Are green job skeptics the new climate deniers?

Seems like the next logical (I use that term very loosely) step for contrarians.  Fight the science in the name of protecting private business, then when the science wins out fight the resulting policy proposals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Bond#Environmental_record

http://www.issues2000.org/international/Kit_Bond_Energy_+_Oil.htm

If Bond is any example, then yes.  Green energy jobs are great because they have to be domestic jobs - they can't be outsourced.  You get tons of jobs in the construction industry as well as jobs to keep the power plants running.

The only jobs they'll replace are in the fossil fuel industries, and coal, for example, employs very few people.  For example, wind power now generates more jobs in the USA than coal mining, even though coal accounts for 50% of our energy vs. wind at somewhere around 1%.  Now granted, there are other jobs associated with coal, but existing job losses resulting from creating green jobs are overstated.  It's just the typical conservative movement wanting to keep the status quo.

I am not sure why you are so exited about the number of "generated jobs" in wind power. Who will pay for all these jobs? From what you said it means that the wind energy is currently 50x more expensive than coal energy. Is this what are you rooting for, make 50x more work to make the same amount of production? Do you think this idea of productivity will make America economically competitive?

Now you're just throwing logic out the window.

First of all, wind energy doesn't create 50 times more jobs than coal.  What I said was that wind power currently accounts for more jobs than coal mining.

Secondly, the same people will "pay for" these jobs as "pay for" coal or hydroelectric or nuclear or any other energy jobs.  Primarily people paying for their electricity.

Thirdly, no I didn't say wind costs 50 times more than coal energy.  That's absurd.  They're two very cost-competitive energy sources at the moment, since we don't pay for the environmental damage of burning coal.  A lot more goes into determining the cost of an energy source besides just the number of jobs associated with it.

You must be proud, Dana, I just was cought by your deception, a little qualifier "mining". It was craftily wrapped into a sentence about energy, "coal accounts for 50% of our energy vs. wind at somewhere around 1%". Congratulations, it worked.

Regarding coal and wind being competitive, I really wonder what is your estimation of alleged environmental damage that is caused by coal, and therefore making wind "competitive"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlTekhasski 

You must be proud, Dana, I just was cought by your deception, a little qualifier "mining". It was craftily wrapped into a sentence about energy, "coal accounts for 50% of our energy vs. wind at somewhere around 1%". Congratulations, it worked.

 

Regarding coal and wind being competitive, I really wonder what is your estimation of alleged environmental damage that is caused by coal, and therefore making wind "competitive"?

Maybe you should try reading my whole post before making such insulting accusations.  Or at least the very next sentence.

As for wind being cost-competitive, that's because it's around 5-10 cents per kWh.  It's cost competitive even without a price on carbon emissions.  

As for the environmental damage of coal, even if you're in denial about global warming, the environmental impacts of coal are indisputable.  Try metals pollution including mercury and arsenic, more radiation than nuclear waste, the potential for disasters like this, mountaintop removal for mining, and so on.

I just found an interesting op-ed in the Sun Journal from Maine in regards to the creation of green jobs.  I'm not particularly familiar with feed-in tarrifs but according to the Wikipedia article on it, there are a variety of territories in the world using this incentive structure.

Here's part of the Sun Journal piece:

Any thoughts on that kind of policy?

Feed-in tarrifs are good as a way to encourage market penetration of renewable energy.  The issue is that as I previously mentioned, fossil fuels are economically cheap because we don't pay for their true cost (including environmental damage).  So if a utility is choosing an energy source based on purely economics, it will probably choose a coal-burning power plant.  But we want to encourage them to choose a less environmentally damaging energy sources.  So a feed-in tarrif requires them to buy a certain amount of the somewhat more economically expensive renewable energy sources, and spread the cost evenly to all of their customers, so the cost to each consumer isn't very big.

Basically it's a way of saying we care about more than just the bottom $$$ line, and making it economically feasible for utility customers.

So, "mountaintop removal" is terrible, but this

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4986/984/1600/windgermany.jpg

is terrific?

Yes.  Not to mention the fact that they're not creating any heavy metals pollution, air pollution, contributing to global warming or ocean acidification, building up toxic ash deposits, etc.

That's terrific. Not to mention the fact that turbines do not produce any electricity when there is weak wind. Someone has to pick up the slack, while sitting in hot reserve all other time.

The radiation argument is also a good one from you, considering that general population is usually exposed to zero nuclear waste, so "more radiation" will be how much? If compared to zero?.

You're arguing with a strawman.

1. I never claimed wind was the only renewable energy source.  Solar thermal and geothermal are two examples which can provide baseload power.  The wind example was simply to illustrate green jobs.
2. I didn't say anything about the amount of radiation people are exposed to.

If you really want to debate something, then debate the issues in question.