Home
 

Wind Power Could Result in Higher Workplace Fatalities, Study Shows

By Kevin Mooney

We know it is expensive and unreliable.

But a new study from the Heritage Foundation also shows that wind power could be more dangerous to worker safety than traditional energy sources. The tragic explosions in Massey’s Upper Big Branch coal mine and the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig have very appropriately focused attention on workplace hazards. But it would be a mistake to presume that switching away from fossil fuels to renewable energy would reduce fatalities, David Kreutzer, a senior policy analyst in energy economics and climate change explains.

It is important to understand that the current low number of total deaths in the wind-power industry is largely a result of the very low amount of power generated by wind, Kreutzer points out in his study. To properly project the potential consequences of switching to wind from coal, it is necessary to calculate the mortality rate per megawatt-hour.

“On a million-megawatt-hour basis, the wind-energy industry has averaged 0.0220 deaths compared with 0.0147 for coal over the years 2003-2008,” the study says. “Even adding coal’s share of fatalities in the power-generation industry, which brings the rate up to 0.0164, still leaves wind power with a 34 percent higher mortality rate. For the record, the workplace fatality rate for wind also exceeds that for oil and gas on an equivalent-energy basis.”

The 20 percent renewable energy standard included as part of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill would require swapping about 800 million megawatt-hours of coal generated with current with 800 million megawatt-hours of wind power, Kreutzer notes. The end result here gives good reason for pause.

“Using the recent mortality rates as a guide, we would expect there to be 4-5 more workplace fatalities per year than if there were no wind power at all,” he wrote. “Even this comparison ignores the fatalities we could expect from the additional power lines needed for so much remote wind power.”

Kreutzer’s study calls attention to an unexplored dimension of the energy debate. The Obama Administration’s pursuit of so-called renewable energy could have unexpected and highly damaging consequences over time.

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

TimesCheck.com: NYT "Green Column" Promotes Renewable Efforts in Australia that Collide with Economic Realities

NYT “Green Column” Promotes Renewable Efforts in Australia that Collide with Economic Realities

By Kevin Mooney

So called renewable energy sources comprise just 6 percent of Australia’s power supplies, but this could change dramatically in the next few years if environmentalists have their druthers, according to a New York Times “Green Column” that highlights pending projects. Current plans call for the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere to be built between now and 2013, the report says.

Although the report concedes that there are enormous logistical challenges connected with the project, it permits renewable industry advocates to talk around the engineering obstacles. The NYT also claims the renewable energy initiatives will generate modest costs for Australian citizens. But the experiences of European countries and U.S. states suggest otherwise and should be reported.

Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance. The study also describes how higher energy prices associated with renewable have worked against Spain’s ability to compete internationally. The same is true in the U.S. where electricity rates are almost 40 percent higher in states with renewable standards than they are in states that do not have such standards, according to the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

Readers would greatly benefit if these numbers were juxtaposed with some of the blanket assertions made in the NYT piece. Unrealistic cost estimates are typically attached to political agendas at odds with the public interest. Ideally, journalists should work to expose rather than advance government perfidy.

Australia could switch over to renewable in just 10 years by constructing 12 thermal solar stations and 23 wind farms, a Melbourne University study cited in the report has concludes.

“This ambitious clean energy network would cost 370 billion dollars over 10 years, but the cost to each household is estimated at a mere 8 dollars a week,” the article declares. This is very questionable number in light of what has been experienced in America and Europe. But policymakers are proceeding full speed ahead.

“Worldwide, investment in renewable energies has boomed in recent years, with some $190 billion worth of new clean energy in 2008, according to the Renewables Global Status Report for 2009,” the report says. “The number of large solar plants tripled to 1,800 between 2007 and 2008, with the majority of new plants in Spain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea and Portugal. The United States, the world’s biggest source of wind energy, installed five times Australia’s total wind energy capacity in 2008 alone.”

Yes, and it’s costing these countries a substantial amount without any appreciable impact on the climate at the expense of cheap, reliable energy sources. The NYT does a great disservice to readers here by way of cheerleading for renewable development in a country that has plenty of alternatives. Instead, it views Australia’s rich supply of resources as an obstacle.

“One of the problems in Australia is that the country has too many energy resources, and too much cheap coal,” the NYT observes. “The country is the leading exporter of coal in the world, and it generates about 80 percent of its electricity through coal-fired power stations.”

