JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The data is in: more Green jobs means less real ones

It’s not rocket science. If energy costs more, that means we have to make do with less of it, or make do with less of something else. Thus if the government forces everyone to pay more for electricity, companies have less spare cash to employ people. Their margins are tighter, they can’t make and sell as many products. So when we are told the clean energy revolution is creating jobs, is it virtually self-evident that’s a mythical fairy claim.

I say “virtually”, because it is theoretical possible it could work, but only if this green power provided some productivity or efficiency gain — that is, if it helped us build more widgets, bake more cakes or warm more toes. In the case of windturbines, the big hope is that they reduce emissions, lower CO2 globally, and in turn stop storms, tornados, floods and what-not and gave us perfect weather again (like the kind we never had).

Might as well bury bottles of money I say. More jobs. Less cost. No infrasound, and no dead bats.

Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs):

The Telegraph points out how expensive it is to support a wind-industry job. My plan to bury bottles with £50,000 apiece in them could halve the cost and employ just as many people.

  • A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
  • “Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast. It received £129 million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3 million for every member of staff.” — Telegraph, 15 June 2013
  •  In Scotland the VERSO study showed for each Green Job created, 3.7 were lost. — BBC, Feb 2011

(What’s worse than one green job? 76,000 green jobs.)

  • Robert Norris, Renewable UK’s spokesman, said:“… by 2021, more than 76,000 people will be working in the British wind industry in full-time, well-paid green-collar jobs.  — Telegraph, 15 June 2013

In Spain for every green job created 2.2 jobs were lost:

“Calzada, an economist, studied Spain’s green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create.  But Calzada’s study found that for every four jobs created by Spain’s expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost. Electricity generated was so expensive that each “green” megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs. — CBN News, Dec 26, 2011

In Italy, each green job cost 5 jobs from the rest of the economy:

“A study performed by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found “the same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector, would create 6.9 or 4.8 if invested in the industry or the economy in general, respectively”…

“The researchers also found that the vast majority of green jobs created were temporary… –  AEI

“The renewables industry was plagued with corruption. The mafia were caught laundering $1.7bn through renewables.

In Germany, the subsidies far exceed the wages of the jobs created:

“Germany’s subsidization regime has reached a level that by far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 euros (US$240,000).  — AEI

In Denmark wind power reduces the GDP

Denmark is the darling of wind power, it manages to get about 10% of its energy from wind, but only because all the countries around it absorb the intermittent surplus, and compensate for the low generation periods. Even with this ideal arrangement, it still costs millions:

Regarding green jobs, CEPOS 2009 found “that the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to less productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately 1.8 billion DKK ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.” –  AEI

There were pages claiming to debunk some of these studies. They had the usual blanket vague conviction “it’s proven unsupportable”, but were backed mostly with ad homs — evidently if the study was “promoted” (meaning “quoted”) by people who were known skeptics, that showed it was wrong. What I could not find were any “debunkings” which could explain how a nation using less efficient and more costly energy could make itself richer, more productive, and more able to create useful employment.

Frédéric Bastiat wrote of the “broken-window” fallacy in 1850, and yet people still don’t get it.

Damaging productive things can not make us wealthier.

Nor can forcing us to use the dumber option.

REFERENCES

Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, Raquel Merino Jara, Juan Ramon Rallo Julian, and Jose Ignacio Garcia Bielsa, “Study of the Effects of Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources” (draft, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009), www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf (accessed January 27, 2011).

Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro, Are Green Jobs Real Jobs? The Case of Italy (Milan, Italy: Instituto Bruno Leoni, May 2010), http://brunoleonimedia.servingfreedom.net /WP/WP-Green_Jobs-May2010.pdf (accessed January 27, 2011)

CEPOS 2009: Hugh Sharman, Henrik Meyer, and Martin Agerup, Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark (Copenhagen, Denmark: Center for Politiske Studier, September 2009), www.cepos.dk /fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_ case_of_Denmark.pdf (accessed January 28, 2011).

VERSO 2011:  Richard Marsh and Tom Miers, Worth the Candle? The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK (Kirkcaldy, Scotland: Verso Economics, March 2011), www.versoeconomics.com/verso-0311B.pdf (accessed March 17, 2011)

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (97 votes cast)
The data is in: more Green jobs means less real ones, 9.3 out of 10 based on 97 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: Error

157 comments to The data is in: more Green jobs means less real ones

  • #
    Snotrocket

    Wow!! A blog post that starts with my name!! I’m honoured. But as I’m also a boring fart, can you say ‘fewer’ and not ‘less’ in the headline. (Used to work with a an ex-teacher who made life hell if we did same….) :-)

    140

    • #
      Eric Simpson

      yes, don’t be so hard on yourself, one day we’ll have “Revenge of the Pedants.” remember don’t say further but say farther, plus it’s anyway, not anyways. anyways, I always advice people to say less fewer times, or is it to say fewer less times ??

      40

    • #
      crakar24

      Itsnotrocket science………….

      Now thats funny nice to read the first comment and get a laugh.

      Cheers

      21

    • #
      Ace

      Thatchers defence sec John Nott used to say “less ships” all the fecking time: “…the navy will have more submarines, less ships”. Im sure it was deliberate. The Tories in Thatchers time were keenly expert at psychological games with words. They totally usurped and re-framed the meaning of “reforms” for instance. Replacing “fewer” with “less” was almost like demonstrating complete control of the debate to the point where they could actually bend grammar, like Keanu Reeves bending “reality” in The Matrix.

      00

  • #

    The fewer jobs would be OK if it meant fewer government jobs. Just imagine if one green job cost five or ten politicians and bureaucrats their jobs. Life would be a lot better for we working folks.

    Unfortunately, it seems to be the other way around. For every green job, five to ten government jobs are added and we working folks are put further into the hole.

    622

    • #
      Dennis

      Many people do not understand that a public servant is a cost paid for by non-government or private sector taxpayers, they are not creating new monies and the taxes they pay are effectively returned to consolidated revenue and do not add to it. Therefore only enough to do necessary work should be employed by governments.

      111

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Lionel

      The concept of creating green jobs is equally loved by the otherwise unemployable and dodgy politicians. Huge bureaucracies are built up to monitor/administer an industry totally rotten with: i) politicians’ financial self-interest and/or that of their cronies, ii) fundamentalist greenie adoration, iii) BS statistics on reliability, cost and life expectancy, and iv) the opposite of “eye candy”.

      Using an average motor car as a comparison, would you buy one which:

      1. Cost 3-4 times as much as a regular one.
      2. Was ugly and noisy.
      3. Ran at an average 25-30% of its rated efficiency.
      4. Did not work at all up to 25-30% of the time.
      5. Required a back up regular car, when the green one did not work.
      6. Required the government to heavily subsidise you whenever you decided to use it.
      7. Did not work when the weather was inclement – too much wind, or too little wind – the latter when a high pressure system dominates the weather, co-incidentally when the weather is very hot or cold depending on the season and electricity demand is at its highest.

      Wind power is the car equivalent of the East German Trabant, possibly the most inefficient and ineffective vehicle ever designed. But it was loved by those who had no other choice – however, we do have another choice and there is no rationale whatsoever for promoting wind power other than for those living far away from civilisation and the national power grids.

      100

    • #
      cohenite

      Speaking of solar energy and jobs and not knowing where else to put this.

      I just bet she believes in AGW.

      20

  • #
    TheInquirer

    And if, like Jo Nova, you pretend the effects of AGW on our economies, production and other costs are non-existent, small wonder you can appeal to your Group Thinkers with one-sided naive analyses such as hers and the studies done by the usual Think Tanks

    And yet, the studies that have been done taking onto account all costings demonstrated it was much more expensive to not mitigate. Stern, Garnaut.

    But, thanks in small part (very small, despite their egotistical claims – the reason for non-action is actually that governments and democracy are now largely powerless against corporate authority) to contrarians all this is going to play out and, unlike Y2K, we are about to find out what non-mitigation will mean. But the Jo Novas of the world will just continue to [question] – we have seen that already, as the results of AGW are already costing $, human lives, animal species, etc, etc.

    [Slight editorial modifications made -Fly]

    9113

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Winter is coming.

      331

      • #
        old44

        Yes, and it will be a lot colder thanks to Global Warming.

        261

        • #
          Sonny

          News just in – people are now three times more interested in “cupcakes” and “ice cream” than they are “global warming” and “climate change”.

          http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Global%20warming%2C%20Climate%20change%2C%20Cupcakes%2C%20Ice%20cream&geo=AU&cmpt=q

          Oh the horror!

          80

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            OMG!!!!!!!! What about the dear little kittens??????

            Sorry – just trying to adopt the idiom …

            40

            • #
              crakar24

              Some really good responses here, however using a different approach to tackle the inquisitive one let us assume that we may or may not be here in 87 years (Barrie, Steffen et al) do to coal etc why would a government with even a shred of competency shut down a local power source plus export industry and replace it with a fully imported one?

