Special Adviser for Green Jobs to the White House Council on Environmental Quality Van Jones talks about the Spanish study being used by conservatives to attack green job initiatives.
It's amazing that Jones claims the Wall Street Journal is pro-Green Jobs. Check out this WSJ article: "California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well"
The Spanish study he refers to illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.
Bloomberg reported in March:
Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one createdif Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.
For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.
“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” --Barack Obama, January, 2008
Rep. Michele Bachmann recently pointed out Obama's "cap and trade" is really a tax on everyone for the use of energy. She said it will boost unemployment and drive businesses and jobs overseas to countries like China and India that don't have such a tax. In addition, she correctly points out that energy costs will double under the "cap and trade" energy tax.
Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America.
Recently, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to control the global economy.
A new study from Spain illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.
A recent Heritage study suggests that Obama's "Cap and trade" energy plan may cost upwards of $7 Trillion. "
Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.
The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.
Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said last month he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.
Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.
Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".
The congressional Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan to tax carbon emissions could cost every American family as much as $3,100 a year and is equivalent to a “declaration of war on the Midwest,” Republican lawmakers told CNSNews.com this week.
Why Obama’s ‘Green Jobs’ Plan Won’t Work
Unfortunately, the idea of government “job creation” is a classic example of the broken window fallacy, which was explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat way back in 1850. It is discouraging to think that, nearly 160 years later, politicians still do not understand Bastiat’s basic economic insight.
The idea of government ‘job creation’ is a classic example of the broken window fallacy, which was explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat way back in 1850.He explained the fallacy as follows: Imagine some shopkeepers get their windows broken by a rock-throwing child. At first, people sympathize with the shopkeepers, until someone claims that the broken windows really aren’t that bad. After all, they “create work” for the glassmaker, who might then be able to buy more food, benefiting the grocer, or buy more clothes, benefiting the tailor. If enough windows are broken, the glassmaker might even hire an assistant, creating a job.
Did the child therefore do a public service by breaking the windows? No. We must also consider what the shopkeepers would have done with the money they used to fix their windows had those windows not been broken. Most likely, the shopkeepers would have ploughed that money into their store: perhaps they would have bought more stock from their suppliers, or maybe they would have hired new employees. Before the windows broke, the shopkeepers had intact windows and the money to purchase more goods or hire new workers. After the windows broke, they had to use that money to repair the windows, and thus were unable to expand their business.
Now consider Obama’s “green jobs” plan, which includes regulations, subsidies, and
renewable-power mandates. The “broken windows” in this case would be lost jobs and lost capital in the coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and automobile industries. These industries currently employ more than one million people directly. Conventional power plants would be closed and massive amounts of energy infrastructure would be dismantled. After breaking these windows, the Obama plan would then create new jobs in the renewable energy sector. The costs of replacing those windows would ultimately be passed on to taxpayers and energy consumers.
In short, the Obama plan reflects fallacious thinking of the first order. There may be sound reasons to switch from existing energy sources to renewables, including the need to slash greenhouse gas emissions, the need to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and the need to meet growing energy demand. If Americans wish to pay for a wholesale transformation of the energy industry, that is their choice. But let’s not lie about the costs, and let’s not espouse an economic fallacy that is nearly 160 years old. Obama’s “green jobs” plan would indeed create jobs, but it would do so by killing other jobs. Is that really the type of energy policy Americans want?