http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK $7-a-gallon gas? President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas. That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess. So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill? Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak. The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." That sure was true of global-warming policy, and especially the cap-and-trade bill. Many observers thought the measure, introduced last year in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), was dead: The American people didn't seem to think that the so-called global-warming crisis justified a price-hiking, job-killing, economy-crushing redesign of our energy supply amid a fragile recovery. Passing another major piece of legislation, one every bit as unpopular as ObamaCare, appeared unlikely in an election year. So Obama and congressional proponents of cap-and-trade spent several months rebranding it -- downplaying the global-warming rationale and claiming that it was really a jobs bill (the so-called green jobs were supposed to spring from the new clean-energy economy) and an energy-independence bill (that will somehow stick it to OPEC). Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) even reportedly declined to introduce their new cap-and-trade proposal in the Senate on Earth Day, because they wanted to de-emphasize the global-warming message. Instead, Kerry called the American Power Act "a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence." But the new marketing strategy wasn't working. Few believe the green-jobs hype -- with good reason. In Spain, for example, green jobs have been an expensive bust, with each position created requiring, on average, $774,000 in government subsidies. And the logic of getting us off oil imports via a unilateral measure that punishes American coal, oil and natural gas never made any sense at all. Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade -- again -- as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less. The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector. more at the link
I wish they broke that figure down to see exactly what is getting subsidized and for how long. Is it $774K for the life of the position? Is that annually?
Well I say NoBama to this communism! It's my god given right to drive my Mega SUV truck to haul around nothing everyday to work! I know this truck can pull my imaginary boat up mountain Hood in the snow to the very top, where i could ride it down! If nobama was smart, he'd solve the problem of those chinese outbidding all of our oil we buy!
don't know why, but that made me think of this song. [video=youtube;KASc8ds5kXE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KASc8ds5kXE[/video]
Green tech, by definition, is forward looking and not expected to have a big payoff in 2010. If it were, there would be no need for governments to fund it, as private enterprise would be rushing in. That does not imply, however, that the number quoted in the NY Post has any actual connection to reality. barfo
As I watch the video again (because i'm not sure if you're serious or not), I noticed that the person who came up with the lyrics wasn't that good at it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0 Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide. For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid. U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels. The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report. “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview. Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study. “Microsoft and Google moved their servers up to the Canadian border because they benefited from cheaper energy there,” said the professor of applied environmental economics. To contact the reporter on this story: Gianluca Baratti in Madrid at gbaratti@bloomberg.net
more like read it and laugh. c'mon, seriously? If the primary goal of clean energy was to generate jobs, we'd just yoke up all the unemployed and make them turn the Wheel of Pain like in Conan the Barbarian. Counting all the money spent on developing renewable energy as if it was a short-term jobs program is more than a bit disingenuous (even if both opponents and proponents do that). barfo
This kind of govt. spending is ridiculous, dangerous, and not good for anyone (specifically, it tanks economies).
Really? Up to the Canadian border? I think maybe he's not a professor of geography. The fact is of course that datacenters tend to get located where energy is cheapest, since energy is the raw product that datacenters consume. Duh. Just like shoes tend to be manufactured where labor is cheapest. But it would have made his argument better if he got the facts right, and if he hadn't used the most extreme example - datacenters consume huge amounts of electricity and can easily be located more or less anywhere. So naturally they will go where electricity is cheapest. Aluminum smelters, also. It does not follow, however, that all other businesses will. barfo