              For example if you wish to travel down the road of renewables why would you import everything from China, why not set up local manufacture of the items? Why allow the “man in the van” to do a dodgy install of the imported solar panels, why would you allow big business to ride roughshod over people on where they put wind farms? The questions are endless but the answer remains the same and that answer is that this government/greens are incompetent.

              The trolls of this world only believe in the ideology, never mind the detail, so they come here blinded by their deluded faith and mislaid trust in “the ones that know”. The end result is 92 red thumbs and counting.

              22

    • #
      agwnonsense

      Are you for real or just a fragment of my imagination.It disturbs me to find a “person” as frighteningly stupid as you appear to be.You have my sympathy,cheers

      411

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … you pretend the effects of AGW on our economies, production and other costs are non-existent …

      Oh, the effects are anything but non-existant, but those effects are financial, and to the detriment of peoples’ living standards, financial security, and general well being.

      Nobody has died because of a 1.2oC rise in average temperature. In fact, they haven’t noticed it at all.

      All of the detrimental effects on economies, and production, and financial and fiscal security have been as a result of scientifically illiterate governments taking advice from people like Stern and Garnaut, (who happily live in their own little self-referencial, and financially secure, bubbles).

      You blame “corporate authority” (whatever that might mean), as a convenient straw effigy, but you have it base upwards. Businesses will take every opportunity to stay in business, in order to protect the intellectual investment they have made in their work force, and to protect the livelihoods of their workers.

      I doubt that you have ever owned a business, so you will not understand the moral contract that exists between employer and employee. Come to think of it, I doubt that you have ever worked in a business, so see that contract, from the other side and experienced the feeling of security it engenders.

      I am glad that you are admitting defeat when you say, “we are about to find out what non-mitigation will mean”, and we will, because nothing will happen, the world will not end, and slowly, oh so very slowly, the world economies will start to pick up again, and we will all be older, but probably no wiser. Because a new generation of mindless, two-dimensional thinkers, like you, will come along and tell the rest of us that this time the problems are unique, and only they have the answers.

      640

    • #
      Betapug

      You seem to confuse “what if” speculations (which project decades forward) with analysis of what has actually happened.
      This is not unusual in the unsettling world of climate politics, which does not seem to know whether it is coming or going.

      180

    • #
      MemoryVault

      you pretend the effects of AGW on our economies, production and other costs are non-existent

      Yeah – and we don’t check under the bed for boogeymen either -

      - and for much the same reason.

      190

    • #
      manalive

      And yet, the studies that have been done taking onto account all costings demonstrated it was much more expensive to not mitigate …

      Go tell that to the 20% of the world population still living in absolute poverty with life expectancy rates around 45 years.
      Look how world poverty has declined in the past 30 years due to industrialisation on a scale impossible with windmills etc., which incidentally need constant fossil fuel or nuclear back-up.
      And the increasing CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere has proven economic benefits with increasing crop yields etc.
      The empirical evidence shows that the IPCC temperature predictions are hyperbolic.
      If you were a genuine inquirer you would know all that. I’m wasting time and electrons.

      251

    • #
      llew Jones

      What effects on our economies from AGW?

      The projected dire outcomes in such things as agricultural production are looking very shaky in terms of recent record crop production in India and other places around the planet. (droughts and floods have been with us as confirmed by written human history for millenia eg. biblical record of repetitive plentiful and lean years in ancient Egypt).

      The basis for those fanciful projections of more severe and wilder weather events is based on AGW but as “global warming has stalled in the last 15 or so years there has been no driver for those fanciful weather event projections.

      The warmist’s equation should go like this:

      No global warming = no anthropogenic effect on weather events.

      So where and what are the recent AGW climate change effects when there has been no warming?

      (Unless of course “Earth’s climate” is unhappy about extra CO2 in the atmosphere and shows its irritability by blessing us with economy effecting weather).

      121

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      you pretend the effects of AGW on our economies, production and other costs are non-existent

      The pretense was that normal jobs would be replaced ‘green jobs’ and that everything would be OK.

      TheInquirer said:

      And yet, the studies that have been done taking onto account all costings demonstrated it was much more expensive to not mitigate. Stern, Garnaut.

      You mean studies, by politically motivated and traditionally hopeless economists, based on climate models that don’t work, with expensive fixes that will achieve essentially zero? Those temperature changes, if their formulae are correct, would be measured in thousandths of a degree – if such measuring equipment existed.

      You spend your money on a trip into pixie land, not mine.

      281

      • #
        Joe V.

        And yet, the studies that have been done taking onto account all costings demonstrated it was much more expensive to not mitigate. Stern, Garnaut.

        More of that made up modelling’. As the Bishop said to the Actress, “You should do modelling. You could be an Economist.”
        Stern’s Economic modelling makes the Climate models look almost competent..

        161

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Ah yes, the Stern Report, with its fanciful,
      DISCOUNT RATE The report assumes that the discount rate (the “price” of time) for the cost of global change is 0.1 per- cent above the rate of growth of consumption. Because con- sumption is assumed to grow at 1.3 percent, the discount rate is 1.4 percent.
      Not significantly different from zero.
      Leftonomics typically favour spending now while paying on the never-never, and its usually OPM anyway.

      150

    • #

      TheInquirer:”And if, like Jo Nova, you pretend the effects of AGW on our economies, production and other costs are non-existent,”

      Still can’t find any evidence eh?

      Still in denial about hundreds of posts here about Evidence and how your models are disproved.

      404

    • #
      handjive

      Quote: TheInquirer, June 18, 2013 at 5:05 am:

      And yet, the studies that have been done taking onto account all costings demonstrated it was much more expensive to not mitigate. Stern, Garnaut.
      .
      MARCH 17, 2011
      Climate adviser Ross Garnaut flags $20-$30 carbon price

      “Overall, lower and middle income earners in Australia will be better off directly as a result of these arrangements and in addition future generations of their family will be protected from dangerous climate change,” he said.

      9 May 2013
      $2.25b carbon price bonus for households: Garnaut

      “A multi-billion dollar bonus for householders — that’s what is on the cards with the big fall in the carbon price predicted for 2015.

      Yesterday, Labor deferred proposed tax cuts due in 2015 to further compensate consumers for putting a price on carbon.”
      .
      WoW. Even when Garnaut is wrong, we still win. Huzzah! 3 cheers for the carbon (sic) tax. The climate is safe!
      .
      TheInquirer also quotes Nicholas Stern, Author of 2006 review, who now admits he was wrong.

      27 January 2013
      Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’
      .
      Of course it’s worse, Nick. You were wrong first time, why should you be right now?
      .
      TheInquirer speeds towards peak stupid. Are we there yet?

      261

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      You appear to be suffering from modelism.

      Modelism is a delusional disorder caused by the inability to discern the difference between GIGO forecasts from models and empirical data. Sadly, at this time their is no cure.

      362

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      Five years into a mini ice-age and you use the term agw!Wretched,little person.

      111

    • #
      Manfred

      And I thought that ostriches were an endangered species. I stand corrected.

      50

    • #
      Angry

      “TheInquirer “, Isn’t it time for your MEDICATION??????

      51

    • #
      Backslider

      we have seen that already, as the results of AGW are already costing $, human lives, animal species, etc, etc.

      Well yes, we most certainly have seen the results of the mythical “AGW”, just as you describe:

      * Billions and billions of tax payer dollars spent on inefficient “renewable energy”
      * People dying of hunger and fuel poverty due to “green” policies
      * Endangered species being sliced up by wind turbines
      * Vast tracts of forest and the animals that live in them destroyed for bio fuel

      etc, etc….

      Here is some nice reading for you Quiz, perhaps you will learn something: Why I Am Not An Environmentalist

      111

    • #
      bananabender

      …unlike Y2K, we are about to find out what non-mitigation will mean.

      Y2K was another example of baseless hysteria and rent seeking.

      The world wasn’t saved by the billions spent on preemptive Y2K remediation. The world was saved by the fact is that the Y2K threat was almost entirely illusory.

      Many cash-strapped Latin American, African and Eastern Europe countries didn’t spend a single cent on Y2K mitigation. Yet none of these countries reported a single adverse incident proven to be caused by Y2K bug.

      41

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        At the company where I worked there were frantic efforts to bring a new computer system on line to meet the Y2K problem.

        The old superior system was going to crash! What happened? It just kept going, for years. (It kept old tax records available).

        Like you said, baseless hysteria.

        31

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Dear Tinqurbelle, so amusing to have you join us again.
      Some of us were beginning to worry about you in your multi-day absence. MV was particularly worried. I was about to reassure him that our favourite trolls would return after their nap time, and here you are! Oh joy!

      All those other CAGW Deniers are now pestering you about little facts and details, but I know you aren’t into all that sciencey stuff. Personally I can’t stand that other stuff in the Stern report – what is that subject called again? It sounds like a dwarf clapping their hands in a cave. Meh, whatever! They are boring too.

