The left’s misleading green jobs claims

[Fishrrman]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/green-jobs-forecast-by-left-is-unfounded/

The left’s misleading green jobs claims
Renewable energy workers produce relatively little power

By H. Sterling Burnett
Thursday, July 6, 2017

One of the main reasons President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement is the treaty is a “bad deal for America.” Among many other problems, it would cost a significant number of jobs. In support of his claim, Mr. Trump cited a study by NERA Economic Consulting that estimates if the United States were to meet its carbon-dioxide emissions reduction obligations under the Paris climate agreement, it would cost the economy nearly $3 trillion and the United States would lose 6.5 million industrial jobs by 2040, including 3.1 million in the manufacturing sector.

Since Mr. Trump’s announcement, many advocates for staying in the treaty have either questioned the president’s claim about job losses or said green-energy technologies, especially solar, are engines of job creation that would benefit if the United States were to stay in the Paris agreement. They have argued there are now more jobs in the solar segments of the electric power industry than in the coal, natural gas and oil segments combined.

This claim is true — at least, in a limited sense. In absolute numbers, the U.S. Department of Energy reports solar power employed 43 percent of the electric power generation sector’s workforce in 2016, employing more than 374,000 workers who construct, assemble, sell or install solar panels. Fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent (187,000) of the jobs directly tied to generating electric power.

(Snip)

=========
• H. Sterling Burnett is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute.

Mod note:  Article Excerpted, see link above

[Joe Wooten]

"Renewables" destroy wealth, real energy use creates wealth, which is why the government has to subsidize them.

[truth_seeker]

Renewables from solar, wind, tidal flows, ocean thermal gradients, etc. may some day be "economically viable."

We should continue research, and limited scale pilot plants and programs.

We SHOULD NOT use massive, semi-permanent subsidies, to support them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Renewables from solar, wind, tidal flows, ocean thermal gradients, etc. may some day be "economically viable."

We should continue research, and limited scale pilot plants and programs.

We SHOULD NOT use massive, semi-permanent subsidies, to support them.

I say as long as the 'We' is someone other than the United States, it is fine with me.

[Joe Wooten]

Renewables from solar, wind, tidal flows, ocean thermal gradients, etc. may some day be "economically viable."

We should continue research, and limited scale pilot plants and programs.

We SHOULD NOT use massive, semi-permanent subsidies, to support them.

The trouble is that those limited small scale pilot plants are used by the government bureaus as justification to "encourage" growing an industry dedicated to those type of power production. For 20 years, starting in the late 1970's when the DOE was formed, they sponsored small wind/solar projects that failed consistently to produce desirable economic results. Then, in the mid 1980's I started hearing the greenies start the canard that all they needed was to have a "temporary" construction AND production subsidy. The noise for that gradually ramped up so that by the mid 1990's it was a roar, and Congress geeked and established those subsidies. The greenies promised that in 10 years or so, they'd hit the tipping point where they would no longer need those subsidies. Well, that tipping point still has not been reached, and now notice how much screeching there is at ANY suggestion these subsidies go away. There is too much government bureaucracy and private cronies getting too much money for them to let it go.

The government should not be financing even basic research on this area. There is a lot of commercial pressure to make cheap electricity. If one fuel becomes too expensive, then another will be found rather quickly. That goes for nuclear power plants and coal fired plants too. There is enough knowledge out there to build prototypes if a certain type appears promising, then some company will build it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The trouble is that those limited small scale pilot plants are used by the government bureaus as justification to "encourage" growing an industry dedicated to those type of power production. For 20 years, starting in the late 1970's when the DOE was formed, they sponsored small wind/solar projects that failed consistently to produce desirable economic results. Then, in the mid 1980's I started hearing the greenies start the canard that all they needed was to have a "temporary" construction AND production subsidy. The noise for that gradually ramped up so that by the mid 1990's it was a roar, and Congress geeked and established those subsidies. The greenies promised that in 10 years or so, they'd hit the tipping point where they would no longer need those subsidies. Well, that tipping point still has not been reached, and now notice how much screeching there is at ANY suggestion these subsidies go away. There is too much government bureaucracy and private cronies getting too much money for them to let it go.

The government should not be financing even basic research on this area. There is a lot of commercial pressure to make cheap electricity. If one fuel becomes too expensive, then another will be found rather quickly. That goes for nuclear power plants and coal fired plants too. There is enough knowledge out there to build prototypes if a certain type appears promising, then some company will build it.

Agreed.  The ill-informed or mis-informed believe other countries will develop the 'silver bullet' of renewables technology and leave the US in the dust.

Let it happen, as we have many generations prior to worrying and we can profit from the technological developments, if any, other countries wish to spend money on.

[Joe Wooten]

An example of "green" jobs. A rare earth mine in China.