Analysis: Obama's "green jobs" have been slow to sprout

Comments (54)

The “job creators” have achieved their purpose. There isn’t an industry in this country that is creating jobs. But the “job creators” have created jobs, all right. Their own jobs, jobs where, I guess, they manage their money. They don’t need employees. Go figure. So who is going to build this economy? At least Obama managed to get 10 jobs out of these folks. I give him credit. Squeezing blood out of a turnip is the hardest job of all. But that, too, is a job. Would somebody give this President credit for something?

Apr 13, 2012 5:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@simplefarmgirl…i’ll give him credit for something:

Funny how liberals never cease in chastising Romney for his private equity background. Yet, we have anything but a business savvy President playing private equity with taxpayer money: Solyndra got a $535M federal loan and then proceeded to go bankrupt and layoff more than 1,000 employees.

How’s that for “job creation” and the heavy hand of an overreaching bureaucratic government picking industry winners and losers.

Not to mention that the owner of Solyndra was a large fundraiser for Obama in California (George Kaiser) or the fact that they failed to put the loan through it’s due process and did not consult the Secretary of the Treasury as they were supposed to; shady.

Almost reminds me of liberals squawking about how the GOP leaders just want to get in office so they can help their rich buddies.

Apr 13, 2012 8:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

Republicans are just being as short sighted as ever.

How many jobs do they think the motor industry created when only 10 people in the USA owned a car? If these Republicans had been around then, I am sure they would have been howling “Investing in these new fangled cars is a waste of money! It makes more sense to invest in the horse-and-cart industry!”. Especially if the horse-and-cart industry were paying them to say that…

Right now, hardly any industry is creating jobs, and expecting the green sector to buck the trend is ridiculous. Jobs return when businesses need to hire more staff. They need to hire more staff when people start buying their products or services. For that to happen, somebody somewhere has to start spending money. The private sector obviously isn’t going to to do that…

Apr 13, 2012 8:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@RoaringFish…if the Republicans are being short-sighted, please explain to me the LONG TERM benefits of THE US TAXPAYERS investment in Solyndra, Beacon Power, or the next in line of Obama Capital Inc.’s failed private equity ventures (hard to call it private equity when in fact, the money is not private)

…I must be missing something.

Just because Obama stands up and makes a convincing speech about how green jobs are the future of America doesn’t mean he knows how to accomplish that goal. Another shining example of Obama’s great skills as an orrator not being backed up with any substance, leadership, or business accumen to have even the slightest HOPE that he will effect any of the CHANGES he speaks of.

Apr 13, 2012 9:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ARJTurgot2 wrote:

@jaham

Apr 13, 2012 9:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ARJTurgot2 wrote:

@jaham

Precisely. This guy can’t get it done. He’s a Chicago machine pol who looks nice in a suit and has good diction. The medical insurance problem called for a solution in the worst way, and the Dem’s delivered precisely that. Jobs… the response to the failure of ‘shovel ready’ was Obama giving a speech in which he joked about it. The infrastructure problems remain, but there’s no ‘flash’ to the hard work of solving them, so we’ve moved on. Now we’re going to fix the sins of the Church and teach them how to deal with women, or advocate for taxes that do nothing to solve the country’s financial problem.

The suit was empty. I’d don’t know if Romney is the answer, but I’m certainly willing to listen.

Apr 13, 2012 9:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dave-0 wrote:

Investing in ‘green’ energy is fine, having the government select winners and losers is not. Let the market do its job and get the government the hell out of the way.

Apr 13, 2012 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

You mean that market that is producing neither jobs nor growth? Yeah… great idea. Let it continue to do nothing – that should fix the economy!

You really need to get back into the real world. ‘The market’ is a figment of your imagination, and it doesn’t have a job, and expecting a bunch of individual businesses each doing their own thing to somehow magically become all altruistic and act for the greater good is about as rational as expecting to build a fantastic military by giving weapons to a load of untrained individuals and telling the military commanders to ‘get the hell out of the way’ while they all do whatever they fancy.

