It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Green jobs = no jobs Obamas' plan to destroy American economy

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:56 AM

I have conducted a search and have not been able to find this on ATS, if I erred, please forgive and delete, mods.

Above is just a short clip of something that has not been given much play, except on FOX, which tells me that if it only plays on FOX, then the rest of the media doesn't want you to know about it.

I have only read part of the study, but will attach a link to the complete report (pdf file) along with some interesting exerpts below.


Europe’s current policy and strategy for supporting the so-called “green jobs” or
renewable energy dates back to 1997, and has become one of the principal
justifications for U.S. “green jobs” proposals. Yet an examination of Europe’s
experience reveals these policies to be terribly economically counterproductive.
This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is
considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians.
This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and
impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style
“green jobs” agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this
in terms of jobs destroyed per job created and the net destruction per installed MW.
The study’s results demonstrate how such “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s
way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing
into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.
The following are key points from the study:
1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the
establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has
given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity
through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green
jobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that
massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The
question that this paper answers is “at what price?”
2. 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.
4. At minimum, therefore, the study’s evaluation of the Spanish model cited as
one for the U.S. to replicate in quick pursuit of “green jobs” serves a note of
caution, that the reality is far from what has typically been presented, and that
such schemes also offer considerable employment consequences and
implications for emerging from the economic crisis.
5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it
appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, twothirds
of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in
administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out
of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation
and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.
6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed
elsewhere in the economy.
7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each
“green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the
destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs
destroyed for every “green job” created.
9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries.
10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the
economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
11. These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are
largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
12. The total over-cost – the amount paid over the cost that would result from
buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at the market
price - that has been incurred from 2000 to 2008 (adjusting by 4% and
calculating its net present value [NPV] in 2008), amounts to 7,918.54 million
Euros (appx. $10 billion USD)
13. The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three
renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD).
14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in
Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt
generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables,
according to Spain’s energy regulator.
15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates
or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spain’s model.
16. The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the
relatively most electricity-intensive companies and industries away, seeking
areas where costs are lower. The example of Acerinox is just such a case.
17. The study offers a caution against a certain form of green energy mandate.
Minimum guaranteed prices generate surpluses that are difficult to manage. In
Spain’s case, the minimum electricity prices for renewable-generated electricity,
far above market prices, wasted a vast amount of capital that could have been
otherwise economically allocated in other sectors. Arbitrary, state-established
price systems inherent in “green energy” schemes leave the subsidized
renewable industry hanging by a very weak thread and, it appears, doomed to
dramatic adjustments that will include massive unemployment, loss of capital,
dismantlement of productive facilities and perpetuation of inefficient ones.
18. These schemes create serious “bubble” potential, as Spain is now discovering.
The most paradigmatic bubble case can be found in the photovoltaic industry.
Even with subsidy schemes leaving the mean sale price of electricity generated
from solar photovoltaic power 7 times higher than the mean price of the pool,
solar failed even to reach 1% of Spain’s total electricity production in 2008.
19. The energy future has been jeopardized by the current state of wind or
photovoltaic technology (more expensive and less efficient than conventional
energy sources). These policies will leave Spain saddled with and further
artificially perpetuating obsolete fixed assets, far less productive than cuttingedge
technologies, the soaring rates for which soon-to-be obsolete assets the
government has committed to maintain at high levels during their lifetime.
20. The regulator should consider whether citizens and companies need expensive
and inefficient energy – a factor of production usable in virtually every human
project- or affordable energy to help overcome the economic crisis instead.
21. The Spanish system also jeopardizes conventional electricity facilities, which are
the first to deal with the electricity tariff deficit that the State owes them.
22. Renewable technologies remained the beneficiaries of new credit while others
began to struggle, though this was solely due to subsidies, mandates and related
programs. As soon as subsequent programmatic changes take effect which
became necessary due to “unsustainable” solar growth its credit will also cease.

I have a theory. Obama and his ilk, want the country to fail. They can't be that stupid. They want America to be soley dependant on the government.

Green jobs are just the start.

And of course, just my humble opinion, I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:02 AM
I read an article that states that BO's college term thesis, "which he set the curve" was about being the best 3rd world leader, and how to maintiain one?
Not sure if this matters, but it does bother me that the president accelled in running a 3rd world nation!

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Doc Holiday

Now thats a paper I would love to read.Any idea how i can read it or where I can get it??
I wonder what his policies were in that thesis. and flag for you Mike.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by DrumsRfun]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
I read an article that states that BO's college term thesis, "which he set the curve" was about being the best 3rd world leader, and how to maintiain one?
Not sure if this matters, but it does bother me that the president accelled in running a 3rd world nation!

I'd pay money to read that!!!

Is it anywhere?

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by DrumsRfun

Thank you sir. Just doing some surfing and found this.


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:10 AM
I read this article back during the pre-election, I'll look around for it, I can't imagine it being very hard to find...
It was in a magazine, I'm pretty sure, I was at the dentist or Dr.s office, they interviewed him, and the person doing the interview had a copy of this paper!

So much for the
Guess that answers why I can't find it, sorry guys/gals

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Doc Holiday]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:17 AM
The problem is, the vast majority of green power cannot possibly curtail fossil fuel use. Solar Power and offshore wind, make Nuclear power appear dirt cheap. I just don't see the need to invest in technology that will not help us become more "green" at all. Nuclear and Ultra super-critical coal need more attention, IMO.

