Germanys green jobs bust

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

"5 Summary and Conclusion
Although renewable energies have a potentially beneficial role to play as part of
Germany’s energy portfolio, the commonly advanced argument that renewables
confer a double dividend or “win-win solution” in the form of environmental stewardship
and economic prosperity is disingenuous. In this article, we argue that
Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through
feed-in tariffs, in fact, imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts
on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological innovation."

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

[quade 4]

Quote

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

What is true in one case isn't not necessarily true in every case.

Pretty much end of discussion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

What is true in one case isn't not necessarily true in every case.

Pretty much end of discussion.

There was something a while back showing similar in Spain, if I recall correctly.

Ah - found it: link

Quote

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.
3. Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

Gabriel Calzada is an Associate Professor of Economics at King Juan Carlos University

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

==================
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

. . .AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters."

President - Robert L. Bradley

Robert L. Bradley is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, and a senior research fellow at the University of Houston.

He previously served as Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, where he was a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay.
==================

>green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

Enron speechwriter = "lie"; understand:

========
Related employment, often referred to as ''green jobs'', is also growing rapidly in Germany. Since 2004, jobs in the renewable sector have increased by 87 per cent to about 300,500. While there have been some job losses through the greening of Germany's economy, they have been offset by strong growth in the renewables sector - producing a net positive result in the jobs market.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/germanys-green-light-for-energy-20100713-109go.html
========

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

==================
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.

. . .AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in US coastal waters."

President - Robert L. Bradley

Robert L. Bradley is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, and a senior research fellow at the University of Houston.

He previously served as Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, where he was a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay.
==================

>green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

Enron speechwriter = "lie"; understand:

========
Related employment, often referred to as ''green jobs'', is also growing rapidly in Germany. Since 2004, jobs in the renewable sector have increased by 87 per cent to about 300,500. While there have been some job losses through the greening of Germany's economy, they have been offset by strong growth in the renewables sector - producing a net positive result in the jobs market.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/germanys-green-light-for-energy-20100713-109go.html
========

ZOMG!!!

IER isn't part of the "consensus"!!!

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!

Now...on to the snippet: Net gain in jobs is a good thing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

What is true in one case isn't not necessarily true in every case.
Pretty much end of discussion.

There was something a while back showing similar in Spain, if I recall correctly.

The other thing I kind of have to take exception with is the idea that;

Quote

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie

A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts.

The concept of being "green" (environmentally conscious and responsible) is an ideal and therefore not a fact at all. It's something people might want to strive to achieve, but "green" can't, in and of itself, be a "lie" unless one were to point out someone's hypocrisy of their claims. For example, the claim "drilling for oil is inherently green" could rightfully be considered a "lie."

What is "disingenuous" is attempting to make the word "green" the equal of the word "lie" in the minds of people.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

What is true in one case isn't not necessarily true in every case.
Pretty much end of discussion.

There was something a while back showing similar in Spain, if I recall correctly.

The other thing I kind of have to take exception with is the idea that;

Quote

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie

A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts.

The concept of being "green" (environmentally conscious and responsible) is an ideal and therefore not a fact at all. It's something people might want to strive to achieve, but "green" can't, in and of itself, be a "lie" unless one were to point out someone's hypocrisy of their claims. For example, the claim "drilling for oil is inherently green" could rightfully be considered a "lie."

What is "disingenuous" is attempting to make the word "green" the equal of the word "lie" in the minds of people.

Well, since you took it this direction

That happened years ago for most

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

go back to your unicorne ranch

[quade 4]

Quote

go back to your unicorne ranch

Yes, I suppose it is a bit too much to ask that words be used honestly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

"5 Summary and Conclusion
Although renewable energies have a potentially beneficial role to play as part of
Germany’s energy portfolio, the commonly advanced argument that renewables
confer a double dividend or “win-win solution” in the form of environmental stewardship
and economic prosperity is disingenuous. In this article, we argue that
Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through
feed-in tariffs, in fact, imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts
on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological innovation."

green = jobs = "disingenuous" = lie; discuss

What's your opinion on the above? *Discuss* is no fundamental idea, methinks.

What do you know about renewable technologies/energies and their influence on local economy? (And especially the one in my country? )

Please, let me know your insider knowledge. Something, I do not know or do not stumble upon in Google.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,120]

>ZOMG!