… and couldn’t you think of something a but more original than ‘get the hell out of the way’?

@jaham

Yes, you are missing quite a lot.

You are missing the fact that after what, 6 months?, of rabid Republican show-boating their silly investigation has found absolutely no evidence of any crime or anything else at Solyndra. In other words, it all huffing and puffing about nothing.

You are missing the fact that Solyndra’s collapse shows just how far behind China the USA has fallen in the new technologies – the USA can barely compete now.

You are missing the fact that the Republican response to the USA being unable to compete is to roll over and give up. In what way is that *not* short sighted?

Apr 13, 2012 10:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bert2 wrote:

“Let the market do its job” ABSOLUTELY! And please tell that to the Republican Governor and Legislature in the State of Georgia! In Atlanta, Georgia, the only company that can provide electricity is Georgia Power and this is BY LAW. Attempts to change the law and open up the market to others have been scuttled in subcommmittees by Georgia Power and it parent the Southern Company. And this is in a Repbulican State and Goverment! So next time you wonder why the green companies can’t get started, check you local laws. There might be some “interesting” monopolies. Oh. and the reason that Georgia Power stated that opening the market up for competition from others was that “electricity would become more expensive”. Again, go figure. According to them (and the repbulican legislators), competition will make things more expensive.

Apr 13, 2012 11:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Barack Obama can do one thing to create jobs and spur investment – get out of the way. Alas, this is the one thing he is never going to do, because he naively believes that he knows better than everyone working in the real economy.

Apr 13, 2012 11:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

The real economy that self-destructed in 2008, you mean? Yep – they must the experts. Some people seem to be utterly incapable of learning from experience…

Apr 13, 2012 11:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@RoaringFish…Frankly, I’m glad (and not surprised) I “missed” those things because they are a bunch of liberal drivel.

If you read my previous comment, what I said was that it was “shady”, and it is; I did not act as judge and jury or call Obama a criminal. You may cheer the fact that the investigation has not outed an outright fraud, but let us focus on a few points you will have a tougher time celebrating:

First, let me reiterate that I find this situation quite interesting given how often liberals harp on GOP leaders “helping their rich buddies” when they get into office. It goes to show that the left is no different; politics is a crooked game in its’ entirety.

Further, regardless of the investigation side of the Solyndra story, the fact remains that half a billion dollars in taxpayer money was lost and 1,000+ people were fired. That, in istelf, is bad enough. Considering how liberals like to harp on Mitt for his failed turnaround attempts, people he’s laid off, etc. etc. I am not surprised that you chose not to defend that portion of the Solyndra story.

I understand that industries in their infancy are often aided by government subsidy for R&D and the like and I understand Obama’s initiative to make America a “green” manufacturing hub and create “green” jobs. BUT, what you fail to accept is that Obama has failed miserably in his efforts. Again, he may speak to issues you agree with but he does not possess the business acumen or leadership qualities to follow through on the many hollow promises made; there is no substance behind his words and Solyndra is a shining example of this failure.

Lastly, I will address your assertion that the Republican response is to “roll over and give up”; I’m not sure whether you are naive and ignorant or dumb and disingenuous. The Republican plan to create jobs and return prosperity to the middle class through those jobs is by making America attractive for business and capital investment on a global scale and making entrepreneurship and business start-up less cumbersome: lower taxes on corporations who are currently paying one of the highest nominal rates in the world, remove ineffective and inefficient regulation, address our fiscal issues, and provide certainty on the aforementioned and other related issues so that businesses are not scared to deploy capital. Good jobs lead to more domestic consumption, which in turn perpetuates a cycle of growth…I’m sure you learned all of this at liberal arts business school.

The Dem plan to subsidize an industry that is not profitable instead of letting private industry and free markets determine when the solar industry has reached economies of scale to compete with China has been an utter failure, as is evidenced by cases such as Solyndra.

This is an exemplification of the problem with the liberal message: It sounds great and pleases an ignorant voting base, but many of their ideals are not financially, fiscally, or economically feasible.

