WSJ/ The Non-Green Jobs Boom

[PeterMP]

I hope they do better than they did in Spain

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

"The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries."


There are a few other important points:
1. The prices have dropped from most of the Spain's experiment.
2. The technology is getting better.
3. Spain isn't paying the true costs of fossil fuel use in the way we do (i.e. they are essentially riding our coat tails in terms of foreign policy issues).

I won't even get into the costs that neither the origainal study in Spain or the DOE study (that I linked) are taking into account when it comes to fossil fules:

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/...d-study-finds/

"Full Cost of Coal $500 Billion/Year in U.S., Harvard Study Finds"

[twa]

I was wondering how long it would take you to expand the metrics even beyond FP.

---------- Post added November-27th-2011 at 11:27 PM ----------

I am going to have fun watching the coming meltdown and blowback

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27...#ixzz1evNWddBt

“The EPA really kind of ambushed the utility, in terms of the process,” said David Springe, CURB's consumer counsel. “Clearly they're all working toward reducing emissions to the level the EPA wants. In their final order they were really radically different than the preliminary. They changed the mark they were supposed to hit and made it under a timeline that is simply not reasonable.”

Whether the EPA sticks with its deadline or works with utilities, it's ultimately the consumer that pays, Springe said.

“Whether it's January or 2015, they have to retrofit the plants and rates will go up,” he said. “I don't know that I've seen a full rate estimate, but it won't be small.”

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27...#ixzz1eyVL78r7

[twa]

I'm going to post in support of Peter's assertion of the green energy explosion

Renewable power trumps fossil fuels for first time

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2421278.story
Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks.

Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal.

"The progress of renewables has been nothing short of remarkable," United Nations Environment Program Executive Secretary Achim Steiner said in an interview. "You have record investment in the midst of an economic and financial crisis."


Remarkable indeed

now what is this overlooking???

[PeterMP]

I was wondering how long it would take you to expand the metrics even beyond FP.

---------- Post added November-27th-2011 at 11:27 PM ----------

I am going to have fun watching the coming meltdown and blowback

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27...#ixzz1evNWddBt

“The EPA really kind of ambushed the utility, in terms of the process,” said David Springe, CURB's consumer counsel. “Clearly they're all working toward reducing emissions to the level the EPA wants. In their final order they were really radically different than the preliminary. They changed the mark they were supposed to hit and made it under a timeline that is simply not reasonable.”

Whether the EPA sticks with its deadline or works with utilities, it's ultimately the consumer that pays, Springe said.

“Whether it's January or 2015, they have to retrofit the plants and rates will go up,” he said. “I don't know that I've seen a full rate estimate, but it won't be small.”

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27...#ixzz1eyVL78r7

I'm still waiting on the millions that are going to starve because the refergerated shipping industry is going to collapse because of the costs of banning CFCs, or the disasterous costs of the acid rain cap and trade program.

Seriously, do know of a single case where the bad case scenarios of industry groups actually came true?

[twa]

what about the consumer groups?

you know the people that will pay the bill and vote .....keep riding that CFC horse,utilities are a bit different

[PeterMP]

what about the consumer groups?

you know the people that will pay the bill and vote .....keep riding that CFC horse,utilities are a bit different

That particular consumer group is appointed by the governor of Kansas. Somehow I wouldn't be shocked if the utility companies were able to influence the govenor of Kansas to appoint people that are sympathetic with their view.

There have been all sorts of regulatory changes w/ respect to utilities, incluidng the acid rain cap and trade that I mentioned.

Do you know of a SINGLE case where the industry predicted bad outcomes have actually happened?

[twa]

Do you know of a SINGLE case where the industry predicted bad outcomes have actually happened?

Do you know of a regulatory agency that didn't back down to prevent them?

I can certainly give you cases where consumer costs increases were bad outcomes....of course they usually can hide the true costs being passed on ....don't think it will work in this case

[PeterMP]

Do you know of a regulatory agency that didn't back down to prevent them?

I can certainly give you cases where consumer costs increases were bad outcomes....of course they usually can hide the true costs being passed on ....don't think it will work in this case

Do you mean other than the out and out ban on CFCs and the cap and trade program for aicd rain causing molecules?

How about the Safe Water Drinking Act, which the CBO says the EPA likely UNDERESTIMATED costs?

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4804&type=0

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Clearly if anything goes right with the economy, Obama must have unwittingly walked into some lucky outcome despite his decisions.

Why does that angle need to be on the piece? Why not just say the non-green jobs are booming. Yay.

[twa]

Do you mean other than the out and out ban on CFCs and the cap and trade program for aicd rain causing molecules?

But there was no out and out ban on CFC's , they had grandfather clauses and exemptions for both essential and non-essential products.

Those were also costs that did not directly effect every household....the old frog in the pot trick don't work it ya don't go slow

---------- Post added November-28th-2011 at 03:49 PM ----------

Clearly if anything goes right with the economy, Obama must have unwittingly walked into some lucky outcome despite his decisions.

Why does that angle need to be on the piece? Why not just say the non-green jobs are booming. Yay.

because of this

The American Petroleum Institute recently commissioned a study by the Wood Mackenzie consulting firm, which estimated that better federal energy policy would create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

Choices matter

remember when Obama was jumping on the drill baby,drill wagon?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

because of this

The American Petroleum Institute recently commissioned a study by the Wood Mackenzie consulting firm, which estimated that better federal energy policy would create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

Choices matter

Choices do matter. American Petroleum Institute has a study that says if they get more government benefits they'll create jobs? Shocker. I'm seriously supposed to fall for this?

Then again, the article says that non-green jobs ARE BOOMING ALREADY! Why is that in spite of Obama's choices? Instead of because of them? Give me a break already.

[twa]

Is getting out of the way a benefit?

O was proactive in revoking opening more areas to energy exploration and obstructing it in areas already open....even to the point of ignoring a court order.

Yes it is in spite of him

[Thiebear]

When i look online to get Solar Panels: Its a scam short of 20k or a hotwater heater version.
When i look online to get magnetic generators that just need a battery to get started: Its a scam
When i look online to get wind power, its 7,000 and might not be allowed in your area (HOA or no HOA).
When i look online for that 235mpg car its not there for more than 140mpg trips. (4 years talking about this now).

I WANT! but it seems we are not there still.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is getting out of the way a benefit?

O was proactive in revoking opening more areas to energy exploration and obstructing it in areas already open....even to the point of ignoring a court order.

Yes it is in spite of him

You've totally missed the point... there is a jobs "boom" in the non-green sector, and some ******* has to write an article saying Obama ****ed up an ongoing "Jobs boom." Why not just say that there is a jobs boom in one sector of the economy? Stop the hackery.

Essentially, even good economic news JUST HAS TO BE explained of as "in spite of Obama" at this point. Its lame.

[twa]

You don.t think it is relevant when we put about 66 billion into alt energy last yr?

You don't think it is relevant O has restricted drilling in other places?

You don't think it relevant when O is 'focused' on jobs?

Welcome to responsibility,where choices matter