[edit on 30/9/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

I read (?) somewhere that France has their grid on 80% nuclear power. And we can't?

That's why I smell "conspiracy" here. Why invest in cheap, plentiful energy when you can have expensive, job-costing energy?!?!?!?!

[edit on 30-9-2009 by mikerussellus]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:35 AM
Most studies show that Nuclear power is slightly more expensive than most kinds of fossil fuels, but when a carbon tax is added Nuclear power becomes slightly cheaper. The main problem with Nuclear power is over 70% of the lifetime cost is the initial capital cost, so it's very difficult to attract investors. This is one the reasons we're still mainly on fossil fuels, rather than Nuclear. Funny though, had they not killed off Nuclear power in the mid - late 1970s (with ridiculous laws for example), the problem with coal would be far smaller than it is today. Also, newer reactors such as the PBMR (google it) and GT-MHR (google it) and B&W mPOWER (google it) should solve the capital issue to a certain degree. Future (>2030) reactors like the LFTR solve every problem Nuclear has.

France does get over 70% of its electricity from Nuclear power, and also has some of the lowest carbon emissions per capita and lowest cost of electricity in all of Europe. However, since the power load inevitably rises and falls throughout the day, it is needed to vary the amount of power being generated throughout the day. Due to Xenon poisoning, most Nuclear Plants cannot do this, and if done, like in France, the operating economics are lost to a certain degree. For example, generating an average of 1000MW will bring you more money than an average of 500MW. For this reason Nuclear power is the most effective when supplying the base load of power, meaning it might be more expensive to have almost all power generated by Nuclear as they do in France.

[edit on 30/9/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by mikerussellus

I believe your humble opinion to be correct. But this goes beyond Obama, he is just part of the scheme. I think this has been going on slowly and steadily for decades. Gradually make the people more dependent on the government and people won't even notice when the government in complete control before it's too late to have a say.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by mikerussellus

Yeah Obama is like a master at finding the worst socialist ideas on Earth, such as this green jobs/cap and trade horsecrap and then trying to implement them as policy for the USA. Why is that?

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by SoupBoneDogSnake

Good question. I guess that's why sites like this exist.

reply to post by Darth Lumina

I agree. Look at the healthcare debate. We're not talking about whether government should be involved, but now we're talking about HOW MUCH it'll cost.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:59 AM

Why invest in cheap, plentiful energy when you can have expensive, job-costing energy?!?!?!?!

The Kyoto Protocol measures countries' production of carbon, not consumption. It's no accident the Europeans like Kyoto. It's a set of measures which, as they de-industrialize and production moves to countries like China, makes them look good. But the carbon consumption record of Europe, once you take those imports back, is pretty awful. That's why Kyoto looks like a success, and yet it hasn't caused even a blip in the emissions path.

What we have learnt is that politicians tend to choose the most expensive options first. Faced with climate change, what's our solution? In Europe, it's to devote most of our energies to a rapid build-out of wind power. This is the sort of thing that makes nuclear power look cheap. Climate change is about the massive increase of coal burning internationally, especially the growth of China and India fuelled by coal-based energy — and America too, where the Obama plans are also small relative to the problem.

What exactly will windmills across Europe do to address that overwhelmingly dominant effect? Of course they'll play some role, but it'll probably take a couple of weeks for China to add sufficient new coal power stations to cancel out any renewables effort in Britain. It's time to grow up. It's time to realize that coal is where the core of the problem lies, and to think cleverly about solutions towards that.

The problem we have in Europe is that people are obsessed by 2020, and that's a time period in which actually we can't do much on the technological front. By putting all our emphasis onto the technologies we can get in place by 2020, we're missing longer-term opportunities like nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage.

Good read.

I think Biden gives a good point in this video.

Funny, many prominent anti-nuclear heads now acknowledge that wind power blows, so they have come out as pro-gas. Probably the stupidest idea possible.

[edit on 30/9/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

Sounds to me more of an engineering issue than a cost/ratio issue. But thanks for the information. I'm always up on learning more.


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:04 AM
If the absolute loss of jobs was followed immediately by the end of property taxes I'd be all in with this.

The only reason I have to have a job at all is because of property taxes and once I got a job oooh boy I get to pay income taxes too!

Let all the jobs go. Especially the job 'tax collector.'

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Then Pelosi and co. won't be able to buy brand new gulfstream lear jets to fly around in.


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by C0bzz

Sounds to me more of an engineering issue than a cost/ratio issue. But thanks for the information. I'm always up on learning more.


Back in the day the United States was building Nuclear plants very fast and was set to continue that way until it was completely ruined in about 1975 where numerous factors completely destroyed it. No engineering issue, completely the high capital cost and the fact that it is best at only supplying base load power. It COULD be ramped up significantly, and is probably a good idea to do so, but maybe not to Frances levels is what I'm trying to say.

Many of the laws that partly ruined it in around 1975 are fixed today, I might add.

[edit on 30/9/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
I read an article that states that BO's college term thesis, "which he set the curve" was about being the best 3rd world leader, and how to maintiain one?
Not sure if this matters, but it does bother me that the president accelled in running a 3rd world nation!

What is "accelled"? Please translate. Is this from Obama's thesis or from your own? Also, pray tall, why are we a 3rd world nation?

top topics


log in