Green energy stimulus bang for buck costs 5.5 million per job.
By: Ed Farnan | Published Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 7:08 PM | Updated Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 7:08 PM
I don't know about you but if I ever get a choice between a govt. backed green energy job or the cash equivalent, I'll take the 5.5 million cash equivalent instead.
Yes folks, the numbers are coming in and it looks like we got 3,000 "permanent green energy jobs", as a result of our 20 billion of govt. stimulus and loan guarantees we injected into this industry...and many more "investments" are on their way.
Using an archaic formula only government numbers crunchers know, this is success and offers the model for moving forward into green energy independence. My only question is how much more success can we afford?
Last week Dr. Ivar Giaever, 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation from the American Physical Society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring. (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Couple the esteemed Giavers resignation with the petition signed by over 31,000 scientists, that disputes man caused global warming. When you stack the "Climategate email scandal" on top of all of this, you start to get the feeling that when Al gore says the science is settled...it really isn't.http://www.petitionproject.org/
Since man caused global warming is one of the lynch pins used as the impetus to propel us into "green energy", perhaps we should slow down with "investing" our treasure into this unproven and unprofitable industry. If it is going to work, let private industry move forward with it to see if it it becomes commercially viable, if possible. Why pump billions into unproven, commercially unviable business models?
In the meantime it seems scandals are brewing in the "green energy" field as the Solyndra company just went belly up taking over 1/2 billion of our money with it. Solyndra is not the only green company to fail after receiving tax payer assistance and it looks like other Solyndras are out there.
Seems to many, that if industries have to be propped up with subsidies, tax breaks, special deals and tilting the playing field in order to exist...something is wrong. Why should the public be financing and taking the risks?
Dr. Charles Krauthammer says the green energy industry is a fantasy, fueled by "lemming socialism" and "crony capitalism" The biggest losers? American taxpayersIt seems the attitude in Washington these days: With a stroke of a pen and unlimited amounts of other peoples money, the laws of physics and economics can be overcome.
There are billions of dollars of Solyndra" type stimulus in Obamas proposed "jobs" bill: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/rep-paul-ryan-on-solyndra-there-are-billions-of-more-of-this-exact-kind-of-spending-in-the-stimulus-video/
But China is eager to compete with our subsidized "green industry", happily manufacturing the solar panels and other components of "green" much cheaper than we do by using their coal fired power plants. China then sells these "green industry components to us at a huge profit. But under the Obama administration, Americas coal power is being heavily punished, driving many power plants out of business and making it virtually impossible to build new ones.
Interestingly America is known as the Saudi Arabia of coal reserves and we are not exploiting these resources. I wonder if you took a fraction of the billions poured in to "green energy and directed it to the science of cleaning up/refining coal, if we couldn't achieve total energy independence and clean air much sooner?
For other points of view visit Carroll Standard: www.carrollstandard.com