From guest columnist, The Hippie Conservative:
The year is 1993. The Soviet Empire has collapsed and the former country of Yugoslavia is now on the verge of war as the “Croatian Spring” has devolved into a state of starvation and chaos. The leaves have been stripped from every tree for food, the wood burned for heat and no animals can be found anywhere. A country which once hosted the 1984 Olympics in Sarajevo, the crown jewel of the Soviet Empire, is now reduced to an environmental disaster.
Conclusion: Without a sound economy, ecology and environmentalism has no meaning.
The Obama administration is under the belief that a sound economy and a sound ecology are not mutually exclusive. On that, I agree. Regulations to preserve our resources are necessary to keep the corporate machines from exploiting every corner of this county for profit. Without protection, federal and state lands would be sold off to lower taxes and fix budgets. States would compete for jobs by lowering pollution standards. Clean-ups would be ironically socialized. With a sound and rational regulating system, coupled with economic freedom and healthy profit margins, it’s entirely possible to use the tax money created by a healthy economy to preserve and protect our environment.
The problem is; the Obama Administration is under the mistaken belief that a sound economy can be created by using green energy as its jobs creator.
Here in Michigan, we had a Governor who also believed that green energy, coupled with subsidizing infrastructure projects could create jobs. So many jobs, she promised, that we would be “blown away” by the results. She pumped 100’s of millions of taxpayer dollars into her ideas. She increased road construction to the tune of an extra $100 million a year. She supported and subsidized high tech battery plants, the construction of solar panel manufacturers and the use of windmills. In the end, Michigan, while leading the nation in programs supporting green energy, also led the nation in unemployment 4 of her 8 years. 20,000 “green jobs” were created in a period where 1 million jobs were lost.
Progressives have a mantra when it comes to their failures and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm stuck to it like glue, “It would have worked if it were done broader, if we threw more money at it, or if it had no opposition.” She also blamed everyone under the sun but herself and her ideas. She blamed the automobile industry for leaving her state faster than other states while refusing to believe that her policies caused it. She even blamed the past administration for the better part of 6 years. Is this what the Obama administration is going to try to sell us? Blame instead of progress?
The truth is; it didn’t work because the technology is not ready, pure and simple.
To demonstrate; General Motors (owned in part, by the U.S. government) recently announced construction of a new, all solar powered manufacturing plant. The solar array cost $7.5 million and will create 310 jobs. It was heralded as the future here in Michigan, but that comes to $24,200.00 per job. If all 4.7 million jobs in Michigan were subsidized this way, it would cost Michigan $113.74 trillion to have a labor force. A bargain I’ll admit, compared to some of the other Obama administration ventures. I myself looked into a windmill for my cabin up north. The windmill I was interested in cost approx. $5000.00 and would supply 1500 watts at peak production. The U.S. government would then subsidize, through tax breaks, $1,500 of that cost. The problem is; it takes 4000 watts to run a house with all the electronics we have today. Add to that the fact that not every day produces peak production and my estimates were that it would take 20+ years to make a sound return on my investment even with the Government subsides. That doesn’t even include replacing the bearings every 3 to 5 years and the fact that the windmill power unit was only expected to last 10 years.
I decided to pass.
Despite the obvious failings of the green energy industry, the Obama administration has pumped billions into this idea. The most recent example is the solar panel company, Solyndra. This green company, once heralded as a prime example for the green jobs market by President Obama himself, has now collapsed after $535,000,00.00 of Federal investment. In the end, Solyndra created 1000 jobs at $535,000.00 per job! Imagine what all those people could have done with over a half million dollars each. I could retire, reinvest in another house and perhaps even start a business that would create real jobs. Even if this technology were to advance to a more logical level, what’s stopping China or anyone else from producing it for cheaper??
Add to that the failed green companies Evergreen, Schott, a branch of General Electric and too many others to list. All of these companies got huge subsidizes under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the average cost per job was just short of a half million dollars each. At the same time, proven industry breakthroughs like gas and oil fracking were ignored and obstructed.
Before you reach the wrong conclusion, let me just say that I’m a huge supporter of green energy and energy independence. I just don’t believe that it’s ready for prime time and I don’t believe that it will produce the number of jobs needed to stimulate our economy that’s being claimed. I’m also not a big supporter of subsidizing industry. Research, done by the traditional methods including universities, is the way to go. If the product is ready, the market will take care of it without the government picking winners and losers based on campaign contributions. The trick is to make sure that the new boat (to use a metaphor) is finished and floating before we leave the one we’re on. The Obama administration is down-right hostile to any fossil fuels even to the point of promoting pure electric vehicles over hybrids that have a better chance of success. If we’re to reach the point of energy independence and less pollution, we need to explore all possibilities and that includes using fossil fuels. Global Climate Change is a serious issue and should not be ignored, but until the climatologists can accurately predict next year, my faith in their long term predictions is lacking. In the short term, we need to fix our economy so that we can have the luxury of caring about our environment.
– H.C.
The Hippie Conservative blogs at http://thehippieconservative.blogspot.com/
The Unmitigated Word 
OK, Mr. H.C.,
For the sake of your argument (a good one, I’ll admit), we’ll go with the premise that going green will not boost the economy in the way it needs to. It will not lead to the job creation needed to buttress the declining middle class workforce.
Now what?