Apr 13, 2012 11:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Jaham, you fail to understand that the government IS NOT a business. Businesses are formed to make PROFIT, meanwhile as government is formed to promote the ‘common good’. Business are selfish entities, they have one goal in mind, to make money. Before I get accused of being a Socialist, Communist or anti-Capitalism, there is nothing wrong with this, but also making money is not the be all end all. On the other hand the government is responsible for promoting/maintaining the ‘common good’. With respect to investments in companies like Solyndra, it may not have been a good BUSINESS decision, but as I said the government is not and should not be a ‘business’. Taking risky investments in companies like Solyndra in an attempt to support/promote new/future industry is EXACTLY what the government should be doing, until the industry/technology matures and private industry sees they can make money investing in companies in this industry.

If you take an objective look at America’s recent history you will see the same pattern, new technologies that are ‘discovered’ from government research and/or investment, can drive industries 20-40 years later. But these technologies would have NEVER been developed in private industry because the initial R&D was far too risky for anyone to put their own money into.

Personally I would rather invest in my future and try and shape it, instead of the rightie idea of ‘let the free market take care of it’. If the free market took care of it, imagine just how bad our environment would be.

Apr 13, 2012 12:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

@jaham

What part of ‘found absolutely nothing’ is difficult? The only ‘shady’ aspect is that you Republicans want it to be shady for your own ideological reasons. In reality, Solyndra collapsed because they couldn’t compete with Chinese producers. Businesses do that. It is not a crime. It is not even shady.

Your nonsense about Obama rewarding his friends is equally ignorant. First, Solyndra applied for the loan guarantee in 2006, and where shortlisted in 2007. Do you know who was in power then? Second, it is the DoE who make the decision, not the White House. Third, the fact that Republicans are howling about this show a disturbing ignorance of finance. The whole point of government loan guarantees, the reason they exist at all, is to make money available to riskier ventures. You know… the ones most likely to fail. If some of them didn’t, then the DoE would be failing in its role by being too risk averse.

I know all about Republican plans to create jobs and prosperity, and they are dumb. Lowering taxes will achieve nothing, because taxes are not the problem. You don’t even understand that as taxes are levied on *profit* they are not even an operating cost! Get up to date – it is 2012, n0t 1962. Businesses manufacture where capital investment is low, wages are low, and overheads are low. Notice how tax is not on the list? You could let them operate in the US tax free and it would still be cheaper to manufacture in Asia. Understand?

What is even worse is that you Republicans fail to understand that this is the only way American businesses can operate competitively. If the iPad, for example, was manufactured in the USA, it would cost so much that nobody would buy it. In fact, Apple *could not exist at all* without manufacturing in China. Do you understand that? This is how the real world operates in 2012, and it is about time Republicans caught up with that.

Give Republicans another chance in power and they will do exactly what they did last time – trash the economy completely because they do not understand modern economics.

Apr 13, 2012 12:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crawdad88 wrote:

Let’s see…congress just passed tax cuts for oil, but declined to give those cuts to wind and solar. Hmmmm.

Apr 13, 2012 12:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crawdad88 wrote:

Let’s see…congress just passed tax cuts for oil, but declined to give those cuts to wind and solar. Hmmmm.

Apr 13, 2012 12:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

Follow the money… oil owns the GOP, who did what they are paid to do. No need to say any more.

Apr 13, 2012 12:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fred5407 wrote:

Hey, did any of you look closely at the picture. These panels are installed so close to the ground that the ground under them cannot be used to grow crops or any other worthwhile thing. Also the land is taken out of use for people, and most assuredly it was public land. When the government gives away money for make work projects common sense goes away. The green energy folks are as bad as the oil drillers in the early 1900s. Look a the debacle of burning biomass to make electricity. It is renewable, but biomass can also be used to make motor fuel.

Apr 13, 2012 12:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ideapete wrote:

We should also remember that the US has been here before.

Our company operates in the best practices risk analysis end of the US utility market and although much of today’s rhetoric of one side against the other is interesting from an engineering operations point of view it has very little weight if you have to keep a trillion dollar energy supply system operating on a day to day basis with VERY demanding customers whose lives depend on what and how well you are doing.