      Nobody else wants to talk to you about the most interesting and important part of your comment – the social and political aspect. But Inquirers want to know! Let’s talk about that bit then…

      the reason for non-action [against man-made global warming] is actually that governments and democracy are now largely powerless against corporate authority

      Yeah, those big industrial corporations stonewalled democracy, subverted the government, and basically got whatever they wanted… such as demanding a massive price be put on CO2 emissions regardless of whether any other country had too, right?

      Go slow on carbon tax: BHP Billiton chairman Jacques Nasser

      BHP Billiton chairman Jacques Nasser has turned up the pressure on Julia Gillard to abandon plans for a carbon tax, calling for a “go-slow” approach to tackling climate change and warning that the rest of the world is unlikely to follow Australia’s lead.

      Speaking in Melbourne yesterday, the chairman of Australia’s biggest company and the world’s biggest miner added to recent calls by his chief executive, Marius Kloppers, for a sector-specific approach to dealing with carbon pollution that did not hurt businesses that had global competitors.

      Business Council of Australia, Submission to the Joint Select Committee Inquiry into Australia’s Clean Energy Future

      • The BCA calls on the parliament to design workable policies that will contribute to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that does not jeopardise Australia’s competitive advantages before our trade competitors put a comparable price on their greenhouse gas emissions.
      • The BCA believes that the clean energy future package (CEFP) as currently designed presents considerable risks to Australia’s long term.
      • The CEFP is predicated on a number of optimistic and untested assumptions in the Treasury modelling that may not occur. There is, moreover, no modelling of alternative outcomes. This means that we have no appreciation of fall back options should the assumptions not eventuate.
      • The package is not technologically neutral. The package includes constraints on the technologies that can be invested in under the clean energy funds, i.e. carbon capture and storage has been excluded and under the pricing mechanism, international permits resulting from nuclear energy projects will not be accepted. It must be accepted that the task is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and not pick technology winners and losers.

      Carbon tax could be disaster for industry: Rio

      Mining giant Rio Tinto has warned the carbon tax is “potentially disastrous” for industry unless a far more generous compensation package is offered than under Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

      Well the body corporates didn’t seem to have much luck getting what they wanted.
      How do you think the more corporeal bodies fared?

      Poll: 60% oppose the carbon [dioxide] tax

      AUSTRALIANS have given the carbon tax the thumbs down, with 68 per cent saying it will leave them worse off and 63 per cent calling for Julia Gillard to bring on an early election.

      The exclusive Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun – the first major survey since the release of the carbon tax package on Sunday – also found 60 per cent of voters opposed the tax, 29 per cent were in favour and 11 per cent undecided.
      ….
      Only 10 per cent of voters said they would be better off and only 28 per cent believe Ms Gillard has a mandate to introduce the tax without holding another election.

      The poll reveals 62 per cent of people think the Greens, who negotiated the package with Labor and the independents, have too much influence over the Government, while 30 per cent say the Greens are working effectively.

      Most Australians (62%) Say Carbon Tax Will Have No Impact on Global Carbon Emissions & 75% Don’t Want Carbon Price to Go Higher

      A special telephone Morgan Poll conducted over two nights (July 13/14, 2011) last week found only 37% of Australians support the Gillard Government’s proposed Carbon Tax compared to a clear majority (58%) that are opposed. …
      * A majority of Australians (62%) agree that ‘The Carbon Tax will have no significant impact on reducing the total world-wide volume of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere’ (34% disagree).
      * An overwhelming majority of Australians (75%) disagree that ‘The $23 a tonne carbon price should be higher’ while only 15% agree that it should be higher.
      * Slightly more Australians (52%) agree ‘We should not have Carbon Tax until China and the USA have a similar tax’. While 47% disagree.

      Key union puts Julia Gillard on notice over carbon tax

      Australia’s biggest manufacturing union has called on the government to urgently release details of its protection for industry and householders under a carbon tax, in the face of a growing workers’ revolt on the workshop floor, where union officials are being challenged and jeered for supporting Julia Gillard’s plan.

      Unions join industry in carbon war

      THE nation’s most powerful union leader has demanded Julia Gillard exempt steel production from the carbon tax, with workers and bosses uniting for the first time to warn of job losses and the potential collapse of the industry.

      And more unions have locked in behind Australian Workers Union leader Paul Howes to insist the Prime Minister protect members’ jobs as she attempts to engineer one of the biggest economic transformations in the nation’s history.

      BlueScope Steel chief executive Paul O’Malley said: “BlueScope and the AWU now both agree that a carbon tax would do irreparable damage to the Australian steel industry.

      OneSteel chief executive Geoff Plummer also declared there would be “no global environmental benefit” to impose a carbon tax on Australian steel when a similar tax was not imposed on direct overseas competitors. “We understand the point that Mr Howes is making is that to tax Australian industry is also to tax Australian jobs,” he said.

      But a picture, as they say, is worth 1000 words.

      Well with no mandate to legislate and even the Unions being unwilling to pay the cost of infinitesimal warming abatement, it seems the democratic thing to do would be at least to “go slow” on the issue and at most to cancel the whole carbon tax altogether.

      And yet, here we all are, bourgeoisie and proletariat alike, with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, and paying 60% more than Europe for it with no global agreement to do the same.

      Well I must say this line of inquiry has turned out MOST unexpectedly!
      Turns out big business didn’t want a carbon tax and big business were powerless to stop the tax.
      The public didn’t want the tax, and the public were powerless to stop the tax too!
      In fact, it was actually the corporate authority and democracy that were largely powerless against the tyrannical LABOR GOVERNMENT.
      What a frightful result! I am so glad we had this little chat. Please make more inquiries in the future.

      91

    • #
      Ace

      Go on then, tell us what these dire consequences are that…”…we are about to find out…”

      You’ve said it now. Its “about” to happen. So what is it thats “about” to happen. Is it “about” to happen tomorrow, next week, next year, next century…to whom? Who are “we” who are “about to find out”. “We” by definition means those of us sat here now, alive and for the most part not much longer to live. So whjat IS it that “we” should sacrifice our jobs for that would affect us, us here who you refer to as “we” that would be worse than penury? What is it, are we going to be savaged by boogie monsters shafting us with corn-cobs?

      No really, tell us.

      Pillock.

      21

    • #
      cohenite

      That’s alright, don’t worry inquirer, be happy, you can live on light.

      21

    • #
      Eddie sharpe

      Modellers (and their models) work in air-conditioned offices. That can make it so much harder to remain in touch with reality and together with the lifestyle & livlihood dependencies of a government funded monopsony makes it take so much longer to notice & respond to marked changes in the natural trends. 17 years – for any sake.

      01

      • #
        Carbon500

        I recall reading a comment by a Russian scientist working within the Arctic circle. His view was that man-made global warming was something created by people who worked in offices,and that those people should get out more.

        01

  • #

    There is something else here. The jobs lost are often in manufacturing. That means jobs going to China in the modern world. Somebody could check this, but I believe Chinese electricity typically has higher CO2 emissions than British. Chinese electricity is increasingly coal-based, British, gas followed by coal, then nuclear. So the jobs lost in Britain may reduce Britain’s CO2 emissions, but increase global emissions. Of course, the larger issue is the impact on economic growth in Britain, so job destruction in Britain may reduce emissions. :(

    260

    • #
      Eric Simpson

      Right, most damaging to an economy is that green energy raises the cost of energy, but a lot of people might say “I know, but to save the world, I’ll pay a few more cents on my utility bill.” But it’s not a few cents, as in Germany and elsewhere we are seeing huge impacts on electric bills. And actually it’s business and industry that is hurt the most by the high energy prices, and that will seriously damage a country’s economy, especially as industry flees to, or has a large competitive advantage, in countries with lower energy costs.
      But, so what, it’s all the save the world.
      Well, even if you believed the AGW nonsense, it’s not sustainable to throw money down the toilet like that. Look what’s happening in Europe. But another huge point. At least with wind, it’s argued that it won’t even cut CO2. See page 28 of following GWPF report: Why is Wind Power So Expensive? http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf
      So what’s the point of it? There isn’t any.

      171

    • #
      Dennis

      There has been a code of silence as manufacturing industry and even food processing industry leaves Australia. The death warrant was signed by Whitlam Labor in the 1970s, UN Lima Protocol that provided a plan to transfer jobs to third world countries to assist them to achieve a better standard of living. The Fraser Coalition did nothing to change it, not surprising as Malcolm Fraser was not willing to rock the boat despite what his cabinet wanted to do. Hawke and Keating Labor increased the pace of change that included elimination of tariffs for all but the selected for protection industries such as motor vehicle manufacturing, good AWU stronghold. Where the lost jobs will be as mining boom conditions slow is hard to guess. But another nail in the UN based new world order coffin for sovereign nations in the developed world has been struck.

      40

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The whole concept of “creating jobs” is a farce.

    It is part of the beer and circuses that governments seem to think are needed to keep populations compliant.

    For sure, the initiative will shuffle the pieces on the board, but will create nothing of value, and will only incur opportunity costs.

    These costs will manifest themselves in the establishment of whole government departments, with positions requiring new job descriptions, that will be staffed by people who were … previously unemployed? … or gainfully employed doing useful stuff? … or critically employed providing essential services?