What’s the solution then? Do you propose that we sit back and do nothing? Do you think cement infrastructure is the answer? Do we toss our hands up in surrender? Our dear friends in the GOP simply want everything to revolve around corporate tax cuts…trusting they will take their massive profits and create jobs. But so far that has produced diddly.
The government sucks at being innovating capitalists. We get that. But what else is supposed to be done to try to fix things, to put more Americans back to work while also doing wonders for the economy? In short, what are we supposed to do?
Maybe THAT should be the subject of your next post.
Hey Mr Mike, (We’re being so proper here suddenly, but since I like and appreciate manners, let’s go with it.),
You don’t have to wait for my next post, I’ll give you some answers right now. Certainly we don’t sit here and do nothing. First, we allow fossil fuels to help fill the void for now. Fracking is one good answer to pursue. While certainly not perfect, natural gas extraction is a proven method that can only harm a small section of any land it’s on. The examples of polution caused by fracking have been relatively easy to fix and it’s certainly better than having a gulf spill or a nuclear accident. Also, a great deal of our homes are heated with LP gas which is produced by fracking. Increasing supply will keep prices down helping the average homeowner with one of their biggest costs (LP has gone up 400% in the past 20 years) Second, we allow drilling for oil here in the U.S. with as much oversite as possible. I personally like the idea of harsh punishment for violations over these “catch me if you can” regulations. Third, we pursue bio fuels such as algae fuel and all the solar and wind power by supporting research in our universities and government structures not by pumping money into manufacturing of products that aren’t ready for market. Lowering the cost of fuels will free up money that your average american will then use to stimulate the economy without taxing. The fear of global warming is the roadblock to all of these ideas and I believe it is being done at an extremist level. How many of Al Gore’s prophecies have come true so far? Can we control other nations like China or India or Russia even IF he’s right? We can’t even control OUR companies. I believe we have time and need a long term rational energy program that gets us off fossil fuels slowly and not a “We have to change immediately or we’re all going to die” approach.
No argument there, HC. One of the reasons I was so wary about purchasing a hybrid vehicle when they first came on the market was because of the newness of the whole concept. A few years later, the novelty still hasn’t quite worn off for me. So if I have so much trepidation about a single decision to purchase, I’m especially concerned about basing an entire economic movement on similar initiatives. I think a green economy DOES need to emerge, just not with as much head-on force as the Obama administration is advocating at this point. A forward charge on that hill could lead to some pretty devestating results.
I don’t think I entirely agree, Mike. The government has been pretty inept lately in spurring job growth. But I’d hardly say they’ve been completely crappy investors in innovation. I mean, you’ve got the Internet, transcontinental travel, infrastructure, the space program, etc. There are plenty of examples of where the gub’ment had to take risks that paid off nicely in the long run.
Well said Dre,
I believe that for too many people government is the answer to everything or the answer to nothing-we need to get out of that mentality. Government has, and does some things well and some things horribly.
Interesting argument, HC. I think you’re correct in one sense, but not all across the board. Migrating over to a green economy will be expensive at the outset. But just like anything else, things get less expensive down the road. So the figures you presented – while daunting – would more or less be temporary.
Hey J.Alex,
I agree, but to what extent? Could that money have been spent wiser? Will it really create many jobs when China or India can produce them so much cheaper? Those are the questions I have. I think we could be
(continued) smarter about how we’re spending in these tough times.
And the month-long erection at Fox News will begin in 5…4…3..2…
lol, they have been happier than normal. At least it got them off the whole “we’re all going to hell” thing.
This argument is pretty disingenous, if you ask me. Who – including President Obama – ever said green jobs were the ONLY investment we should be making to fix the ecomony? And pointing to one or two failed companies doesn’t suggest to me that the entire green initiative is something we should abadon. Rethink, maybe. But not abandon. The way I see it, we should be using the green initiative for the following purposes: (1) retrofitting every building and home in America to be energy efficient, and the management, supply chain, transportation, tools, etc, installing wind turbine and solar power facilities, increasing hyrdopower production, carbon sequestration, and using more biofuels. Nuclear power shouldn’t be taken off the table either.
There is so much opportunity to be had here. But if we waste our time using partisan cheapshots to push certain agendas and attack others, we won’t get anywhere.
Hey Darren,
I certainly hope you don’t think I was engaging in any partisan cheap shots, that was not my intent. I am a registered Dem, although I consider myself an independent. I don’t look at it as “pointing to one or two failed companies” but rather looking at some very bad investments done on my behalf as a taxpayer. Much like the billions poured into Haliburton by G.W. and his crew. My suspicion is that it may have been done as political paybacks, and that’s the part that really bothers me when those billions could have been spent in (IMO) better ways. We definately shouldn’t be abandoning green energy, I’m just dispelling the myth that these green energy jobs can stimulate the economy in any meaningful way. It’s not all or nothing, it’s seeing it for what it is at this point in time.
Sorry Guys, that was me, H.C. Forgot to login again. 🙂
*MISTAKE ALERT*
In the line from my post “If all 4.7 million jobs in Michigan were subsidized this way, it would cost Michigan $113.74 trillion to have a labor force.”, the word “trillion” should have been “billion”. Sorry for the mistake. However, since the total tax revenue in all of Michigan was only $43,643,900,000,(http://house.michigan.gov/hfa/PDFs/source0610.pdf) it still would have taken over twice our entire revenue to subsidize every job. Thanks to everyone who pointed that out. My goal is to inform, not decieve.