When subsidies became available in the last 70s go round for wind farms they sprouted up everywhere and as soon as the subsidies died down the manufacturers and suppliers walked away from the projects leaving a mess Don Quixote and his sidekick would be proud of . Wind also dictates how and when it works and that no matter how you slice it is not how energy generation functions even from a cogen perspective and does not play well in the sea of “all need to play nice electrons ‘

Solar too in the same timeline has been around for centuries but in its last iteration in the US was primarily a water heating system that when it failed due to the corrosion of fluids in the system transferred through to the structural components of the homes and building leaving the in insurers to pick up the tab. Now we are placing active current on rooftops that in an emergency cannot be controlled and as a result is creating a Hazmat nightmare for insurers and fire services http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aDrmtur6fw hat with poor product and construction will drive up risk and policies for the building owners accordingly. 90% of today focus is of the end product the panel set but 90% of the problems are elsewhere. Same comment with control and demand from the wind section applies to solar and the tricky cogen involvement.

Remember also that all these systems ( Wind / Solar etc ) are installed and maintained by an industry – Engineering / Construction – that has stubbornly rejected product and process quality improvement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5_dmZTJIhU and has the lowest productivity in the world and that . This again increases the risk on what works and does not or how well.

We are all in favor of improvements in the energy industry and any engineer or technician on a power plant or utility can tell you how to drastically improve productivity and efficient energy usage ( many forbidden by PRC or legal restraints on operation ) but we have become very wary of enforced magic bullets as it seems we always have to clean up the mess when they do not work as predicted

Apr 13, 2012 12:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@fred5407, you do realize this is a desert with no farmland right?

Apr 13, 2012 12:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bert2 wrote:

Thermoelectric (coal, gas, nuclear) power plants are constrained by basic thermodynamic efficiencies of Rankine and Carnot cycles – 40-60% max unless you generate a lot of how water and find some use for it (not likely), so don’t go saying that engineering can get much higher. Plus power companies don’t pay for the externalities of their pollution (you think Southern Company pays medical bills for the Asthma sufferers downwind from their coal plants?) – no wonder they can operate cheaper. And often forget to mention 7% grid loss, but all central power plants (inlc. solar and wind farms). I like to get affordable rooftop solar so I can minimize my dependence on a monopolistic power company.

Apr 13, 2012 1:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PortlandMP wrote:

@RoaringFish is so spot on with his corporate tax analysis. Smart companies dont care about a tax rate at all – after tax profit margins are totally irrelevant to capital availability for a company, and differential tax rates create no competitive advantages for companies whatsoever – the idea that companies select manufacturing sites in tax freindly states is just ludicrous! shareholders dont care about things like EPS and dividends – jeez man. Sole proprieters could care less about how much of their net profit they pay to the government – why would that matter to them at all? its not like they have anything better to do with their capital right?

Jaham, you’re being compeltely myopic if you can’t understand this simple “modern” economic concept. Corporate tax has absolutely no effect on capital availability (hence capital for growth / job creation), and no effect at all on new business creation – and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a gun slinging hick idiot.

Can I get an Amen RoaringFish?

Apr 13, 2012 1:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bert2 wrote:

About wasting 1/2 billion dollar ow tax payer money: What would you call the $600 billion annual defense budget? Don’t you think some “waste” at a significantly greater level is in there? F35 JSF is over budget again. I think that was WAY more “waste” than Solyndra’s entire loan.

Apr 13, 2012 1:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PortlandMP wrote:

one of my buddies just nudged me and said – dude, seriously, corportate tax impacts stock dividends, stock dividends impact capital availability, capital availability impacts new investment in growth (job creation) and efficency (competitive advantages / COGS). I said no way dude – that’s just fox news bunk. it’s like he’s stuck in 1962 or something.

Apr 13, 2012 1:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LesLazareck wrote:

Once a simple and consistent message directed to the general public is implemented, the demand for the building performance industry will begin. As more and more homeowner and business owners experience the amazing benefits (e.g. energy savings, improved comfort and health) from a whole home/building retrofit, then the tax payer will praise the government’s investment in green jobs training. The results of this work will provide long term rewards for the occupants, community, the country and the planet.