    The idiocy of “job creation” assumes that there is an infinite pool of highly educated, capable, and motivated people, just waiting to be asked. Well, there ain’t. All the highly educated, capable, and motivated people who find themselves “available”, disappear overseas, for better salaries and richer life experiences.

    One of the few places where job creation actually works, is in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, where you don’t eat if you don’t produce your daily quota of proscribed output, and you can’t leave without risk of getting a leg blown off.

    /rant

    171

    • #
      MudCrab

      If you want proof that ‘Green Jobs’ is a complete myth there are a few easy steps you can take to see for yourself.
      1 – Have your own industry destroyed and get made redunant.
      (actually, skip that bit, it is a lot less fun then it sounds…)
      2 – Log on the the Governments own job seeker webpage.
      3 – Find the section that lists available jobs sub divided into their own catagories for ease of user interaction
      4 – Note the big fat zero in the section listed as ‘Green Corps’

      They don’t exist boys and girls.

      31

    • #
      Dennis

      The Australian has a never fails job creation record system, once created never is lost, the number keeps growing and growing. And they even count existing jobs contracted to do new work as new jobs.

      10

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    well, when you realize that , for a green brain , the only way to save the planet is to become poorer (or even die or at least not to make babies) then you can undestand it is not illogical.
    but once you notice that only your country do that , even a green brain realizes country has become poorer but has not save the panet…

    131

  • #
    Steve Brown

    “More green jobs, fewer real ones”?
    I’m on the receiving end of the wind scam. I exist (no-one lives) in England. I’m 65 years old. I have been on a fixed income (my own pension) since last year. My wife and I could not afford to heat our home for most of January, all of February, March and a large proportion of May this year, it was that damned cold. Our central heating is by gas, but even that uses electrickery. I simply cannot afford the electric bills any longer. And I thought that my retirement was going to be reasonably comfortable. Now the price of gas is set to rise beyond levels of affordability.
    Ha! I would not urinate on a “Green” if he or she was on fire. I’d warm my hands instead.

    533

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      I would try and urinate petrol, it’s probably cheaper by the BTU.. ;)

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      Our former treasurer Peter Costello met a former German minister for foreign affairs while visiting Germany last year, the man was also a Green. Peter reported that when he mention the Australian Greens the German distanced international Greens from the Australian Greens and described ours as being way out to the left from the Green movement. In other words the Australian extreme Green Party are a bunch of communists and socialists who use environment as a disguise to hide their crazy policies.

      91

      • #
        AndyG55

        Greens = Clayton’s environmentalists..

        the environmentalist you pretend to be when you aren’t one !!

        22

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Oh I get it now, the reasoning for green jobs is so simple it’s perfect.
    I’ve got to go soon, someone gave me a great deal on a bridge that I can’t miss.
    If anyone wants good sound financial advice I’ll get you in touch with Mr Ponzi.

    130

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Ob I get it. Green jobs is now just a byword for lost jobs, in the new Orwellian Eutopia.

    161

  • #
    ColdinOz

    TheInquirer says: “And if, like Jo Nova, you pretend the effects of AGW on our economies, production and other costs are non-existent, small wonder you can appeal to your Group Thinkers with one-sided naive analyses such as hers and the studies done by the usual Think Tanks”

    All based on the conclusions of models that bear little if any relationship to reality.

    270

    • #
      Dennis

      Remember when the UK Blair Labour government discarded a report from their chief scientist and asked their economist to accept the climate change data and create an economic model based on that false and misleading data?

      30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    at first glance, i thought this headline said “ridiculous”:

    18 June: SMH: Reuters: Climate change gets religious
    Few religious communities have gone as far in fighting climate change as a church in Queenslandwhich has 24 solar panels bolted to the roof in the shape of a Christian cross.
    “It’s very effective. It’s inspired some members of our congregation to install panels on their homes,” Reverend David Lowry said of the “solar cross” mounted in 2009 on the Caloundra Uniting Church, which groups three Protestant denominations…
    (Pope) Francis’s stress on environmental protection since he was elected in March and his choice of the name of a 13th century nature lover – Saint Francis of Assisi – may make a difference for all religions trying to work out how to safeguard the planet from threats including climate change.
    Under his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican took green steps such as installing solar panels on the roof of the Papal Audience Hall in 2008. It says it wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but has no formal target.
    ***”Religious environmentalism is slowly increasing,” said John Grim, a coordinator of the forum on religion and ecology at Yale University in the United States. “It’s very uneven. Religions tend to be very conservative in their practice and doctrine.”…
    Saint Francis has long been a green inspiration…
    In the United States, many evangelical Christians stress a broad need for “stewardship of creation”, rather than man-made climate change, as a spur to action.
    Many evangelical Christians are Republicans who are more likely than Democrats to doubt that climate change is mostly caused by human activity, such as burning fossil fuels.
    “Americans allow their politics to inform their faith,” said Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian and climate scientist at Texas Tech University…
    Raising awareness of the environment could be a step to modernize the Church, besieged by scandal for covering up sexual abuse of children by priests and whose strict moral traditions are often at odds with a increasingly secular society.
    “With Pope Francis there is new hope,” said Reverend Henrik Grape of the Church of Sweden, who is also a member of the World Council of Churches’ climate change group.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-gets-religious-20130618-2of1c.html

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Looks a lot like Sun worshipping to me … just sayin’

      40

    • #
      Angry

      Pat,
      This is an example of how these COMMUNIST green(RED) ECO TERRORISTS have infiltrated religious organizations in order to try and subvert them from the inside.

      It is bloody sickening and despicable !

      They need to be rooted out and “dealt with” ASAP !!!

      11

  • #

    Is “green jobs” defined somewhere in the references?

    34

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      In the USA “green jobs” have been defined by “greens” to support the “green” agenda. This is not really worth looking up except if you are a fan of farce. For example, if one uses “bio-diesel” – that could be used peanut oil from a ‘french’-fry vendor – in a city bus, then the job of bus driver can be classified as a “green job.”
      The following doesn’t go to an official government report with a list, but is of interest:
      http://ehsjobs.org/greenjobs-transportation.htm

      And they wonder why we don’t trust them!

      50

      • #

        sure but this post is not written by them or to them and cites actual numbers which are presumably derived from a calculation using a definition of a “green job”. What is it?

        210

    • #
      Eddy Aruda

      Gee,

      I realize how difficult it is to google so I saved you the effort.

      http://www.bls.gov/green/

      A. Jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.
      B. Jobs in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.

      I think the above link was the first or second one. All I had to do was type in definition of a green job and presto magico!

      Yeah, you’re welcome!

      80

      • #
        MemoryVault

        All I had to do was type in definition of a green job and presto magico!

        Now you’ve bloody done it, Eddie.
        For as long as Gee didn’t know how to Google, we had it all over him.

        90

      • #

        Eddy… maybe you didn’t read too many of the other links that vary considerably in definition and therefore would make the cited figures completely different. Can you show me the link between your definition and the numbers above?

        212

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Duh

          30

        • #
          Dave

          Gee Aye

          They don’t vary in definition
          The first study was by ReneableUK and the second was by Vesrco.

          Number 1. RenewableUk is a not for profit organisation and obtained it’s figures (data) from government or the energy regulator Ofgem that in turn uses the definition of GREEN JOBS:
          The United Nations Environment Programme’s current definition of ‘green jobs’ is:

          “…work in agriculture, industry, services and administration that
          contributes to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment
          while also meeting requirements of decent work – adequate wages, safe
          conditions, workers rights, social dialogue and social protection.”
          (UNEP, ILO, IOE, ITUC 2008).

          Number 2. Was Versco Economics but now 4-Consulting, a privately owned consultancy business that obtained its data: from – Guess? Ofgem again. Who in turn uses the UNEP definition above of GREEN JOBS.

          Ofgem itself is the UK’s Office of Gas and Electricity Markets and the guildelines used are from the UK’s Government Green Book guidance, which in turn is under the guidelines of the EU and UN definitions.

          There’s more Gee Aye, but you can search for the rest yourself.

          LINK? Is that enough?

          50

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          Can you show me the link between your definition and the numbers above?

          Well, Gee whiz, although I could show you how you are now aware of the wonderful world of google so it is time for you to leave the nest, fly onto google and garner the satisfaction that comes with being self reliant and doing it yourself!

          Go get ‘em tiger, I have all the confidence in the world in you! ;-)

          61

          • #
            Backslider

            I began a new career (programming/application development) just with a computer, internet connection and Google…. now Google itself uses my work.

            20

  • #
    Joe V.

    Examples of Green Jobs?
    - a bird collector
    - a tax collector
    - dole cheque collector

    70

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Joe,

      You forgot to mention the Liberal Party’s $400 million, 15,000-strong “Green Army”.

      21

      • #
        Dennis

        Isn’t that a plan to tackle the serious problem of weeds and non native plants that are strangling native vegetation all around Australia. And to create jobs for people who claim that they cannot find work.

        40

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Isn’t that a plan to tackle the serious problem of weeds and non native plants that are strangling native vegetation all around Australia.