The political class understands that coercive measures such as “cap and trade” are needed to force private industry off politically incorrect energy sources. But key voices of dissent have emerged and that’s good news for Australians.

“While campaigning for elections on Saturday, the governing Labor Party and the conservative opposition appeared divided over whether to set such a `carbon price,’ which would force coal power operators to invest in cleaner technology and make renewable energy more competitive,” the report says. Prime Minister Julia Gillard favors what the NYT describes as a “market-based carbon program,” while Tony Abbott is opposed.

Although environmental groups maintain that “cap and trade” policies have market-like qualities, their arguments do not hold up, especially on the cap side of the equation. The emissions restrictions are imposed through regulation not voluntary, market-based decisions. Moreover, because they are set through regulation and legislation they can be imposed for political reasons, not economic or environmental reasons.

This remains an unexplained part of the story that should be pursued and unpackaged in future reports.

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau, and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

New Jersey Business Owners, Activists Seek Repeal of "Cap and Trade" that Could Reverberate Nationally

By Kevin Mooney

Business owners have joined forces with free market activists in New Jersey who are calling on state lawmakers to repeal “cap and trade” policies, which are responsible for boosting energy prices. On Thursday, The New Jersey Restaurant Association (NJRA), which represents the state’s largest employment sector, announced its support for a bill that would both revoke “cap and trade” and rescind New Jersey’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

“The opposition that is building up against `cap and trade’ in New Jersey could have national implications since the program here was crafted as a model for what President Obama had in mind,” Steven Lonegan, a former mayor of Bogota explained in an interview. “The American people are opposed to these environmental regulations but they are still growing right under our feet at the state level with these regional initiatives. It’s shocking how few people realize New Jersey already has the program.”

Lonegan, who is also a former gubernatorial candidate, is heading up the effort to repeal “cap and trade” in partnership with private citizens and public officials. Legislation (Bill A3147) has been introduced in the Assembly by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R-25) and Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R-24). An accompanying bill is expected to be introduced by Senator Michael Doherty (R-23), and Governor Chris Christie has indicated he would sign the legislation.

Lisa Jackson, who now serves as Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, previously served as the New Jersey environmental commissioner. Prior last year’s “climategate” scandal that exposed how politically-motivated researchers manipulated and exaggerated warming trends, federal lawmakers were eyeing Jackson’s state level program as a foundation for new regulatory schemes modeled after the Kyoto Protocol.

“There are profound economic consequences attached to scientifically unfounded `cap and trade’ programs,” Lonegan said. “Unfortunately, there are still too many state legislators who don’t understand the issue and don’t have the backbone to stand up to groups like the Sierra Club. But the public is behind us and we feel like we have momentum.”

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

America is Following the Wrong Path

By Rebekah Rast

Remember the saying, just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean you have to do it, or the question, if all your friends were jumping off a cliff, would you do the same?

That question implies that being a follower is not always the best thing to be. It’s not only a good question to ask a friend, but the government as well. Even the President.

Putting America on a strict diet to only consume renewable energy in order to cut down on greenhouse gases is not a new trend. In fact, this diet Barack Obama fully supports has left some European countries sick and ailing.

European countries began government-sponsored renewable energy programs in the early to mid 2000’s; Obama began implementing similar ones in America when he took office in 2009. He was confident, and maybe still is, that countries like Spain, Germany and Italy had the right idea.

The economies of these countries are now in a very bad place because each of those governments pushed its involvement in renewable energies to the point of destroying job markets, small businesses, economies and citizens’ lives.

“We see time and time again that when the government gets involved in the free market, it does more harm than good,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “We are seeing this play out in countries like Spain and now our government is jumping on board and leading America down the same path.”

A Wall Street Journal article taps into the reality of what Spain, Germany and Italy are dealing with after failed attempts by their governments to move these countries toward a dependence on renewable energy.

The article states that many European governments promoted generous subsidies to the renewable-energy market with the hope of meeting the European Union’s goal to have at least 20 percent of its energy come from forms of renewable energy before 2020.

That was before the financial crisis of 2008.

Now, as these European countries are facing tight budgets they are forced to scale back their levels of generous giving to the renewable energy sector. Energy consumers will now face higher energy costs without government subsidies.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has found that after the financial crisis of 2008, Germany faced a price mark-up of about 2.2 cents US per kWh because of the government’s unsustainable support for green electricity. In America, that increase would amount to an average increase of 19.4 percent in consumer’s electricity bills.

