Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and Peter Garrett. would have us all believe that the Green Economy is the way to go.  That people just need retraining that money and jobs will flow from this new way.  Well I for one never believed the pie in the sky forecasts about this brave new world.

President Obama spoke to the US Congress citing Spain as a world leader in Green Economics.  

Quote:


Now we have the first reports on its real effects in the real world.

Have a read
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/green-jobs-are-really-about-get-rich.html

Quote:


Yes well an advocate always knows the answer, especially an AGW advocate. I think that's why they come up with the label 'confusionalist' for those who don't tow their line. Greenie scares have had almost a 100% track record on being wrong, so why should we accept without scruitiny what they are claiming now? Economic growth and industrialisation is lifting billions of people out of poverty and it relies on cheap and reliable energy. If we must go down the low carbon path it's doubful that cap and trade and putting all our eggs in the renewable basket is the best way to go.

Care to withdraw that ridiculous remark.

Care to address the topic?
Care to show where this report from Spain is wrong?
Anyone with an ounce of common-sense would have seen this reality coming.

Grendel wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 10:13am:

No ridiculous remarks, if someone thinks that their job is more important than the future of this planet and its children they clearly care more about themselves and their job than they do their children.
As for Spain, I think you'll find most jobs created these days are casual rather than permanent, its been happening here too boof.

If the numbers are correct and Spain is creating a Green job at the expense of dirty jobs and in its first ten years is already achieving fifty percent of these old dirty jobs with clean Green ones that's fantastic.
As the Green industry grows many more jobs will be created.
Throughout history jobs change, just ask the poor old candle stick makers.
Green power is clean, renewable and once established much cheaper if not free.

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

No denial here boof, I understand that in the main most reputable environmental scientists in the world say we have a problem with climate change.
Those same scientists believe it is in this worlds best interests to reduce the pollution from things like coal and oil and replace it with renewable and cleaner options.
There will be much growth in employment when the govs of the world embrace it , instead of depending on things like oil which will dry up in our children's life time if not ours.

I vote GREENS, I care about our childrens future.

Apparently you don't understand a bloody thing Skippy.

We aren't discussing CLIMATE CHANGE or AGW we are discussing the GREEN ECONOMY and the jobs myth.

Let me know when that has sunk in OK.

As for the GREENS... don't start me.

Grendel could be talking about the sustainability of Green jobs. There's propaganda being spread at the moment that initially renewables will create high employment - but twice as many jobs will be lost in the coal industry and even those initial Green jobs will be reduced eventually.

This is untrue. Renewables will offer a wide scope of long term employment - in particular to our young people who are the most disadvantaged in the workforce.

Grendel wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 12:16pm:

You've hit the nail on the head there boof, for old people like yourself it is hard to accept change and retraining when your stuck in the old fashioned ways but all the young people being trained now can be trained in clean Green future jobs.
It will take a while to phase out those old ways of doing things so people like you can still expect to have work until you retired.

What I do know is that those jobs in Spain were all government created, as we all know private enterprise are much better than government at keeping costs down so when we have a study on Green jobs that are non government we might have a more reliable model to look at.
The other point is the Spanish government built wind farms with that money, possibly not the best choice in Spain.

On even more investigations into boofy's cut and pastes we find this-

"The Heritage Foundation and its conservative allies have been using unfounded evidence to claim that investments in renewable energy lead to higher prices and job losses. The report that they are touting was written by Professor Gabríel Calzada Álvarez, a virtually unknown scholar in Spain who works for a small research institute with clear ties to the energy industry and the extreme right-wing of the Spanish Conservative Party.

The reality is that Spain has, over the past several years, pursued an ambitious renewable energy program designed to turn it around from dependence on foreign sources of energy. The country is now lauded as a global leader in alternative energy technologies such as wind, biogas, and, more recently, concentrated solar thermal.

Leaders from the Fundación Ideas para el Progreso—the Ideas Foundation for Progress—have written the following letter debunking the Álvarez report. Jesús Caldera is the vice president of the IDEAS Foundation and former minister for public works, and Carlos Mulas-Granados is the executive director of the IDEAS Foundation and former economic advisor to Prime Minister Zapatero. Here's what they have to say:

In the past weeks, there has been considerable debate in the United States regarding the job creating potential of the green recovery plans of the new Administration focusing on the recent experiences of Spain. We were surprised to learn that one of the principle pieces of evidence used by opponents of President Obama’s green recovery program is a deeply flawed report from a little known Spanish research institute funded in part by the oil industry. We write to you to inform you of the problems of using information in this report and ask that after learning the facts you correct the record about green jobs in Spain."
So now you're posting anti Green ganda that is funded by the oil industry, ohh boofy, you've done it again.

"Official figures from the Spanish Ministry of Labour prove that the sector of renewable energies has created 175,000 jobs, 82% of which are high-quality jobs. While representing only one percent of the country’s labor force, the sector is so productive that it already generates 20% of the electricity consumed by Spanish households and companies. The official projections from ISTAS (Syndicated Institute for labor, environment and health) also shows that this sector is set to create 270,000 more jobs in Spain by 2020. If this trend were to hold true in the US economy, which is more than ten times larger than that of Spain, this suggests the creation of over 5 million clean energy jobs in just ten years. Today, this may seem a distant reality, but if Spain can achieve these results we have no doubt that the US can too. The new Administration should be commended for its ambition, and we in Spain would be more than happy to support their leadership with our modest experience. "

Wow, GREEN power in just a short time already generates 20% of Spanish power.

How many jobs will be lost as a result of peak oil?

pjb05 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 5:35pm:


How long does it take to convert all the vehicles in Australia to LPG? It doesn't have to run out overnight to have an effect. a 2 year decline in supply is enough to have a major impact.

muso wrote on Jul 10^th, 2009 at 5:49pm:


Peak oil doesn't mean the supply will decline but that it will no longer increase. The supply could plateau for quite a while. The optimists say that the effect of higher oil price and better technologies will mean a lot of oil that is not regarded as extractable today will do so in the future. Also that we haven't fully explored all the potential oil bearing geological formations. Also that as the oil price gets higher alternatives will become more attractive and gradually take over and the disruption to our economies will be minimal. 

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 .

There are Green jobs being created right now. The media doesn't do much to promote them though.

Some of this is speculation, but on the back of promises from the government. Extracts from the Australian Conservation Foundation...

Quote:

I'm on topic, or so I thought.

You don't read much do you muso.
I already commented on your peak oil crap.

Peak oil has been predicted just about every year since the mid-90s.

It aint here yet and won't be for a very long time.

So you and Skippy think the topic is about all those "Green" jobs that already existed before the alarmists and climate scare and the new GREEN ECONOMY driven by GREEN POWER...  is that right?

I'd have thought it was about the stuff mentioned in the opening post.  But hey that's just me.

DWMT

Well if it isn't Tweedledee in search of Tweedledum...  you and Skippy make a good pair Bozo.