So this is what deniers consider rational thought on the subject? No wonder they have some, uh, credibility issues.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>ZOMG!

So this is what deniers consider rational thought on the subject? No wonder they have some, uh, credibility issues.

No, that was a commentary on your 'playing the player rather than the ball' portion of your response....as you're doing again, here.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[hwt 0]

"Green jobs" have become a central underpinning of the Obama administration's rationale to promote clean energy. But how valid is the assumption that a "clean-energy" economy will generate enough jobs to mitigate today's high level of unemployment -- new jobless claims were up 22,000 this week -- and to meet the needs of future generations? A green economy would have to spout jobs in the millions to do both. The facts challenge the prevailing thinking among some policymakers and officials that green jobs are a principal reason for transforming the economy.

Let's consider just one clean-energy sector, the smart grid, for its job-creation potential. The Obama administration allocated a little more than $4 billion in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the smart grid, an unprecedented amount for a hitherto-neglected but critical piece of our national infrastructure. Much of this is to be spent installing close to 20 million "smart meters" over the next five years. Smart meters are digital versions of the spinning electric meters that are omnipresent nationwide. Whereas spinning meters have changed little in more than a century and must be read by workers, smart meters automatically transmit electricity consumption data to a utility. Virtually eliminating human intervention, smart meters promise more accurate measurement of electricity usage as well as increasingly efficient management of energy production resources.

Nearly 40 million smart meters have been deployed worldwide, mostly in Europe. Jobs created in this industry can be broadly classified into four categories: installation, manufacturing, research and development, and IT services.

First, installation: It typically takes a team of two certified electricians half an hour to replace the old, spinning meter. In one day, two people can install about 15 new meters, or about 5,000 in a year. Were a million smart meters to be installed in a year, 400 installation jobs would be created. It follows that the planned U.S. deployment of 20 million smart meters over five years, or 4 million per year, should create 1,600 installation jobs. Unless more meters are added to the annual deployment schedule, this workforce of 1,600 should cover installation needs for the next five years.



Although a surge of new digital meters will be produced, the manufacturing process is highly automated. And with much of it accomplished overseas, net creation in domestic manufacturing jobs is expected to be only in the hundreds. In R&D and IT services, high-paying white-collar jobs are on the horizon, but as with manufacturing, the number of jobs created is forecast to be in the hundreds or low thousands.

Now let's consider job losses. It takes one worker today roughly 15 minutes to read a single meter. So in a day, a meter reader can scan about 30 meters, or about 700 meters a month. Meters are typically read once a month, making it the base period to calculate meter-reading jobs. Reading a million meters every month engages about 1,400 personnel. In five years, 20 million manually read meters are expected to disappear, taking with them some 28,000 meter-reading jobs.

In other words, instead of creating jobs, smart metering will probably result in net job destruction. This should not be surprising because the main method of making the electrical grid "smart" is by automating its functions. Automation by definition obviates the need for people.

In other "clean-energy" sectors such as solar and wind energy, jobs are predicted to emerge in the same broad categories of installation, manufacturing, R&D and IT services, but the near-term expected levels of investment in and adoption of these renewable sources of energy mean that net job creation should top out in the tens of thousands, as opposed to the desired hundreds of thousands or more. Electric vehicles represent another promising green sector, but even if the vehicles were rolled out in substantive quantities, jobs would be created mainly in research and development and infrastructure support, and there, too, only in the hundreds or maybe even thousands. Manufacturing jobs would grow only incrementally since electric vehicle production will for the most part cannibalize that of gasoline-powered cars.

For the purpose of creating jobs, then, a "clean-energy economy" will not offer a panacea. This does not necessarily mean that America should not become green to alleviate climate change, to kick its addiction to foreign oil or to use energy sources more efficiently. But those who take great pains to tout the "job-creation potential" of the green space might just end up inducing labor pains all around.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>ZOMG!

So this is what deniers consider rational thought on the subject? No wonder they have some, uh, credibility issues.

No, that was a commentary on your 'playing the player rather than the ball' portion of your response....as you're doing again, here.

A few mods here seem to follow the rules like Obama and his admin tell the truth

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

Read the link, and get back to me. (it was written by PHDs so you might have some trouble understanding the big words)

Green jobs failed in Spain, Denmark, and now Germany. This is not an esoteric discussion on whether or not the global temp will go up or down by a degree or two in the next hundred years. This is real money being wasted and costing real jobs.