Not only has this turn of events had a negative impact on these country’s economies and energy consumers, but investors as well.

Spain’s push for photovoltaic power and its offering of generous subsidies encouraged many individuals and small businesses to invest in this form of renewable energy. The people who invested felt it was a good solid investment backed and guaranteed by the government.

Spain is now considering steep cuts to these subsidies due to budgetary constraints. These cuts could easily force a small company to close if it can longer afford to pay the bank loans back for its renewable energy investment.

Another report by IER describes how the Spanish government’s investment in green energy has hindered its ability to bounce back from the financial crisis. These were some of the key findings:

• For every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost
• Since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job”
• Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs.

“The cost of the government throwing all its weight behind a renewable energy program in Spain has not only lead to record deficit levels for the country but also contributed to huge job losses,” says Wilson.

To add fuel to the fire, a graph by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), shows an increase of carbon emissions of almost 50 percent since Spain started its push to renewable energy.

Spain has learned the hard way that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. For each form of renewable energy used, back up forms of conventional electricity are needed to fill in the gaps of unavailability.

The situation in Italy is not much better. The country requires utility companies to generate a certain amount of electricity from renewable energy sources. When the utility companies meet the requirements they are given “green certificates.” If a utility company does not meet its quota, it can buy a “green certificate” from another utility company. As sales of these “green certificates” increase they become more valuable.

Italy cannot keep up with the cost of the certificates, but realized if it were to pull the program, financing for any future green projects would be lost, devastating investors and utility companies. Italy is stuck finding another solution.

America hasn’t reached the tipping point where these other countries sit, but collapses in Obama’s green initiatives have already started.

As ALG previously reported, a program that had the full backing of the Administration has been drained of resources because it was labeled too risky. This program, Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), allowed homeowners to take out a lien on their property for the investment of energy-efficient home improvements, including insulation and solar panels.

The program started off well, especially in parts of California, until the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, decided homeowners’ taking out a lien loan on their homes was too risky as the country faces such an unstable housing market.

The other problem with the PACE program is the lien loans got paid off before the initial mortgage. Meaning, if for some reason a homeowner could no longer afford payments and the home went into foreclosure, the PACE loan would be the first to be paid off. Any extra money would then go to paying off the original mortgage held by a bank or quite possibly Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Due to the abrupt ending of the PACE program in certain communities, many homes are left in limbo and many green companies are out of work due to the haste of the government pushing a program into a market that could not sustain it without risk.

When Congress allocated $3.2 billion to be spent on Obama’s green initiatives for job creation in February 2009, the government was hoping renewable forms of energy would find a successful niche in the marketplace. The New York Times reported that of that $3.2 billion only 8.4 percent has been spent on green job creation and only 2,300 jobs were produced or saved as a direct result of this spending. That should be proof enough that renewable forms of energy cannot compete with conventional forms — the faster the government realizes that truth, the better.

“The government needs to stop picking winners and losers,” says ALG’s Wilson. “If this Administration continues to throw money at green energy programs it will hurt businesses, the job market and the economy.”

As solar panels continue to grace America’s rooftops and wind farms continue to rise throughout America’s countryside, it is wise to look at the predecessors of green initiatives and to not dismiss the notion that America one day could be in a similar position.

Rebekah Rast is the national correspondent to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

Fraud Infiltrates BP's Clean Up Efforts

By Rebekah Rast

Thankfully the Gulf oil leak has been plugged. And, like any other top news story, once the situation is somewhat resolved or becomes old news, the coverage is dropped.

The media should not be so quick to move on. There continues to be news coming out of this catastrophe in the Gulf — most of it is not good.

Life is still not back to normal for those affected by the disaster, and won’t be for a long time. Many fishermen are still out of work, oil rig workers aren’t allowed to work and most Americans are skeptical of any food coming out of the waters — greatly impacting the restaurant industry in the area.

To compensate those most impacted by the Gulf oil spill, BP has so far paid out $308 million to those whose livelihoods depend on the Gulf waters. Many fishermen have received compensation or have been hired by BP to help with clean up efforts. These honest, hard-working Americans are grateful for the help.

Whenever there is aid offered of any kind, especially when it’s money, there will always be those who try and manipulate the system. Many lives have been destroyed in the Gulf and even those whose livelihoods weren’t as disrupted as others want a handout and will go to whatever measure is needed to get it.

To receive the compensation BP is offering to these fishermen, all the fishermen had to do was show a valid fisherman’s license. Let the fraud begin.