          It’s quite possible that Abbott, Hunt, and the other eco-loons in the Liberal Party think that’s what they are going to do. As one previously involved in the administration of Work for the Dole schemes in the 1980′s, let me translate directly from the Liberal Party’s written “Environment Policy” and tell you exactly what will happen in reality.

          The Coalition will provide $400 million over the forward estimates to establish the Green
          Army that was announced by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, earlier in 2010.

          TRANSLATION: A Liberal government will waste yet another $400 million on useless “green” schemes that accomplish nothing, at best, and in all probability, cause a lot of damage via “unintended consequences.

          The Green Army will be available on an ongoing basis (over and above the existing efforts of councils and national parks) and supplemented by volunteers to tackle the local and regional environmental priorities that most urgently need willing hands to do the job.

          TRANSLATION: Two-thirds of existing council field workers will lose their permanent jobs, just like last time.

          This standing environmental workforce will grow to be 15,000 strong. It will comprise short – term trainees, plus regular workers and supervisors.

          In particular, local Climate Action Groups will be encouraged to put forward proposals for
          direct action to reduce local emissions.

          TRANSLATION: This scheme will become a cash-cow and recruitment dream for Greenpeace and other radical environmental groups. They will be the “local climate action groups”, and they will supply the “regular workers and supervisors”, who will be nothing more than Focus Group Leaders being paid to indoctrinate the “trainees” (young people on “work for the dole” schemes) in the joys of joining Getup, and voting for the Greens.

          .
          Liberal Party CURRENT, written Environment Policy.

          41

          • #
            Dennis

            So weed reduction is not a valid scheme?

            10

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Dennis,

              No politically motivated “scheme” is a “valid” scheme.

              If there are areas that genuinely need rejuvenation then the Commonwealth and/or the States can direct funds to local government to address the problem, by engaging extra full-time employees.

              I have no idea where you live, Dennis, but if you ever come to SE QLD get in touch. I’ll pick you up from the airport and we’ll head north up to the Sunshine Coast.

              .
              Along the way we’ll stop regularly, so you can enjoy the sights. I’ll take you to beaches where it was decided the future of the planet rested on “rejuvenating” the sand-hills, so they were fenced off and planted out. Boardwalks and pathways and steps were built.

              Millions of dollars were spent. Then the ocean decided to dump sand rather than reclaim it, and the rejuvenation projects, all the boardwalks, all the stainless steel railings, all the fencing, are under twenty feet of sand. The “beach” is now fifty yards further out to sea.

              .
              We’ll go to another well-known tourist beach, where, for a while, the ocean decided to drag sand away. Millions of dollars were spent building a sea-wall to prevent it. Then the ocean changed its mind, and decided to dump sand there instead. Now the local council spends millions of dollars a year dredging out sand, just so they can have a tourist beach.

              .
              Let us leave the coast and head up to the Sunshine Coast Hinterland. To the Charlie Moylan National Park. Here, at the entrance to the park, you will find what once were the most beautiful boardwalks through remnant rainforest that you will find anywhere in the world. They were built as “environmental projects” in the early 90′s.

              But no money was ever allocated for their upkeep. Twenty years on, and they are death-traps. No sensible person would step foot on them. But inner-city Brisbanites, on a day-trip to “nature”, hardly qualify as “sensible” people. Sooner or later, somebody will fall through, get seriously hurt, or worse, and the local council will get sued.

              Then the council will have to spend millions of dollars to dismantle them – no hope of “volunteer green armies” doing the job – demolition work requires specialist training and specialist licenses.

              .
              We’ll go home via Kenilworth. The Mary River flooded in the early 1990′s with great damage in the Kenilworth district. The wise men of the day decided it was because farmers had cleared too many trees from the river bank. Maybe even true.

              The official answer was to form a “work for the dole” type “volunteer army” to plant thousands of trees along the eroded river banks. And it was done. Hundreds of “volunteers” who wanted to ensure the continuance of their dole cheques arrive by bus, and planted tens of thousands of trees along the Mary River around Kenilworth.

              Then they left. In their government-supplied buses. A small group of local volunteers worked hard with buckets and bush-fire brigade tanker-trucks, over the next three years, to try and keep the seedlings watered, but most of the trees died. The next flood took out all the few survivors.

              .
              And apparently, Dennis, you see some merit in repeating this madness.

              30

    • #
      Manfred

      The airline pilots who fly the jet that transports Green activists to international conferences.

      50

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    The only good thing to come out of the collapse of the Spanish economy is that I no longer have to listen to the Bloviater in Chief citing Spain as an example for the US to follow.

    The EU and the US both have huge deficits and yet they can keep printing money to waste on programs which are counterproductive. Imagine if they had spent the money repairing the infrastructure (e.g. bridges, roads, dams, dikes, etc.?) At least we would have something to show for it!

    Never underestimate a politicians ability and resolve to squander taxpayers money in order to appease their donors, pander to their base and ensure their political survival.

    130

  • #

    So then, just where do these huge subsidies go?

    Are they used to line the pockets of those who propose these renewable plants?

    Well, no, not directly, but in the long run.

    Let’s do a scenario, based on virtually every renewable power plant proposal.(and here I’ll use the most common, a Wind Plant)

    Here you need to realise that ALL the costs for the plant are recovered from the sale of the electricity to the grid for consumption by, well, consumers of power from the grid, in those three sectors, Residential, Commerce and Industrial. Those costs are the up front Capital cost for the construction, (all of it associated with that) maintenance, wages, upkeep, and of course the profit margin, and everything associated with the Plant. That electricity is then sold to the grid, and the retailers then add on their extras, including their profit margin as well, so that’s why there is a large disconnect between the wholesale price and the retail price.

    So then let’s have a wind plant around 500MW, around 250 towers. The most recent one proposed, that for King Island comes in at around $2 Billion. That cost has to be recovered from the sale of electricity, calculated over the (hoped for) 25 year life of the Plant.

    However, as is the case with every renewable plant, Governments, both Federal (the larger amount) and States will chuck in up to half that cost, so now all the plant has to recover for the sale of their electricity is only $1 Billion, making it now obvious how the cost of the electricity generated seems cheaper, now the cost has been, umm, manipulated.

    Now, on top of that, in that stage when the plant is, umm, negotiating with Government, a further subsidy is now worked out. The government will subsidise that wholesale cost of electricity by giving the wind plant operators a set amount per MWH for the electricity that they generate. So now, the wholesale cost of electricity has come down again, further making it seem cheaper to generate. As part of negotiations, it is further mandated that the retailers MUST purchase ALL the power generated from the wind plant, no matter when it is generated, so, as is often the case, anything up to half and more of that power is generated while we all sleep, when consumption is at its lowest, and the plants that run all the time cover all that consumption, so, given the chance, retailers would (naturally) purchase only the cheapest power for that period, and no be locked into having to purchase the expensive wind power, which is more often than not, not even being consumed, because the load is already being covered by those 24/7/365 plants with their infinitely cheaper electricity.

    This adds to the retail price, but does not make wind cheap, and in fact seemingly gives the opposite impression, adding to the out of hours electricity wholesale cost by bumping up the average cost for those hours, making coal fired power seem to be more expensive.

    The third subsidy is that now this is a renewable plant, they now receive renewable energy certificates for the power they generate, and these certificates can then be on sold to CO2 emitting plants to cover their CO2 emissions debt.

    So, now we have three relatively large subsidies.

    All are put towards that wholesale cost for electricity, lowering it significantly, and allowing now for any slight increase adding to the overall profit margin going back to the operators, if you can see that point, because even just a couple of dollars extra amounts to a huge amount, and THAT is what goes into the pockets of the operators.

    However, this is not free money for these people. Someone has to pay. The governments (both of them) get their money back by now setting their part of the return from the retailers, thus adding to the cost of every consumer’s power bill.

    This added extra comes in at around 14 to 16% of your total electricity bill, not just for you in the residential sector, but for the huge consumers, those in the Commerce and Industrial sectors.

    So, while 14 to 16% (some people) may see as reasonable, here’s the rub.

    That 14 to 16% extra on your power bill is for only 2 to 2.5% of the power actually being provided for sale.

    So, while wind power seems cheap and coal fired and even gas fired power now seems more expensive, at each stage those costs have been artificially manipulated.

    Either way, it’s not cheap, because all those original costs are being paid for, by you and me and everyone who consumes electricity, and commerce and industry overheads (their electricity bills) are all passed down to consumers anyway.

    WE pay. WE pay. WE pay.

    Now, while all these wind plant protests concentrate on bird and bat chopping, health problems, loss of visual aspect etc, and while these problems have their own significance, by far the biggest thing we should be concentrating on is CAPACITY FACTOR, and the total inability of Wind Plants to deliver their power at better than 30to 35%, and at intermittent times instead of for times when power is being consumed the most. Wind supporters and their lobbyists can fight those first mentioned problems by quoting a lack of published evidence, and how any and all of these are (quoted off the cuff in a dismissive manner) anecdotal. What they have no answer to is a direct question about that failure to deliver, Capacity Factor, and intermittence. This was classically shown last night in an interview between Ticky Fullerton and Morton Albaek from the Vestas Company, touring Oz at the moment to drum up business. When asked about Baseload, one fleeting question, he totally ignored it, continued with the meme and mentioned the overall MIX of electricity supply.

