"Green" job creation risks backfiring: Lomborg

Comments (3)
DrJJJJ wrote:

Lowering our national freeway limits 10% would do much more than all the green technologies combined this year!! Saves fuel, saves lives, it proven, cheap, fair and instant FYI! KISS! If it doesn’t pay for itself instantly, we should wait until we’ve balanced a budget or two somewhere on the planet!

Feb 07, 2011 12:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ptiffany wrote:

Although largely correct in itself, it misses a critical issue: the long-term cost of petroleum is increasing because world production has already peaked. Even near term costs of petroleum are increasing signficantly because of greatly increasing demand. Investing in alternative forms of energy is just a feeble attempt at getting ahead of the curve. Investing in a smart grid would also give us more choices over time.

And, of course, energy independence has huge potential cost savings as well as improving our national security. This alone is more than enough to justify long-term subsidies for alternative sources of energy.

Feb 08, 2011 3:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Regular folks will find it expensive to switch to solar energy upfront. There’s no denying the benefits of having solar panels on the roof of a house to run it in place of electricity. Yes, homeowners can sell the excess generated by the panel system back to the electric company–eventually.

We priced it for our 2500 sq. ft. house in PA and we would have to pay about $70,000 out of pocket, upfront, for the installation. The return on investment was 5 to 7 years. Once we found this out, my question was, “how in the world is the average homeowner going to be able to afford this?” Needless to say, we opted not to go solar at this time. “Green” sounds ideal until you find out how much it costs.

Feb 08, 2011 3:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.