A good indication some not-so-honest people were up to something fishy was the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) has sold 2,200 licenses since the oil spill. This is odd as many of the fishing zones are still closed due to the oil spill.

Some fraudsters are even falsifying trip ticket information. Trip tickets are used as a point of sale by commercial fishermen and wholesale/retail dealer license holders. These tickets are filled out by both parties and filed into LDWFs Trip Ticket Program's database.

A news release from LDWF stated that a man was arrested for allegedly misrepresenting trip ticket documents dated from May and June of 2009 in order to file a claim with BP to receive compensation. Upon digging deeper, they found this man did not have a commercial fishing license and the public record he filed that denoted 5,644 pounds of shrimp with a value of $10,237.50, was simply not accurate. All this after he received three payments from BP, totaling $3,000 in May and June of this year.

BP and LDWF law enforcement officers are now looking into each and every claim to make sure they are valid, as they should. Three people suspected of manipulating BP’s system have already been arrested.

BP now has to work harder to ensure the right people are receiving the relief funds. This could potentially slow down the process for those who should rightfully receive BP’s compensation.
The Gulf has faced many hardships from being hit hard by both Hurricane Katrina and the oil spill. The Gulf needs to be repaired so Americans can get back to work.

Despite the negative impact of those who are taking advantage of the system by trying to get money that does not belong to them, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, law enforcement officers, the LDWF and BP deserve to be praised for how they are working together. Their efforts are helping to rebuild the Gulf and peoples’ lives.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

Logging Industry Faces the Chopping Block

By Rebekah Rast

What better example of American folklore then the tales of Paul Bunyan, the Giant Lumberjack. Nothing ever got in the way of him or Babe his Blue Ox companion. Paul Bunyan’s giant ax never left his hand and he loved to harvest timber.

Though Paul Bunyan is a fictional character, his loyalty to the lumber industry is felt by all lumberjacks. Whether chopping down trees, transporting wood or running sawmills, the work required by the lumber industry is not easy.

Now lumberjacks are facing a different challenge — a fading industry. The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state restrictions are jeopardizing an industry critical to America’s past and future.

“This is just another example of an industry being destroyed by the environmental agenda of the federal government,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG).

***

Richard Krawze was 12 years old when he started harvesting lumber with his brother. They lived on a farm in Northern Wisconsin and had lots of trees on their land.

“When you’re a young person you don’t always know what you want to do,” says Krawze. “I loved living in Northern Wisconsin and I really enjoyed the people in the lumber industry. It was just natural for me to follow through with it.”

Krawze went onto to start his own lumber company in 1969 called Pine River Lumber Company Ltd. He ran the business with a friend, and in its prime it employed 326 people. Now the company employs one full-time employee and one part-time employee.

***

Elena Forcher’s husband, Thomas Forcher, is the President of Northwest Skyline Logging Inc. in Happy Camp, California. Their small business, started in the 1970s, once employed 25 people, then dwindled to half that and now only employs a few. Most companies in that area have already closed.

“We probably have this year and another year to log,” Elena says. “Hopefully we can sell all the equipment we have and dissolve the business. Luckily we are on our way out of this business and not just getting started in it.”

***

The Western part of the United States is ripe with stories like these. Communities once dependent on lumber harvesting don’t exist any longer. Professionals in the industry have been forced to move on and find a new line of work. Krawze says that in Northern Wisconsin about 50 percent of sawmills that once thrived with business are now closed. Elena says their town has been devastated and it has impacted every family there.

The main reason: mismanagement of federal lands.

“The federal government has mostly gotten out of the timber business,” says Mark Pawlicki, director of corporate affairs and sustainability for Sierra Pacific Industries in California. “They are managing the national forests so little now that they are creating fire hazards.”

Bob Mion, communications director at California Forestry Association, says timber harvesting is down 90 percent on public lands, including federal lands. Since January 2000, he says 46 percent of sawmills have closed. California, which used to produce 80 percent of its own lumber, now imports 80 percent.

Over the years the federal government has deemed it necessary to close off more and more land to the logging industry. Many in the industry say it started with the Endangered Species Act, and the need to protect the Spotted Owl. Many sawmills in Washington State were forced to shut down because of this species. Come to find out, says Mion, the owl thrives on managed lands, not the untouched, mismanaged federal lands. The owl’s favorite food is a wood rat, Mion claims. “If the forest is overgrown, it can’t see the rat,” he says.

