Andrew BoltFriday, May 22, 2009 at 07:08am
Mitch Hooke, head of the Minerals Council of Australia, is amazed the Senate is voting on the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme without knowing how many people will lose their jobs where and when:
Yes but I hear you say, what about all those tens of thousands of lovely green jobs that are just magically going to appear to replace those lost?
Let me guess, you believe in the Easter Bunny as well, don't you?
We are going to destroy thousands of real jobs on the promise of theoretical jobs to be created some time in the future, maybe? You think this makes sense?
But if there was already a compelling and sound economic argument for these make-believe green jobs, they'd already be here. No business is going to engage in practices that unnecessarily drives up its costs.
At least no business that is going to survive. Bosses are always looking for ways to decrease their costs and increase their profits.
So it is clearly implied that the as yet uncreated green jobs can only come into existence if the government rorts the market place by preferentially subsidising them. That is, by throwing large amounts of taxpayers' money at the business men and women involved.
So there's the rub. What will it cost to produce each one of these jobs and what does this mean in terms of lost opportunities elsewhere in the economy?
There is no magic pudding. If you divert resources from one area of the total economy, then you are starving another area.
But what if the area you are starving is actually the more effecient and productive part compared to the one the government has decided to favour?
You don't have to be an Einstein (I would have thought) to work out that ultimately this does not make any sense.
Does it make sense to chase the fantasy of so-called renewable energy when we know the numbers don't add up and that it is hopelessly expensive and inefficient?
There has not been a single gas or coal fired power station decommissioned anywhere in the world despite the vast amounts of money that has already been wasted on wind farms.
The reason is simple. You can't relie on wind farms to produce power when you need it.
So you've got to keep your conventional power stations chugging away on standby, ready to fill the gap at a moment's notice.
For every megawatt of theoretical electricity generation from wind power you need a megawatt of reliable coal or gas (or nuclear) generation as back up.
Has anyone tried doing the sums to see what the real costs of green jobs are in terms of real jobs?
Andrew BoltWednesday, May 20, 2009 at 11:15am
A university study into Spain’s world’s-best renewable energy scheme finds that green power kills jobs - and solar power kills most of all:
The study, by Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, should make any fool think twice before pouring millions of government money into solar energy. But not one fool:
How many jobs did you kill today, Mr Rudd?
(Thanks to reader David.)