Apr 13, 2012 2:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LesLazareck wrote:

Once a simple and consistent message directed to the general public is implemented, the demand for the building performance industry will begin. As more and more homeowner and business owners experience the amazing benefits (e.g. energy savings, improved comfort and health) from a whole home/building retrofit, then the tax payer will praise the government’s investment in green jobs training. The results of this work will provide long term rewards for the occupants, community, the country and the planet.

Apr 13, 2012 2:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sinz54 wrote:

There would be absolutely NO compelling economic reason to choose wind and solar over natural gas, if it weren’t for global warming.

The wind doesn’t always blow.
The sun doesn’t always shine.
But natural gas furnaces work for you 24×7.
And natural gas is a much cleaner burning fuel than either coal or oil oil. The technology is proven and scalable. And we have natural
gas in abundance right here in North America.

The ONLY reason to prefer wind and solar over natural gas is that
all fossil fuel combustion produces CO2. But Obama won’t talk
about that anymore.

Obama’s entire “green jobs program” is a LIE, a desperate attempt to cover up a policy that is based on fighting global warming.

The centerpiece of that policy was cap-and-trade, a policy deliberately designed to make fossil fuels scarcer and more expensive so as to make renewables like wind and solar look more competitive in comparison.

When Congress refused to pass cap-and-trade, Obama’s policy lost its rationale. It’s now a policy designed to deal with an issue that Obama won’t even mention anymore–because it’s a political non-starter.

Apr 13, 2012 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@PortlandMP…I surely hope you are being sarcastic.

But, being as you are apparently from Portland, I’m afraid you might actually be serious. If that is the case, I recommend you consult your doctor to have your head surgically removed from your ass.

Apr 13, 2012 3:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Pragmatist…you have done a good job of trying to justify flushing $535M of taxpayer money down the drain.

I understand why the government should play a role in R&D, as mentioned in previous posts. My assertion is that Obama has done a poor job, he has not fostered the green energy job revolution he promoted and Solyndra is a shining example of this failure.

Again, I understand you don’t win them all, but I bet you don’t use that same logic in approaching Mitt Romney’s private equity background.

Apr 13, 2012 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@RoaringFish…In trying to be thorough I apparently give you fodder for avoiding key issues that I raise in my posts. I will now try to be as concise as possible to keep you from evading the more poignant issues raised.

My intention was to concede your point that Solyndra’s funding may not have been crooked. Regardless, my focus was on the fact that it was an utter failure as is Obama’s entire green jobs initiative; Solyndra is just an exemplification of such.

My comment about rewarding friends was not intended to make a case for fraud against Obama, it was simply to highlight the fact that ALL politicians are crooked and was a preemptive rebuttal to a common complaint levied by the Left against the Right; the truth is that both sides are guilty of it.

As to your point about taxes: You are correct, taxes are not an operating cost, but they do affect a business’s bottom line and thus they do factor into the investment decision making process of a given business. Ever heard of a plant being located in a particular area due to the best tax abatement or like incentives being offered?

Undoubtedly, Republicans understand why products are manufactured in China as the merits of using cheap labor in any manufacturing business are not difficult to ascertain. My point was that when a business makes a decision to deploy capital it is based on a plethora of factors (including taxes, labor costs and many other issues) and Obama has done nothing to address any of those issues. Thus, employment is weaker than it would be if he had addressed those issues. Further, he has not even put forth a plan to address said issues.

Why would you want to re-elect a President who not only hasn’t addressed the biggest problems facing America in his first term, but one who also has NO PLAN to address those issues going forward; it is, frankly, baffling.

I, personally, am a big believer in supply-side economics and believe Mitt Romney and a Republican supermajority would get us on the right track. You claim that you “know all about Republican plans to create jobs and prosperity, and they are dumb”. I digress, but, perhaps you can convince me that the Dems have a better plan (I’m not aware that they have one). Assuming you know all about the Democrats plan to create jobs and prosperity, as well, please elaborate on what Obama and the Dems PLAN is to create said jobs and prosperity; enlighten me.