Pawlicki says Colorado is also suffering from overgrown forests. “There is a huge problem of bugs killing trees,” he says. “The forests are too dense and the trees are weak and fighting for water.” Therefore they are easily taken over by the bugs.

Overgrown forests also can emit more carbon into the air. As national forests are left mismanaged because of the federal government’s environmentalist agenda, more greenhouse gases are being emitted into the air.

“We are the only industry that helps air quality,” says Pawlicki. He goes on to say that because timber harvesters must replant much more than they remove from forests, long term studies have shown a reduction of greenhouse gases because younger trees grow faster and absorb more carbon and other gases.

Despite scientific studies proving the benefits of timber harvesting for the environment, the industry still suffers an anti-Mother Earth reputation.

“The environmental community has done a marvelous job at creating a world view that cutting down a tree is a crime; when in fact, you need to take out the old and dying trees to keep forests young and growing,” says Tom Talbot, CEO of Glen Oak Lumber in Wisconsin.

Causing more damage to the industry are environmentalist groups taking their anti-logging cases to court, tying up the approval for timber harvesting permits for years. Pawlicki says if there is no lawsuit against a timber harvesting job the permit process takes about 2 years. If there is a lawsuit, it can take about 5 years.

“Restrictions on the lands and lawsuits have crippled the industry,” Pawlicki says. “In 2009 the industry was half of what it was in 2007.”

Even though state agencies have to follow rigorous environmental rules and steps before receiving harvesting permits, organizations like Center for Biological Diversity take them to court anyways.

“More often than not, it seems like the environmentalists win,” says Damien Schiff, staff attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation in California, who has handled many cases involving the permitting process. “The environmentalist groups will sue the state agency permitting the harvesting. After a while, the agency gives up. In practical matters, it’s the timber harvesters that lose.”

The outcome of lawsuits and less availability of public lands leaves the timber industry with a great loss of resources and jobs.

“The exodus from the timber industry in the last four or five years is tremendous,” says Krawze. “Furniture factories and sawmills continue to shut down on a monthly basis. Young people don’t stay in Northern Wisconsin anymore. They have to head out to find work elsewhere.”

The story is the same for those in the timber industry in other states. Leaving public and federal national forests unmanaged is a waste. Who better to take care of these lands then the families that depend on them for years to come as a way to make a living?

“The government has been destroying this industry for the past 20 years for all the wrong reasons,” Talbot says.

ALG’s Wilson agrees and adds, “The federal government says job growth in the U.S. is a priority, yet it is destroying the timber industry and devastating entire communities of people who depend on this business for their livelihood.”

There are no valid reasons, environmental or not, as to why the government is wiping out this industry. If only Paul Bunyan and his giant ax were real.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to the Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

Gulf Coast Oil Spill Needs an Independent Inquiry

By Rick Manning

U.S. House Democrats have stripped the establishment of a bi-partisan independent commission to investigate the Gulf Oil spill from the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act (CLEAR Act).

If ever a situation needed to be investigated by independent experts with knowledge about oil drilling and a desire to get to the truth no matter where it might lie, the Gulf disaster is it.

Yet, amazingly, the Democratic majority of the House Resources Committee has decided that an independent inquiry is not needed, instead relying on the Obama-appointed commission of environmentalists to evaluate offshore oil drilling and the Gulf spill.

It is reasonable to assume that the Obama group will not look at the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) culpability in obstructing the use of oil dispersants by BP. That isn’t in its interest or even mission.

It is reasonable to assume that the Obama group will not look at the Administration’s blocking of building barrier islands to block oil from entering pristine marshlands that may never be restored to health.

It is also reasonable to assume that the Obama group will not look at the failure of the Obama Administration to take action — except for when they threatened those very BP workers who were busting their tails trying to fix the problem with litigation. After all, nothing encourages collaboration and cooperation like a lawyer looking to sue you peering over your shoulder.

Representative Doc Hastings of Washington State, the ranking Republican member of the House Resources Committee accused the Democratic majority of being “more interested in protecting the President than getting independent answers to what caused this tragic Gulf spill.”

Hastings went on to note, “Some of the biggest failures that contributed to the Gulf disaster are the direct responsibility of the federal government and by deleting this bipartisan, independent Commission, Democrats ensure that only the President’s hand-picked Commission will be digging into any failures of his own Interior Department appointees.”

