• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Liberals admit: GREEN JOBS will HURT the economy

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
From no less a source than SLATE magazine.

And there you have it folks, a real academic study reported in the media, GREEN ENERGY will put more people out of work than it will employ, it will raise the cost of energy, putting people in other sectors out of work too. Oh wait, wasn't this already proven in Spain? Yes. Yes it was! I guess its no surprise then that GREEN ENERGY is a favorite of socialists here in the US.

http://www.slate.com/id/2284634/
Green Smoke Screen
Supporters of "green energy" like to say it will create more jobs. They're wrong.

By Bjørn Lomborg

Political rhetoric has shifted away from the need to respond to the "generational challenge" of climate change. Investment in alternative energy technologies like solar and wind is no longer peddled on environmental grounds. Instead, we are being told of the purported economic payoffs—above all, the promise of so-called "green jobs." Unfortunately, that does not measure up to economic reality.

The Copenhagen Consensus Center asked Gürcan Gülen, a senior energy economist at the Bureau for Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, to assess the state of the science in defining, measuring, and predicting the creation of green jobs. Gülen concluded that job creation "cannot be defended as another benefit" of well-meaning green policies. In fact, the number of jobs that these policies create is likely to be offset—or worse—by the number of jobs that they destroy.​
 

mak2

Active member
I am impressed that suddenly the importance of scientific studies becomes appearent. I have never really been sure of global warming and/or if we contribute to it. I am sure we should be good stewards of our environment and fossil fuel aint how to go about that. I also never thought for a second going green would be an economic boost in the short run and did not realize anyone did.

The last paragraph of the story, and kinda the point. Increase research funding for green technology.

"In order for the whole planet to make a sustainable shift away from fossil fuels, we need to make low-carbon energy both cheaper and more efficient. That requires a substantial increase in research and development into next-generation green-energy alternatives. Today's research budgets are tiny, and that desperately needs to change. In the meantime, the public should be cautious of politicians' claims that deploying today's inefficient, expensive technology will result in windfall benefits at no cost."
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I am impressed that suddenly the importance of scientific studies becomes appearent.

. . .

"In order for the whole planet to make a sustainable shift away from fossil fuels, we need to make low-carbon energy both cheaper and more efficient. That requires a substantial increase in research and development into next-generation green-energy alternatives. Today's research budgets are tiny, and that desperately needs to change. In the meantime, the public should be cautious of politicians' claims that deploying today's inefficient, expensive technology will result in windfall benefits at no cost."

I've always been a fan of scientific studies and quote them regularly. No need to backhanded bitch slap me in a snotty sort of way with your comments.

As for the last paragraph, I totally agree with it. However there is an issue of funding it. Do we use government derived mandates to push things like ethanol, do we use government grants and tax credits to push things like wind energy, or do we use the free market to develop biofuels like BioDiesel and CNG cars? I suggest its the free market that will get us out of this mess . . . but only if the gubmint gets the hell out of our way. They hobble the biodiesel industry, they hobble CNG despite its advantages, and they force feed us ethanol fuel and expensive hybrids.
 

mak2

Active member
I've always been a fan of scientific studies and quote them regularly. No need to backhanded bitch slap me in a snotty sort of way with your comments.

As for the last paragraph, I totally agree with it. However there is an issue of funding it. Do we use government derived mandates to push things like ethanol, do we use government grants and tax credits to push things like wind energy, or do we use the free market to develop biofuels like BioDiesel and CNG cars? I suggest its the free market that will get us out of this mess . . . but only if the gubmint gets the hell out of our way. They hobble the biodiesel industry, they hobble CNG despite its advantages, and they force feed us ethanol fuel and expensive hybrids.

The first paragraph, you are exactly right, it was not appropriate with you. I never thought backhand bitch slapping you in a snotty sort of way or I would have enjoyed it :biggrin: Sorry.

The second half I agree completely with too, almost. My biggest concern with allowing market forces alone to control what and when we research is the companies will wait until all the profit has been sucked out of fossil fuel. Then, only when we are desperate for new energy sources, and the profits are maximized by that desperation, will research begin in earnest. That would be smart of them too.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
"In order for the whole planet to make a sustainable shift away from fossil fuels, we need to make low-carbon energy both cheaper and more efficient. That requires a substantial increase in research and development into next-generation green-energy alternatives. Today's research budgets are tiny, and that desperately needs to change. In the meantime, the public should be cautious of politicians' claims that deploying today's inefficient, expensive technology will result in windfall benefits at no cost."

That statement for me seems to be the problem. First the presumption that we must make a sustainable shift away from fossil fuels. Why? Second, the statement that we must fund more research, presuming the writer means government funding, once again, why?

There are more sources of energy available than ever, and technology opens up new sources daily. In order to overcome this argument, greenies have to create an artificial shortage, which must be done with politics. Therefore, we get policies such as drilling moratoriums, nuclear projects being halted, entire promising sources of energy being put off limits, and mandating unsuccessful products.

Believing that government research results in anything other than excess costs and unwanted results, and seldom improves anything other than research grants is a fools game. There are numerous examples, but three recent make the point:

The light bulb, an American invention, certainly among top 5 benefits to mankind ever. With the light bulb the world became a 24 hour proposition instead of a daylight to dusk proposition. Not one penny of government money went into the research. As mandated by government, due to government funded studies, incandescent light bulbs are no more. In the interest of going green, a device was created that does not live up to its claims. No longer produced in the US. The new device cannot be disposed of properly, has a life of less than half that claimed, costs far more, and has destroyed all bulb producing jobs in the US.