    We pay an absolute Motza for wind power in ways we don’t even realise, and yet, at every step, we are told it is cheap, and in fact getting cheaper.

    If all these subsidies were totally removed, watch how proposals for wind plants would disappear, and disappear ….. IMMEDIATELY.

    This is an absolute con job, and no one even mentions it.

    See how they are winning.

    Tony.

    POST SCRIPT: Look, I know this has been a huge comment, and I apologise to Joanne, and the Moderators for the length, but a simple subsidies are waste comment just doesn’t cut it here without an explanation.

    251

    • #
      ianl8888


      When asked about Baseload, one fleeting question, he totally ignored it

      We’ve been here many times, Tony

      The issue outlined in the quote above – the absolute, obdurate refusal of the MSM to address base load supply – has discombulated me, I will admit. Say, 2-3 years ago, I did not believe then that the enormously hurtful increase in the cost of power that we’ve seen could have been side-stepped so easily … but a lie about “gold plating” combined with the cynicism of the MSM in support of “their” agenda has made that position almost pointless

      There’s no way out. I’d hoped the LaTrobe Valley power stations would provide the flashpoint but these have just been quietly given more “free” carbon credits. Slick, cynical marketing appeals to the lowest common denominator – and it seems this actually has the numbers

      50

      • #

        Just wonderin’ here

        I’d hoped the LaTrobe Valley power stations would provide the flashpoint, but these have just been quietly given more “free” carbon credits.

        Hmm!

        What might the election result be in Victoria if Hazelwood, (25% of Victoria’s electrical power) shut down because of financial stress induced by the CO2 Tax.

        Tony.

        30

        • #
          ianl8888

          Yes

          6-12 months ago, there was evidence suggesting this may happen. So, the additional carbon credits were supplied to avoid this … slick and cynical marketing, ruthlessly promoted by an even more cynical MSM to the lowest common denominator of the populace

          Murdoch once commented that there is no requirement for the “meeja” to educate the populace. Well – it doesn’t, although it pretends to

          20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        hehehee, “discombulated”, that’s top marks for effort on your homework, but were you studying English Vocabulary or Recent U.S. Presidents? ;)
        Mr Whakaaro may still put you in detention, he’s a strict teacher! :D

        10

        • #
          ianl8888

          I easily admit to the occasional silly typo :)

          But shallow,irrelevant sarcasm, such as in your reply, is beyond me. I just cannot do it; it takes an especially low IQ

          11

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Your reaction is unpredictable and very surprising.
            I used your typo to make a joke about George W. Bush.
            You could have run with it, but you took it personally.
            And you don’t understand the meaning of the smiley character; it indicates humourous intent not the nastiness you’ve just exhibited.
            Therefore you have no sense of humour.
            Since I indicated humour was intended, you’ve actually decided to make yourself a victim here. The victim mentality didn’t even help you. All it does is screw the pooch.

            There was literally nothing else I could have done to indicate I was joking and not attacking. It’s this default avatar icon for my email, I reckon. It looks angry and people can’t ignore it.

            10

            • #
              crakar24

              The best one was when he said “The French have no word for Entrepreneur”

              Oh how i laughed when i heard that one

              10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Harsh, maybe, strict, never.

          10

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    In my comment at #13.1 about green jobs, I wrote “This is not really worth looking up except if you are a fan of farce.”

    There is not a single definition of “green jobs.” Each agency, country, organization, and nut case can and does make stuff up. Comparing what some report in the UK says with something in Spain, Italy, Germany, or some flea bitten county on either of the USA’s left coasts is as useful as underpants on an Elephant. There is no there there. Try to go there if you like but it is farce.

    20

  • #
    MudCrab

    The real tragedy that most well meaning green types don’t understand is that being environmentally friendly is a rich person exercise.

    When you are paying your bills and are living in a degree of comfort, an endangered species is a good weekend trip away to the old growth forests.

    When you are dirt poor an endangered species is tonight’s dinner and old growth forest is the fuel you need to keep from freezing at night.

    You hand someone in the third world a hard copy of the climate report and they burn it for their cooking fire.

    130

  • #
    Dave

    The use of the term GREEN JOBS is on par with SUSTAINABILITY. This ALP government seems to use sustainability constantly. They have no idea.

    USE of the Term SUSTAINABILITY by Federal Parliament 1979 – 2013.

    “Future”, “getting on with the job”, “smarter”, “competitive”, “proud”, “growth”, “infrastructure” etc etc etc are all getting used without understanding, but just to be GREEN and trendy.

    When a GREEN job is allocated to a the driver of a LPG powered bus, then we have lost the plot.

    70

    • #

      So if the term is meaningless waffle, what does that make the numbers cited above?

      28

      • #
        Dave

        .

        Where did I say it was meaningless waffle?

        The numbers above are linked to the sources given in Jo’s article as I explained earlier to you, including the links between the definitions and the data sources in two examples?

        Which in turn has nothing to do with my comment (my opinion – not data), and nothing to do with the data source nor the definition of GREEN Jobs above.

        Are you feeling OK, Gee Aye?

        50

  • #
    Dennis

    I thought this would be of interest, the new global cooling explanation:

    http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate2.htm

    Does global cooling cause heat-waves?

    Could it be that global cooling causes heat-waves? Surely not! Yet it does! So let’s investigate this further, but first a number of principles that we’ve explained before:

    The usual temperature, climate and weather for any place on Earth, in any month of the year, is mainly dominated by the amount of sunshine and the amount of moisture. Latitude and season determine the amount of sunshine and thus warmth, whereas moisture has a moderating effect. Heat-waves are unusual spells of unusually warm days.

    All moisture comes from the sea. It is transported through the air onto the land and some returns through rivers to the sea. Thus places near the sea receive more moisture than places far inland, reason why all continents have deserts in their centres.

    Global temperature is dominated by the oceans because they have a much larger heat capacity than the land. Thus global temperature is best measured at sea.

    When the planet cools, seas are colder than usual. Thus there is less evaporation and less moisture for the land. But it becomes worse, because winds tend to go from warmer to colder places. So on average, there is less sea wind and more land wind than usual. Thus more moisture than usual from the land, ends up in the sea. Conversely less moisture from the sea ends up on land.. The result is that the land becomes drier, sooner than usual, which gives rise to heat-waves. Nights, however, remain colder than usual. Thus the weather and climate become more desert-like.
    Important points:

    climate often works contrary to intuition.

    measuring land temperatures is not a good way of measuring global temperature.

    a cool(ing) sea makes heat-waves, droughts and bushfires more likely.

    wherever cold seas flow past continents, they cause desert climates (California, Chile, Galapagos, etc.)

    global cooling has an immediate effect on the land, and affects oceans much later due to their heat capacity.

    global cooling makes heat-waves and droughts more likely, as well as bush fires.

    global cooling diminishes agricultural production.

    40

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Global cooling NOW = MIA approaching, climate extremes, weather extremes all natural, caused by the SUN.
      measuring land temperatures is not a good way of measuring global temperature ..Yes and theres no mean GT either, its meaningless.

      00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    In the good old days, the idea was to increase productivity, ie to produce as much af anything as possible with as few anumber of people as possible. Nowadays it seems the reverse is true, ie let’s employ lots of people and produce very little electricity, be it wind or solar. No wonder western economies are going down the pan.

    70

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Dead right Phillip and if you’re a car maker in Australia you don’t even need to sell cars because you get lots of the “green” stuff from the Gubmint :)

      00

  • #
  • #
    janama

    Unfortunately only 100 turned up to the anti-wind rally in Canberra, addressed by Alan Jones whereas 1000 turned up to the pro-wind rally organised by Getup and WWF addressed by Christine Milne.

    20

    • #
      Angry

      The difference being that the attendees at the Alan Jones rally would have paid out of their own money to get to Canberra and on their own time.

      Unlike the pro “bird muncher”/”anti human” crowd who would have been PAID and employed to attend and spread BULLSHIT……

      It takes a good deal of effort to get to Canberra in terms of time and money.

      However, the majority of Australians are against these destructive and health destroying monstrosities which produce miniscule unreliable electricity at enormous cost.

      Here is a pertinent article re “wind farms”………

      31

    • #
      manalive

      Canberra might not be the best place to hold an anti-wind rally.
      The Yes2Renewables rally was held in Garema Place at noon, just a stone’s throw from the Department of Climate Change etc. at 10 Binara Street where at least 995 employees (Wiki as of June 2011) would be looking for something to do instead of staring out the windows.

      60

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Canberra might not be the best place to hold an anti-wind rally”

        because its full of hot air and ALP/Green flatulence ?????

        31

  • #
    MadJak

    I always thought Green Jobs was just another word for Command Economy Dependancy. You see Green refers to the communist party. Under communism, everyones Job has to be dependant on the command economy for it to work. So Green Jobs = Command Economy Dependancy.

    Why are people surprised?

    Are people just slow?

    40

  • #
    Alan D McIntire

    Sure, more green jobs can mean more jobs. Whenever the subject comes up, I state that we can replace current mechanical CO2 producing equipment with plenty of manual labor picking cotton- all singing “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny”, and ” Massa’s In De Cold Cold Ground” under the supervision of an overseer with a motivational whip. More green jobs would definitely take us back to the “good old days” of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

    30

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    It is far worse and more complex than just the “green” movement steering jobs to subsidized bad technology.
    Greed and corruption makes the western world job market too expensive to hire workers due to the high cost of labour. Much of the current manufacturing is through high speed machinery which has replace the worker. In other countries jobs are at 25 cents an hour for the workers.
    Another problem is the vast amount of laws, programs and forced environmental assessments that are in place that discourages manufacturing from even considering these places.
    “Free-market” is hardly in place.
    Let’s see the west allow China to manufacture vehicles and see how the rest of the economy collapses.
    Hmmm….A $3,000 car or a $15,000 car…hmmm

    10

  • #

    [...] jobs promise is just another fairy tale. Yesterday Joanne Nova wrote a sobering blog post titled: The data is in: more Green jobs mean less real ones. She cites evidence from Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Denmark. None of it is [...]

    00

  • #
    Carbon500

    Is anyone else out there heartily sick of the word “mitigate” when used in conjunction with the AGW story?

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Me!

      It is a defeatist word. For punctuation it should be said with a shrug and, for best effect, a shuffling of the feet, and downcast eyes.

      But I am really sick of it, because it is the wrong word. It is a propaganda word.

      To mitigate something, firstly you need something to mitigate, and secondly you have to admit that all of your best efforts to avoid the consequences have not worked.

      However, neither of those are true! But the use of the word, “mitigation”, infers that they are.

      The word has become a call to arms, to address the symptoms, of an imaginary non-problem.

      Climate change has never been about Science (other than using dubious science as justification), but it has been, and still is, about messing about in people’s heads, in order to justify stealing their money.

      40

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I’m sick of all the words and other terms used:

    carbon footprint
    decarbonise
    sequestration
    clean energy
    wind farms
    solar systems
    carbon pollution
    tipping point
    Gore
    Hansen
    Mann
    Greens

    and so on ad nauseum…

    30

  • #
    handjive

    O/T.(in a round-a-bout way)…

    A quick interaction with Michael Tobis, editor-in-chief of Planet3.0 and site cofounder, holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin – Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences where he developed a 3-D ocean model on a custom computing platform.
    .
    Post: Member of Soon-To-Be-Axed Australian Commission Calls Climate Debate “Infantile”

    I have copy/paste the short comments as he has threatened to delete:

    handjive says:
    June 18, 2013 at 3:26 pm
    It’s Official: Weather IS NOW Climate-

    Quote:

    “The IPCC report that linked extreme weather events to climate change in 2012 was a breakthrough as previously scientists were loathed to link the two.”

    After repeated failures to make a correct projections, the UN-IPCC catastropharians are moving goalposts.
    reduced to pointing at local weather as proof of GLOBAL warming.

    Reply
    Michael Tobis says:
    June 18, 2013 at 3:30 pm
    Cool. The commenting system still works in the new design, at least on really thick-headed comments.

    Reply
    handjive says:
    June 18, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    Good comeback, Mr Tobis.

    Calling people names instead of debating what Steffen said.

    Guess your comment passes as “constructive” as per comment policy.

    Good luck with that.

    Michael Tobis says:
    June 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm
    Fair enough. I should delete all of it since you hardly started on a constructive note. But I’m actually happy the comment system is working smoothly, though I wish we’d had a more constructive commenter to start with.

    With regard to your point, let me explain it to you in the sports terms that you seem to prefer.

    This is not moving the goal posts. This is raising the bar.

    handjive says:
    (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
    June 18, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    Questioning “a breakthrough’ in climate science, and you dismiss this is NOT constructive?

    Thick-headed even?

    It is a complete contradiction of what the UN-IPCC originally said.

    No sir, this is not an “example of raising the bar.”

    It certainly is not science if it can’t be questioned.
    .
    If ever there was an example of “infantile climate debate”, Mr Tobis is a prime example of it.

    10

  • #
    pat

    these are only Qld reports for this month:

    18 June: Bundaberg News: Thieves steal seven solar panels from home’s roof
    Bundaberg Police Detective Senior Sergeant Joe Hildred said the panels were stolen from semi-rural home on Kingfisher Cres between 8am June 6 and 8am June 17.
    “Inquiries with Ergon identified the power to the panels was shut off on June 14, between 8.30am-8.40am,” he said…
    http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/thieves-steal-seven-solar-panels-homes-roof/1911603/

    11 June: Toowoomba Chronicle: Solar panel theft leaves farmer $10,000 out of pocket
    LOSING nearly $10,000 in solar panels has taken the shine off Wyreema lettuce farmer Paul Finlayson’s plans to cash in on the sun’s rays.
    Mr Finlayson is trying to combat the bold thief who took 20 panels in two separate raids on his Toowoomba-Karara Rd property.
    He said 12 panels were stolen overnight on Tuesday last week with the thief returning last Thursday night to take a further eight.
    The steel frame to which they were bolted was all that remained…
    http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/Solar-panel-theft-farmer-out-of-pocket/1901390/

    7 June: Toowoomba Chronicle: Thieves get away with $30,000 worth of solar panels
    A police spokesman said that overnight on Thursday, 12 solar panels were stolen from a freestanding solar system on a private property near Wyreema.
    The thieves got away with about 20sq m of panels, valued at about $30,000…
    The theft follows everal other robberies of solar panels in Toowoomba.
    Thieves have targeted two Kearney Springs businesses in the past few months.
    http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/thieves-get-away-30000-worth-solar-panels/1899344/

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is very hard for me to read this, and keep a straight face … boy.

      30

      • #
        crakar24

        Why is that? Is it because you dont get much sun in the land of the long white cloud?

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Nothing to do with the sun.

          But given the location, my bet would be that the solar-array was worth considerably more than the building it was mounted on. And I also get the impression that the location is unattended for longish periods of time?

          And the newspaper reporter seemed surprised – hello?

          20

  • #
    pat

    and it’s not a local phenomenon:

    4 June: SustainableBusiness: Growing Black Market for Solar Panels
    We were surprised to learn that there’s a growing black market for solar panels – people are stealing them from solar farms and re-selling them.
    That’s because they are easy to steal and hard to track. In fact, a German utility, Stadtwerke Senftenberg GmbH, now marks its panels and inverters with artificial DNA so they can be traced. Some solar parks now have security patrols…
    Thieves have raided solar parks in Germany 14 times this year, taking tons of solar panels, says Bloomberg. They were tied down with “thief-proof” screws but that didn’t stop them. They also steal inverters…
    We did a search on this topic and found that solar panel theft was a big problem in 2008-2009 in the US, but haven’t seen reports since then. They were being stolen from peoples’ rooftops and from isolated solar arrays, such as in remote areas of wineries…
    “Our solar panels are ground-mounted at the far end of our vineyard. And in November, we are not regularly in the vineyard, so we didn’t even notice the theft until several weeks after it happened. The first time they took 200 of our 700 panels, and the second time, 44,” Brett de Leuze, president of ZD Wines, told the Wine Spectator.
    “It takes some know-how to remove solar panels without damaging them, but savvy thieves are learning fast. They’re even taking advantage of technological advancements, such as Google Earth, to pinpoint solar-clad properties, especially in remote areas where their actions are likely to go unseen. Stolen solar panels are winding up on eBay and Craigslist where unwitting customers quickly buy them up, making themselves complicit in the crime. Schools and churches, generally unoccupied at night, have been hit hard by this brand of theft theft, but no buildings are especially immune,” says Nick Gromicko of International Association of Certified Home Inspectors…
    Many insurance policies will cover solar theft, but as they grow, that could change. Suggestions for protecting solar array range from installing alarms and motion detectors to chaining them together and using sturdy locks or even a surveillance camera.
    http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24945

    20

    • #
      Ace

      Isnt it more likely that they are claiming subsidy to erect the panels then claiming insurance on them being ..er…”stolen”? I mean how many people want solar panels at any price other than on a subsidy? So who the hell are you going to sell stolen ones (not eligible for subsidy) to?

      01

      • #
        Ace

        …as for counter measures…assuming the owner actually wants to prevent them “dissapearing”…why not just squirt super glue in the fasteners during installation. Need an angle grinder to remove them and that wont exactly be stealthy. Ive watched a woman I work with dance with an angle grinder against her steel-clad $%^&#, it lights up a nighclub.

        01

      • #
        Backslider

        Isnt it more likely that they are claiming subsidy to erect the panels then claiming insurance on them being ..er…”stolen”?

        Nah mate… they’ll be somewhere like Lightning Ridge where people don’t have a lot of money and cannot get power….. they will never find them.