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration appointed an independent panel to look into security issues and make recommendations. That panel was represented by well-respected men and women from both political parties, and it did not spare any political figures or sacred cow agencies from examination and skewering. While some of the recommendations have not been approved by Congress, overall, our nation is safer as a result of this Commission and the reforms that resulted.

Unfortunately, in the wake of the Gulf disaster, the only likely outcome is that the politically motivated commission filled with opponents to offshore oil drilling will recommend that the U.S. discontinue offshore oil drilling.

Their recommendations will be hailed by those opposed to offshore oil drilling and dismissed by those who support energy independence, and our nation will be no better for their having existed.

The opportunity for our nation’s government, and this Administration in particular, to learn how to better respond to a crisis will be lost because the Obama-appointed commission lacks the necessary independence to be viewed as credible, non-partisan or even independent.

Ranking member Hastings drives this point home directly stating, “There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s Commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium.”

America deserves an honest, independent inquiry into what happened over the past three months, and what could’ve been done both to prevent it and to better respond to it. Exempting scrutiny of the Obama Administration leaves our nation vulnerable to similar disastrous inaction during the next inevitable crisis.

While the so-called CLEAR Act has numerous pitfalls, the fact that House Resource Committee Democrats want to play see no evil, hear no evil with the Gulf disaster is a disaster in and of itself.

Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government.

Union Bosses Seek Monopoly of Construction Industry Through Green Job Subsidies

By Kevin Mooney

So now it’s called a “clean energy jobs” bill, replete with government inducements for contractors operating on pre-approved “efficiency” projects. Concerns over global warming and/or climate change are “so 2009” and are no longer in vogue.

A draft version of the anti-energy legislation Senate Democrats are expected to roll out next week omits politically unpopular “cap and trade” policies, but includes rebates under the “Home Star” and “Silver Star” programs that deserve careful scrutiny. Union bosses who have received very little legislative return on their substantial investments into the Democratic Party view green jobs as an angle into monopolizing the construction industry.

After losing out on “card check” and binding arbitration, the idea now is for congressional leaders to secure union favors through more obscure legislation that escapes media attention. For example, under Section 3003 of the pending anti-energy bill, “The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” are authorized “to create a Federal Rebate Processing System with a database and information technology system for submitting reimbursement claims by rebate aggregators (RAs).”

This part of the bill, which provides for the “Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program,” appears to create an opening for government subsidies. This is very much in step with President Obama’s rhetorical shift away from “overwhelming scientific evidence” in deference to clean energy initiatives that has been evident since January. Some explanation is in order.

As “climategate” continues to overwhelm the “overwhelming science,” the political class must adapt and adjusts its marketing techniques. So the rationale changes, but the motivation for expanded unionization of the construction sector remains in effect.

In the 2008 election cycle, labor union political action committees (PACS) contributed over $66 million dollars to congressional candidates with 92 percent of those contributions going to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.org. With the mid-term elections now looming, labor leaders are going for broke.

But what is a green job?

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst for energy and environmental policy with the Heritage Foundation, has explored this question in his research.

“Generally, jobs related to renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, battery-powered or other alternatively fueled vehicles, and public transportation comprise most of what are currently considered green jobs,” he has observed previously. “But there is no clear definition of a green job…The definition is further complicated by the fact that some jobs are only occasionally green. For example, workers who produce steel or cement are counted as having green jobs to the extent their products go into making wind turbines — but not when they go into coal-fired power plants… In truth, the definition of a green job is highly subjective and can depend every bit as much on fads and fashions and political correctness as on any objective criteria.”

When federal funds are thrown into the mix, the definition tends to become more elastic. Organized labor has made every effort to define “green jobs” in terms of positions held by workers that receive special green training through union-only apprenticeship programs, representatives with private industry have warned.

“Organized labor and certain special interest groups claim that only union apprenticeship programs can properly train workers to build green projects,” Stephen Worth, President and CEO of Worth and Company, told House members in testimony earlier this year. “However these claims are nothing more than an effort to monopolize the construction workforce on green building and other construction projects. Most green building techniques involve simple architectural changes or the use of environmentally friendly building materials, which requires workers to learn skills that can be taught through both union and nonunion training programs.”

But there is also good cause to question the economic feasibility of green jobs.

President Obama has in the past cited Spain as a model for the clean energy economy of the future. Not so much anymore in light of objective facts that complicate the administration’s policy ambitions. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a recent study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has also published its own detailed assessment of green jobs that concludes government intrusion into the energy sector will most likely boost consumer prices.

