ROTFLMAO...

Dear me Skippy please dont lie about my sources ok.

The report was from one of Spain's leading Universities.  The Rey Juan Carlos University (Spanish: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, URJC) is a public university located in Madrid (Spain), whose name refers to king Juan Carlos I of Spain.

The fact "heartland" or whatever it is called saw a need to quote it doesn't mean what it stated is in any way incorrect.

As for peak oil...  I'm sorry for you ignorant enough to think its near, but it is not.  The Greens already said we reached it about a decade ago. 

Oh and Skippy the "facts" you put forward actually in no way refutes the figures in the report.  If you cant figure out why ask an adult ok.

Here let me give you an example.  If an industry didn't exist 5 years ago then there was no employment.  If 3 years ago it had 10 people and increased that by 500% then now there are now 60 people employed.  If they replaced 600 people then guess what?  Has the penny dropped yet?

Want me to explain the economics of it too?

We already know here in Australia Skippy that our electricity is going to cost considerably more if these schemes and taxes are brought to bear.  What rock have you been living under and puhlease don't try to deny that too.

All we get from you people is denial, and messenger shooting.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 11:14pm:


Governments have a tendency to over-inflate things like that. It's a side issue. What it boils down to is that we have to change the way we do things, and quickly or else we'll have much fewer jobs (and people).

Generally, but not always, changes in technology mean more opportunities. Whether that translates to more jobs or not, is a question I can't answer.

Coal mining is getting less people intensive these days - basically a dragline operator and a haul truck driver can shift a lot of coal.

It would be an interesting exercise to compare jobs per Gigawatt for all the energy related industries. Maybe somebody has done that already. I know that hydro electricity obviously requires fewer jobs than coal fired energy production.

Will there be more jobs or less jobs with alternative technology? It's possible in some cases that there would be more. All power stations, including solar power stations will require an enormous amount of maintenance.

Quote:


As you see you asked me to show you where the report was wrong, I as everybody reading this can see, have done that.
I know you're embarrassed for making a d ick of yourself but don't worry we're used to it.

Grendel wrote on Jul 11^th, 2009 at 10:45am:

You really are a retard boof, I posted facts from the Spanish gov that totally refutes your lies,and you don't like it do you boofy? My post has quotes from gov advisers and even ex gov ministers, but you choose to believe lies by a nobody professor who was sponsored by the oil industry, you are sooooooooooo transparent.

Interestingly, this Universidad Rey Juan Carlos study mirrors the findings of the University of Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper (No. LE09-001), titled "Green Jobs Myths." The "Green Jobs Myths" study abstract indicates that,

    * No standard definition of a green job exists.
    * Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.
    * The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.
    * By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions.
    * Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.
    * Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today's demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

Read the paper...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358423

Abstract:    
A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.

Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.

Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.

Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today's demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

Grendel wrote on Jul 11^th, 2009 at 11:44am:


Costs costs costs, is that all you care about? I think people should pay more for using dirty power.
I care about our children's future, there will be no future unless we change our ways.
I care for kids I vote GREEN.

Grendel wrote on Jul 11^th, 2009 at 12:08pm:

I'm not surprised that's the best you've got boof, I accept you are embarrassed.
That's twice today on two different threads.

Now now lets not resort to abuse boofy, muso might have to ban you .