        10

  • #
    pat

    19 June: Australian: Holden blames carbon tax for cost cuts
    HOLDEN boss Mike Devereux says the carbon tax has placed an unwanted additional burden on the company as it struggles to keep its Australian operations going.
    A day after he asked workers to take a pay cut, Mr Devereux suggested the company wouldn’t be considering such action if the carbon tax had been axed.
    “There is no question that a tax on electricity, in making it more expensive in input costs, makes it more difficult for me to make money building cars,” he told ABC radio in Adelaide…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/holden-blames-carbon-tax-for-cost-cuts/story-fn59noo3-1226666112317

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      makes it more difficult for me to make money building cars

      Oh my!….

      My guess is that Mike Devereux wouldn’t know a CV joint from a diff…..

      10

  • #
    pat

    19 June: SMH: Peter Hannam: Rise in appliance sales prompts fears of a climate time bomb
    Australia’s rush to acquire airconditioners and fridges is creating a greenhouse gas time bomb, which the Greens and environmental groups say existing regulations, including the carbon tax, are ill equipped to defuse…
    Australia imports about 7000 tonnes of fluorocarbon-based refrigerants annually. Refrigerant Reclaim Australia, a body set up by industry in 1993 to collect such chemicals for destruction, disposes of about 500 tonnes a year of HFCs and HCFCs, and about 40 tonnes of the now-banned CFCs…
    “The industry has been critical that while the government is collecting the carbon tax little is being returned to addressing the significant issue of the destruction of the gases,” Greg Hunt, the Coalition’s environment spokesman, said.
    The Coalition plans to scrap the carbon tax but would encourage refrigerant gas destruction under its Direct Action plans, Mr Hunt said.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rise-in-appliance-sales-prompts-fears-of-a-climate-time-bomb-20130618-2ogq3.html

    20

    • #
      Ace

      “……..Australia’s rush to acquire airconditioners…………..” Well we know whos to blame for that then!

      Speaking of which where is he? I noticed he was publicly banned from Wattsupwiththat.

      21

    • #
      Backslider

      You are in trouble now Brooksie!

      20

  • #
    WheresWallace

    Great “comprehensive” article Jo.

    00

  • #
    pat

    who elected WWF?

    Spain’s CO2 emissions to surge in recovery: WWF
    PAMPLONA, June 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The Spanish government’s energy and transport policies are sowing the seeds for an explosion in emissions if and when the economy recovers, environmental groups said Tuesday…
    To avoid an emissions surge WWF wants an end to the moratorium on renewables, regulatory stability to allow rational energy planning up to 2030 and 2050 and the immediate introduction of green taxation measures in building and transport sectors.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2423553?&ref=searchlist

    10

  • #
  • #
    crakar24

    The death spiral has been delayed for the time being

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    An interesting observation

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/coldest-start-arctic-summer-record/

    see data here

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    So just to get the facts straight, the AGW induced warmth in the Arctic is melting the winter sea ice and this is causing bone chilling winters in the NH but the summer temps are quite low and this is all caused by CO2?

    I am sorry but i cannot get my head around this voodoo science.

    21

  • #
    crakar24

    I wonder if this comment is on topic?

    Holden blames carbon tax for cost cuts

    HOLDEN boss Mike Devereux says the carbon tax has placed an unwanted additional burden on the company as it struggles to keep its Australian operations going.

    A day after he asked workers to take a pay cut, Mr Devereux suggested the company wouldn’t be considering such action if the carbon tax had been axed..

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/carbon_tax_hurts_holden_jobs/

    10

    • #
      Bob Massey

      I bet Mr Devereux was the first to cut his wage after spilling this statement.

      I bet he now wishes he was a little more vocal in his capacity as a good corporate citizen by objecting to the governments implementation of a Carbon Tax. /sarc off

      Maybe the guy isn’t worth the salary package he is on

      10

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Readers,many of whom are unashamedly right wing[me included],need to remember or be told that our fearless and much admired leader,Jo,was once an innocent and trusting[and vocal] member of the Australian Greens!Disillusioned with the lies and their real agenda she has created as much publicity for “the truth”as possible.As she has said,any politician who has ever pandered to the spurious nonsense of agw should never get”our”votes!
    A new political party is needed [I know,a tiresome and probably doomed task];the Australian Greens have hijacked and trashed that brand.The Galileo movement gets zero attention compared to this blog,all this
    ‘righteous energy” should be directed to changes we “all” would welcome.In politics,I admire Ron Paul and his philosophies.Sorry to be off topic,”The inquirer”incensed me with his agw rant and demands of “big government”to save us and so on.
    The airplay and traction such errant and deliberate drivel commands must be tackled head on ,society will be easily bankrupted,just like abroad by willfully pandering,even to a small degree to this evil,cynical,expensive and time wasting folly.

    20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      There’s one or two alternatives floating about.

      Although the Wikileaks party would bring the interesting experiment of adding a small dose of technocracy into the Senate, what concerns me is that the usual Wikileaks followers, much like Assange himself, have a slightly leftist smell about them.

      It’s just that it’s odd that the Greens have been talking up civil liberties and squawking about data retention much more than the LNP. What if The Wikileaks Party was a clandestine vehicle for the Greens to capture the civil liberties vote whilst endorsing all the Clean™-grifting enviroquackery bills at the same time?

      I guess I should withhold judgement until I learn more about their candidates.
      Has anyone else checked them out and what side of the political bed do you think these Wikileaks senator-wannabes get out of in the morning?

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Geoff,

    You mentioned Ron Paul did you not know he is ccccrrrraaaaaaaazzzzzzzyyyyy his ideas are crazy everything about him is crazy, ergo everything you have just stated is crazy and will be ignored.

    Heres a tip, If you are to attack a troll you need to bring the right weapons.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    less? jobs fewer jobs please. (old grammatical student here..)
    Of course parr for the course, no reason to increase employment that will help the NWO (Bilderburg planned) human enslavement policy.

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Probably not quite on topic but after gouging every last cent out of the Australian public ANZ is now going to sack 600 workers and move its call centre off shore to raise its profit margin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But that is not the worst of it, they are considering setting up the call centre in New Zealand for christs sake……….for those who do not understand the ramifications of such a move, the next time you meet a “Kiwi” ask them to say “Tens Tons of Tin”

    Cheers

    PS I do not know of any “Kiwis” that frequent here but if i do offend any i do apologise but i am bored without the trolls so everyone is considered fair game. :-)

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I now pronounce you Acting Resident Troll, in lieu of the Professionals, who are currently absent, whilst attending a Training and Reprogramming Seminar.

      Since you are new to this role, we will only set your quota of red-thumbs at 100 per day. As you gain notoriety, you can expect your quota to be reviewed and potentially increased.

      Good Luck.

      50

    • #
      Eddie sharpe

      That must be for their agreeable accents then, because real off-shoring often involves a cultural disconnect that can make it very hard to communicate even in the same language.

      I’m fortunate to have found a direct number to the Glasgow branch of my bank’s Mumbai call-centre.

      10

  • #
    Ken Green

    Jo –

    Thanks for plugging the AEI articles!

    Ken

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova blogs on the costs of Green jobs. Parties around the world love to talk about creating Green jobs, because who can be against jobs and against being good for the environment? A win-win right? [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] cost of green jobs. Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs): (What’s worse than one green [...]

    00

  • #
    macha

    News reported out recently in Perth….

    “Shale gas in the US has contributed around $80 billion to that country’s GDP and created more than 900,000 jobs”.

    Thats a better record than the “green” jobs stats reported above, eh?

    10

  • #

    If the contention that “Green Jobs” kill other jobs were correct, then there wouldn’t be any need to recycle the long-ago debunked Calzada report (which was demonstrated to have underestimated the number of “Green jobs” by 72%).

    I know this, because I was sceptical of Calzada’s work and did a bit of research.

    Should I be sceptical of Jo’s other sources as well?

    22

    • #

      Lame. I saw saw the definitive (but vague and non-specific) “debunkings” and I wrote about them in the blog post.

      “What I could not find were any “debunkings” which could explain how a nation using less efficient and more costly energy could make itself richer, more productive, and more able to create useful employment.”

      So you couldn’t find any either?

      22

      • #

        There is nothing less “non-specific” than Calzada’a sums using a figure of 52,000 when the figure of 188,000 is the correct one.

        I see your theory about green jobs seems to be based on your intuitive belief, rather than on actual facts. What is “efficiency”? Wouldn’t “less jobs” result in a more efficient balance sheet?

        The facts are that Calzada’s “joblessness” was related to the GFC, not to the adoption of technologies that inarguably gave rise to a home-grown industry that resulted in new export markets and consequent employment. The situation is grim in Spain, especially for the under-30s, and people trying to use their misfortune as grist to their political mill should be embarrassed.

        21

        • #

          What figure and from where?

          Wouldn’t “less jobs” result in a more efficient balance sheet?

          Not of a nation. This is really outside your comfort zone isn’t it?

          You can’t even think of a reason that wind farms would make a country more productive.

          Case Closed.

          12