The polar bear, an animal that has increased it numbers sixfold over the past 70 years, is now listed as threatened, not because it is, but because by doing so, half of Alaska has now been put off limits to harvesting crude. The oil industry in Alaska has a near perfect record, aside from a drunk captain running a boat aground. None of the doomsday predictions have come to pass.

Corn based fuel. Who in their right mind would think that taking food and turning it into a fuel less efficient that what it replaces, and subsidizing the cost to the tune of 50 cents a gallon is a good idea? Government researchers, that's who. The result is higher priced food, shorter vehicle life, increased taxes. Research funded by government.

Leftists believe that government good, profit bad, yet would be hard pressed to name a single government program that has lived up to its expectations. Instead of admitting failure, the answer seems to be that we just have not yet done enough. More funding is needed.

True fiscal conservatives believe that private business will produce products that the people want in the largest possible amounts, and for the least cost. And, it is done for profit. The greater the potential for profit, the greater the effort to tap that profit will be. When profits become excessive, competition will drive them down. When the government interferes, costs go up, quality goes down, and the public suffers.
 

mak2

Active member
Tell me again why the right is so hell bent on sending oil money to the enemy? I would have thought that would be one thing worth the research money to stop. heck it is ok when the research money goes to the military industrial complex, why not spend the money on de-funding the emeny?
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
Tell me again why the right is so hell bent on sending oil money to the enemy? I would have thought that would be one thing worth the research money to stop. heck it is ok when the research money goes to the military industrial complex, why not spend the money on de-funding the emeny?

Wasn't Jimbo saying we should be harvesting more of our own oil?
 

nixon

Boned
GOLD Site Supporter
Tell me again why the right is so hell bent on sending oil money to the enemy? I would have thought that would be one thing worth the research money to stop. heck it is ok when the research money goes to the military industrial complex, why not spend the money on de-funding the emeny?

So , am I correct in thinking that You see all oil producing countries (mostly Muslim ) as enemies ? That's not very tolerant of You . :whistling:
 

mak2

Active member
So , am I correct in thinking that You see all oil producing countries (mostly Muslim ) as enemies ? That's not very tolerant of You . :whistling:

When I talk of Moslem's rights I am talking about Amercian Citizens that are Moslems having the same rights as we do. As far as I can tell, most ME countries that produce oil are potiential or outright hostile to the West. I just contend just because they are moslem does not mean they are evil and should be killed. I have never argued against taking out a country that has become hostile to the US. By that I mean directly adversly effect the security of the US. Not imaginary WMD. Gotta be sure before you start killin people, even if they are moslem.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Wasn't Jimbo saying we should be harvesting more of our own oil?
I think that if the government got out of the energy business, we would be less dependent on foreign sources. The energy department was set up to reduce our dependency on foreign energy. Instead, the reverse has happened. Environmental plays its part with tricks like the Polar Bear and the snail darter. Tell me how this helps job creation, international competitiveness, or overall economy.

Mak, government intervention into the energy problem has been a lost cause. To date we have produced no new viable sources of energy. Defined by me as profitable non subsidized sources.

Between the energy and environmental departments, getting anything new to market is a nightmare. Water power cannot be used. Fossil energy cannot be used. Nuclear is out of the question. None of these can be brought on line is less than 20 years due to government regulation. In 20 years the technology is obsolete.

I'm not saying we should reduce research. I'm saying that the private sector is able to do it more efficiently.
 

nixon

Boned
GOLD Site Supporter
When I talk of Moslem's rights I am talking about Amercian Citizens that are Moslems having the same rights as we do. As far as I can tell, most ME countries that produce oil are potiential or outright hostile to the West. I just contend just because they are moslem does not mean they are evil and should be killed. I have never argued against taking out a country that has become hostile to the US. By that I mean directly adversly effect the security of the US. Not imaginary WMD. Gotta be sure before you start killin people, even if they are moslem.

Damn Mak , You're getting good at doing crawfish notes :whistling: :rolf2:
 

mak2

Active member
Well , You claim to moderate a forum . I don't suppose You'd care to name it ,would You ? It would be interesting reading .


Damn Mak , You're getting good at doing crawfish notes :whistling: :rolf2:

Google is Your friend :) failing that , check on one of the various forums You moderate . :yum:

So Man up, what are you sayin?

Come on nixon, are you saying I am lying, or not patriotic? What? Say what you mean.:confused:
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Seems to me the last half of this thread is off topic.

Maybe we should simply close it down.
 

mak2

Active member
I think that if the government got out of the energy business, we would be less dependent on foreign sources. The energy department was set up to reduce our dependency on foreign energy. Instead, the reverse has happened. Environmental plays its part with tricks like the Polar Bear and the snail darter. Tell me how this helps job creation, international competitiveness, or overall economy.

Mak, government intervention into the energy problem has been a lost cause. To date we have produced no new viable sources of energy. Defined by me as profitable non subsidized sources.

Between the energy and environmental departments, getting anything new to market is a nightmare. Water power cannot be used. Fossil energy cannot be used. Nuclear is out of the question. None of these can be brought on line is less than 20 years due to government regulation. In 20 years the technology is obsolete.

I'm not saying we should reduce research. I'm saying that the private sector is able to do it more efficiently.

I think the DOE and private industry work together pretty much.

I really think finding some other means to provide energy besides oil is in the best interest of national security. If the ME did not have oil money, they would be funding their wars with honey and camel rides. I dont see what is wrong with my thinking.
 
Top