.
Parasites do not create anything, they only suck the blood of those who do.
kaelyiestaAug 18, 2010Buried
Jobs that exist as a function of the capital that will be taken from us to be allocated elsewhere.
How is it so difficult to understand this? You know that capital input draws labor yet you don't seem to consistently apply that universally.
Now, you may argue that the jobs lost are not better than the jobs gained(I'll avoid that for the sake of keeping on point) but you cannot ignore the very fact you note, which (put crudely and ignoring caveats of malinvestment and bad incentives and so on) is that money creates jobs. It takes no effort to infer that if you redistribute that money, you redistribute jobs that chase it.
pakerAug 18, 2010Buried
When subsidies cause problems with green energy, like this.
More than half of Britain's wind farms have been built where there is not enough wind
Experts say that over-generous subsidies mean hundreds of turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1303688/More-half-Britains-wind-farms-built-wind.html?ITO=1490
leftamiAug 18, 2010Buried
dailymail as a source really? That said even if true the issue isn't providing subsidies but how they've been implemented and possibly stupidity. Also inefficiency surrounds us daily picking out one industry is disingenuous.
nmanguyAug 18, 2010Buried
What about nuclear energy? I remember they pledged like 5 billion towards that, but did anything come of it?
Also, he said we'll soon be able to make 40% of the batteries, but will we still be dependent on lithium? Seems like we'll be replacing oil with another resource that is mainly found in the Middle Eastern and the South American countries that all have unstable governments and tons of violence.
But you know, America is awesome. We'll figure something out. If we could pretty much screw up half a continent for bananas, I'm sure that the lithium deal will all be sorted out.
darkshroudAug 18, 2010Buried
Because Solar is a complete joke at this point in time.
Obama needs to suck it up and commission Nuclear power plants for states that need the energy.
captobliviousAug 29, 2010Buried
And once those new green industries start making money for their investors and we start lowering our dependence on imported oil from people that want to kill us for our freedom, what will you say is wrong with it then?
Take a look at the technological advances and progress the space program brought us (and the rest of the world) NONE of those things would have happened without government investment.
And as far as the republicans being "deficit hawks", the facts prove that to be partisan bullcrap, see http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html for that proof.
chinaman1212Aug 18, 2010Buried
hak -
The transition to clean energy can reduce the need for the energy we are presently using. Such as, job in oil, natural gas, and coal.
darkshroudAug 18, 2010Buried
You need to do your research because the clean energy sources you're describing do not exist.
Wind "could" be viable only if the turbines go up in places with enough year round wind to actually power the turbines. These things have to be able to pay for themselves when the subsidies run out. It hasn't worked so well for Germany & Spain.