“..It is highly questionable whether a government campaign to spur “green jobs” would have net economic benefits,” the IER report says. “Indeed, the distortionary impacts of government intrusion into energy markets could prematurely force business to abandon current production technologies for more expensive ones. Furthermore, there would likely be negative economic consequences from forcing higher-cost alternative energy sources upon the economy.”

Free market organizations that have organized effective and successful campaign against “cap and trade” regulations should make every effort to focus public attention on economically unsound political paybacks that sabotage the private sector and the American consumer.

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

TimesCheck.com: Political Class Substitutes Renewable Needs for Global Warming Hysteria Without Media Scrutiny

Political Class Substitutes Renewable Needs for Global Warming Hysteria Without Media Scrutiny

By Kevin Mooney

With the Senate’s Democratic leadership now poised to introduce a “compromise bill” on energy policy to the floor this week, lawmakers are talking up the merits of renewable technology. Key concessions are being made to placate wavering Republicans who oppose the sweeping industry restrictions included in the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last year.

But, there has been very little discussion of global warming concerns that have been invoked in the past as a rationale for “cap and trade” polices. Instead, the political class now says the legislation is needed to help spur green technology and alleviate American dependence on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, The New York Times and other compliant media outlets have allowed key U.S. Senators to shift away from global warming alarmism in the direction of new marketing techniques without any critical examination.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been a key Republican player, openly acknowledges that the pending legislation has no correlation with any genuine climate concerns. Moreover, the “climategate” scandal involving leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain demonstrates that the science underpinning man-made global warming theories should be called into question. In any event, they are less politically useful.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other top Democrats who have deliberately sidestepped any discussion of the environment should be asked about the “climategate” scandal and the junk science they have all invoked in the past to advance industry restrictions. This time around the discussion revolves around the economy where there is also room for informative articles that measure rhetoric against reality.

“Several senators, including John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, are trying to create specific plans to draw enough votes across the aisle,” the Times reports. “Mr. Reid outlined four main elements: responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, promoting greater energy efficiency, developing more clean-energy production and curbing power plant emissions.”

“He [Reid] said he was prepared to incorporate a plan championed by T. Boone Pickens, the oil and gas executive, to sharply expand the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel in large vehicle fleets,” the report continues. “The proposal, supported by Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, and Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, would provide tax breaks for natural-gas-powered vehicles and fueling stations.”

Not everything in the bill should be seen as a sop to the Sierra Club and other green groups, Reid told The Times. The overarching purpose is to expand renewable energy. But is this approach feasible, affordable and economically sound? These questions have thus far gone missing not only in the New York Times but in other major publications. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has published detailed reports on state level energy policy that should help to instruct federal lawmakers.

States that already have renewable electricity mandates of some kind have electricity prices that are 40 percent higher than those that do not, Dan Simmons, IER’s director of state affairs noted in a recent conference call.

“Where states get their electricity is the key to the price of electricity as in the sources of electricity generation,” he said. “13 of the 15 states that have the cheapest electricity in this nation either get a majority of electricity from coal or get a majority of their electricity from hydro-electric power –and the problem here is that we’re not building new coal or new hydro electric power – at least large hydroelectric power in the U.S. and that is a problem for electricity prices going forward.”

Another point that should be explored in subsequent coverage concerns the migration patterns the IER has pulled together. It would seem lead sponsors of “cap and trade” schemes tend to be concentrated in areas of the country where electricity prices are already high. Instead of working to alleviate the fiscal burdens on their constituents, congressional figures appear more inclined to drag down neighboring states.

“People are moving to areas of the country where they have a better chance at economic opportunity and the remaining states who have saddled themselves with different layers of regulations are starting to recognize the negative implications of that in the form of fewer jobs, fewer opportunities,” Tom Pyle, president of IER said in an interview. “There’s a manufacturing flight and quite frankly I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the leading proponents of cap and trade bills include a senator from California and a senator from Massachusetts.”

By raising energy prices in other parts of the country like the South and the Midwest, political figures intend to spread the pain and boost living expenses elsewhere so there is less of a flight from their home states.

That’s what you call selfish.

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

Not Such a Bright Idea After All

By Rebekah Rast

For those who are advocates of clean, renewable energy, the sun couldn’t shine brighter on solar panels.

Through government incentives for homeowners and through grants and loans for solar companies, one would think that the production of solar energy electricity in the U.S. would be increasing exponentially.

Yet it still only accounts for 0.02 percent of net electricity generated in the U.S.