Apr 13, 2012 4:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PortlandMP wrote:

my extreme sarcasm should have been evident to the reasonably well educated.

Apr 13, 2012 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Booradley999 wrote:

Obama’s “green jobs” amount to nothing but embezzlement of tax payer dollars.

Apr 13, 2012 4:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TPAINE3 wrote:

Roaring fish, you lack of knowledge about how the free market works is mind numbing. No government can make the millions of choices the market makes EVERY day.
Socialism (a government mandated economy) has never worked because government is inherently incapable of making the correct decisons for you and me.
Democrats have intentionally driven up the price of fossil fuels and rewarded their friends – “crony socialism” – via the faux “green energy” companies.
That, in the process, they have created The Great Recession, robbed the Boomers of their old age retirement plans and the next two generations of their future income is of zero interest to them.

Apr 13, 2012 5:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TomGenin wrote:

Factor the green jobs “lost” to Bankrupticies, the Private Sector jobs “lost” fue to money being sucked from the market to fund gov’t picked winners (er ah, losers), the jobs created overseas due to green funding which competes with American workers causing jobs to be “lost” here in the US, and title wouldn’t be a disingenuous “slow to sprout,” but “the crop is dead.”

Apr 13, 2012 5:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
valwayne wrote:

Slow to sprout? If you have been waiting on Obama’s $90 billion in Green Corrution paying off his political contributers to sprout a crop to feed your family, you and your family would be dead!!! $535 million for Solyndra and the approx 3,000 jobs didn’t last long did they. Folks that was $178,333 per job that lasted less than 2 years, and Solyndra isn’t even the worst of it. Obama was whining that we give $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry, but that industry w/ coal that Obama hates, fuels our cars, generates our electricity, fuels our factories, heats our homes in the winter, and cools them in the summer. His $90 billion is just gone folks and what do we have for it? NOTHING! No jobs, no energy, and none of the company’s, that remain in business, are economically viable without tens of billions more taxpayer dollars? Obama’s green boodogle has cost millions of dollars for ever job created, and the jobs are only temporary. They Keystone XL pipeline for a few billion would have supplied more energy that the entire $90 billion. Never has so much been wasted on so little!

Apr 13, 2012 6:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rwoodburn wrote:

Folks in the business community listen to obama’s socialist populist rhetoric and have witnessed his government central policies. They are not about to take significant risk with him in office. Once he and obamacare are history, the country will come roaring back.

Apr 13, 2012 6:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mtbwalt wrote:

As a libertarian and someone interested in the advancement of the human species, I think green energy is desirable and I might pay a little more to use energy that I am sure is doing less possible environmental damage.

Market forces are the best way to address the green future. Allow the market to decide when the time is right. It is self-correcting and dynamic. As demand for more potentially environmentally sources of energy grows, so goes risk, investment, and reward.

Conservatives warned that the “green energy” economy could not be switched on overnight. There is no reason for the government to be involved, unless you consider the millions that the “green energy” industry has poured into statist election coffers. Tax incentives to use one type of energy or another distort the market and cause bubbles and failures.

Apr 13, 2012 7:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

One more boondoggle just like the stimulus that never stimulated. How can you expect somebody unqualified to run a lemonade stand & masquerading as leader of the free world to create a job? His own job is shrinking to fit him.

Apr 13, 2012 8:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DocinPA wrote:

“Green energy” is “uneconomical”. T. Boone Pickens, who I would submit knows just a tad about energy, just lost his butt on “green energy”. In Spain, 2 jobs were lost for every “green” job created. There is no such thing as a “green” job. It’s a fraud and a scam. It’s Gaia worship disguised as energy policy.

Apr 13, 2012 8:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bubblegum99 wrote:

As Obama bankrupts the coal industry and kicks thousands out of their jobs – he creats 10 to replace them….cool.

Apr 13, 2012 9:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

@ jaham

Okay… I pointed out a few of the huge holes in Republican economics, and you come back with a repetition of the Republican party line, followed by a characteristic ‘Obama hasn’t done enough to clear up the mess Republicans left in 2008′

Lets stop messing around and get down to the basics. You say Obama hasn’t done enough, and Republicans would have manufacturers flocking to the USA instead of China, though that didn’t happen in the last 8 years of Republican. Now is your chance!

Manufacturing costs in China are around 20 -30% of US costs, depending where in China you go. Tell us jaham, with specifics, exactly how any of the policies you parrot are going to cut US manufacturing costs by 80% to make it more attractive that China or anywhere else in SEA. The ball is in your court.

Unless Republicans can do that, not of what they say will do anything for the US economy, but they will increase the profit-ralated income of their paymasters…

Apr 13, 2012 9:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
samiamiamiam wrote:

Green jobs/ green economy was a failure in the following countries: Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Canada. These countries did studies and guess what they found out? for 1 ‘green job’ created they destroyed 2.2 to 9 jobs in the private sector. This green job/economy is nothing more than campaign contributors getting tax payer’s cash. Green Economy is a good idea, but Bad economics. I don’t care what you claim to know, everytime we moved to a new energy source it has been of higher quality, green energy sources are lower quality. NOTE: China is a success story only because PRC gov’t has Billion dollars wasted in it.

Apr 13, 2012 11:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JHouse770 wrote:

And how many homes does the Hoover dam power? When you look at the cost of these projects and the poor output it is no wonder these are going under without subsidies.

Apr 13, 2012 12:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

Hydro power is great where you have mountains and rivers. Pretty useless everywhere else. How many homes would building a damn in a desert power?

retired_sandman wrote: “One more boondoggle just like the stimulus that never stimulated.”

What is your explanation for the recession ending, if the stimulus didn’t work? Think about this. Republicans left the USA with a huge recession. Obama applied stimulus, because that is known to fix recessions. The recession ended, as predicted. The Republican conclusion? “The stimulus didn’t work.”

Enough said….

Apr 14, 2012 1:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
judester wrote:

When, OMG, when will people realize politicians who promise jobs are lying through their teeth like Hillary did promising one hundred thousand jobs for up State New york when she was running for the Senate. There’s a lot of info here on the net that wasn’t available years ago to the public. Here’s some to look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff and another. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml these will undoubtably open your eyes to what the politicians are protecting.

Apr 14, 2012 5:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sherlocktoo wrote:

At a cost of over 1 million per green job, from a country where even the president said, “we’re broke”. Doesn’t all this green cheering seem silly? Green energy might be our future, but not our immediate future. With the money that has been spent, we could have a much better work force for other industries. Five trillion and counting, but we can’t continue to have this kind of waste, and still be the USA. It is time for new ideas, and a new direction. Obama has run a preferred buddy lottery, where checks, paid for by the taxpayers, have been handed out to his campaign contributors. Come November, voters won’t vote for this kind of corruption, again.

Apr 14, 2012 8:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sherlocktoo wrote:

Roaring Fish, the recession was supposed to have ended in June of 2009, only 5 months after Obama took office. Miracle, doubtful. Yet today, many are still feeling the grip of recession. Obama’s friends on Wall Street and the uaw union were handed billions, so they recovered quickly, but the work force in america waits and waits. Those Obama chose, especially Wall Street who passed out a record number of million dollar bonuses in 2009 and 2010, have long since forgot about the recession.

Now, are you that stupid? Where is your electricity generated? Ever heard of transmission lines that carry the electricity all across the nation? They really can produce electricity at a dam, and send it into the desert, goofy. You are without a doubt the dumbest of the Obama supporters.

Obama won’t be re-elected because; unemployment at 8+%, energy prices have doubled, deficits of more than a trillion each year, and 5 trillion and counting of new debt. Simple math, for the simple minded.

Apr 14, 2012 8:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

Sherlocktoo wrote:
“Roaring Fish, the recession was supposed to have ended in June of 2009″

Yes. That is correct. Republican economics plunged the US into recession in 2007, and Obama fixed it with stimulus packages. What point are you trying to make?

“Miracle, doubtful. Yet today, many are still feeling the grip of recession.”

There is no recession. I know Republicans like to pretend there is, but it is a lie. It ended in 3 years ago. Do try to keep up…

“Now, are you that stupid? Where is your electricity generated? Ever heard of transmission lines that carry the electricity all across the nation? They really can produce electricity at a dam, and send it into the desert, goofy. You are without a doubt the dumbest of the Obama supporters.”

Instead of being so juvenile, how about you answer the question. How many homes would building a damn in a desert power? Can you you stop dodging and squirming and give me a direct answer?

Apr 14, 2012 11:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@RoaringFish…no, sir, the ball is in your court.

I’m not going to participate a debate in which I continue to answer your questions and when you are asked specifics you provide no answers; this will never be a constructive debate in that light.

Why don’t you explain how Obama’s plan (didn’t know he had one) will cut manufacturing costs by 80%. But, before you do, answer the numerous other questions I have posited that you have dodged.

Only then will I rebute your non-sensical jibberish. Thanks in advance.

Apr 16, 2012 4:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hldb00 wrote:

One thing that bothers me; while I strongly favor an all-of-the-above strategy (everything from coal to algae) and I fully recognize the need to create jobs, I think it’s a mistake to put too great an emphasis on job creation to deem a given project successful. If it is cleaner and/or more efficient than another other approaches it should not be looked on totally as a failure.

Apr 16, 2012 7:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
griffmike28 wrote:

As a journalist whose former positions focused on alternative energies, I have come to realize (unfortunately) that the real reason that renewables like solar and wind power have failed to take hold here in the U.S. is that their business models don’t fit with the main profit tenets of industry here in this country, and therefore the corporate-influenced “powers that be” will deny these technologies from ever developing (to the benefit of established industries but to the detriment of us as consumers).

For example, the “consumables” involved in solar and wind technologies are FREE. (Unlike with oil home heating or gasoline-powered vehicles, the end user pays nothing for the “fuel” to power these renewable applications that can provide heat, electricity, etc.) We all know that a major portion of business profits is the consumables aspect of applications (think computer printer cartridges) … but since there would be no one “making money” on this end of the business (with wind or solar), it is therefore ruled as being “bad” for “business.”

The same goes for limited maintenance of these applications after installation (as evidenced by the 10 employees mentioned in regard to the solar project in this story). So, again, when not much “money” can be made after the sale (as would happen with constant auto repair, for instance), then that is not seen as profitable for business (though surely appreciated by the buyer).

Unfortunately, our national/governmental policies and incentives are devised to benefit corporate/business interests (not consumers). And when “new” industries become available that might benefit consumers moreso than businesses (and potentially reduce the profits of established industries), then the corporate-allied entities go into high-powered mode to stamp out anything that might hurt their profits.

Apr 17, 2012 1:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ClaudeM wrote:

Jaham, if the position of Republicans is to create jobs thru some kind of global canvassing for likely “job creating investors”, would you please tell me what the current score is at this endeavor? The Extremists in the House of Reps have been in control since January 2011 and I cannot find that they have created a global list of “job creating” investors anywhere. Please sir, lets be honest with each other, where is the list?

Apr 17, 2012 6:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

griffmike28,

Your corporate conspiracy theory has holes. Wind doesn’t burn fuel, but physics being what it is – those turbines will not stay up on those poles and turn forevever. They entire turbine is a consumable. They are engineered to last 20 years, and that’s it. Wind is always going to be a niche industry because the material cost per megawatt is too high. Blades are expensive (and they break). Generators are expensive (heard of rare earth elements?). Then you have the expensive steels needed to make towers (which have a finite fatigue life), gearboxes and shafts.

Apr 18, 2012 10:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JerPom wrote:

I’d be very curious as to the % of those 20,000+/- jobs created were in California. I’d bet it is pretty high. Resistance from the red states and right wing counties will keep the green push at bay for many years.

Apr 18, 2012 12:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.