Ouch. It seems like that number should be higher with more homeowners and businesses installing solar panels on their rooftops, but solar electricity has a few obstacles still to face.

“Solar energy electricity still has a lot of questions marks,” says Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). “Right now solar panels aren’t a viable part of the market.”

The use of solar to create electricity is not a bad idea. But the federal government creating a false market using taxpayer’s money is. Before Americans take to solar panels as a valuable product a few kinks need to be worked out with the technology.

First of all you need sun. Because sunlight isn’t constant other forms of electricity are needed as backup. Even when the sun is shining, changes in atmospheric pressure, pollution, dust and the earth’s positioning to the sun can affect the productivity of photovoltaic solar panels.

In a summary of solar power, the Institute of Energy Research (IER) states, “Though solar technologies are improving, meeting current U.S. electricity needs with today’s PV technology would require about 10,000 square miles of solar panels — an area the size of New Hampshire and Rhode Island combined.”

The summary goes onto say that considerations would have to be made for power lines needed to get the electricity from the sunny desert to other areas of the nation that don’t have as much sunlight. If electricity had to travel great distances across these transmission lines to get to its final destination, then much of it would naturally be lost along the way.

Avoiding power lines and lost electricity, homes and businesses are investing in this relatively new technology as part of their infrastructure.

Gary Gerber, president and CEO of Sun Light & Power and president of CALSEIA in California, says for an average-sized house in California a solar system carries a price tag of about $30,000. That does come down some through various state rebates and federal government incentives, but it is still a costly investment — especially when factoring in the need for backup electricity.

Gerber stands by the benefits of a residential solar system. “It is a simple job of math,” he says. “There is great certainty about what kind of savings you will produce; the real unknown is what the energy costs will be in the next 20 years.”

He’s absolutely right. In California energy prices have been steadily rising year after year, Gerber says, but that doesn’t mean that trend will continue. It’s a gamble. And it’s a gamble that can cost you $30,000 if you make a wrong decision.

If you decide to buy a solar system for your home, how long can you expect the panels to last?
“Solar systems on average last 30 years,” Gerber says. “A 30- to 40-year lifespan is not out of the question at all.” Gerber has a strong warranty on his solar panels for 25 years.

There are still concerns about how long solar systems will last and what happens to them if they no longer work or break. Gerber admits that the industry is young and growing. “People are looking into and doing research on what the long-term solutions are,” he says.

While most solar panels are made of silicon, a well-used and understood material in the U.S., other types of solar modules contain chemicals like Cadmium Telluride, which can be problematic. Cadmium is primarily used for the production of rechargeable nickel cadmium batteries and also can be used in coatings and plating and as stabilizers for plastics, as indicated by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is nominating Cadmium Telluride to be included in the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Treehugger, an organization focused on green news and product information, had this to say about the chemicals, “How can we conscionably posit that cadmium telluride is fine in solar panels just because that technology is ‘green’ relative to electricity production, without having seen a full-blown risk management evaluation that encompasses how cadmium is produced and incorporated into the CdTe matrix, and, then, how it will be reclaimed at product end of life? Well,...‘we’ can’t do that, is the answer.”

Because the technology of solar panels is so new, the recycling methods are still unknown. For the “green” market especially, this poses a heavy risk to the environment. Gerber is confident that the technology will be way beyond what it is now by the time these modules need to be recycled.

It seems the environmental-friendly solar panel industry still has some details to work out. Not to mention most production, about 90 percent, of photovoltaic solar panels takes place overseas and requires electricity in the production methods, thus resulting in the release of greenhouse gases.

Regardless of the fiscal costs to homeowners and the posed environmental costs to Mother Nature, the federal government continues its heavy push for solar energy through the use of solar panels. So much so that because production costs in the U.S. are so high for making solar panels, federal stimulus (taxpayer) money is being shipped overseas along with the manufacturing of the modules. This doesn’t sound like a big win for U.S.

“The American people want an end to government picking winners and losers in the energy sector with subsidies to politically favored industries,” says ALG’s Wilson. “If there was a market for solar panels, the free market would create it on its own. Until then, we should continue producing nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas resources that provide the foundation for meeting the nation’s power needs.”

Until there is a bigger demand for solar panels in the U.S. and until the job market and economy are back in stable conditions, maybe the government should focus its efforts elsewhere.

Just because the federal government thinks it has a bright idea, doesn’t mean the sun shines on it 24 hours a day.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT