Thursday, March 08, 2012

How Obama’s Energy Policy Will Kill Jobs

I'm reminded of that old joke about the young boy who says to his father, "Dad, I want to grow up and be a musician!"  The father responds "Well son, you can't do both."  

Likewise, Obama tells us he wants to create more jobs and continue to subsidize green energy.  Well President, you can't do both.   

It's an economic reality that you cannot create a net increase in American jobs by diverting taxpayer dollars to subsidize the inefficient, high-cost production of “green” energy while at the same time penalizing the low-cost, job-creating, efficient production of traditional energy sources like oil and natural gas.  And that's exactly what the Obama administration's energy policy will accomplish - a net loss of jobs, by punishing the oil and natural gas industry with $86 billion in higher taxes over the next ten years, while subsidizing "green" energy.

Find out more at The American.com about "How Obama’s Energy Policy Will Kill Jobs" (my article with Tom Hemphill). 

27 Comments:

At 3/08/2012 2:53 PM, Blogger juandos said...

I like this line but I don't think its quite right, a minor quibble: "The administration’s FY2013 budget would burden the oil and gas industry with almost $86 billion in higher taxes over the next ten years"...

Just suggesting but shouldn't actually read 'burden the consumers' instead?

The energy companies have to pass most that burden on right?

As things stand now with this administration the potential incomes lost (and its associated income taxes) is rather poignant...

None the less, its an excellent article...

 
At 3/08/2012 3:15 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Yes, very informative article.

Yet, it states:

"Overall employment in the U.S. economy still remains short by almost 5 million jobs, and more than 3 percent below the pre-recession employment peak in November 2007."

That doesn't take into account jobs for population growth over the past four years and in the future.

We can reach full employment at the end of 2012 if the U.S. creates 11 million jobs and 125,000 to 150,000 jobs per month in 2012.

 
At 3/08/2012 4:43 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Obama is currently fighting an attempt by the GOP in the Senate to resurrect the Keystone pipeline. This would be the same pipeline Obama's mouthpiece Carney claims Republicans "forced" Obama to shut down.

 
At 3/08/2012 5:16 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

So, you beleive there is NO green energy source that makes sense under any circumstances?

We are not going to replace fuel oil with kites for moving container ships, but if a kite reduces oilk the consumption by $1800 a day, why is that a bad thing, provided the kite doesn't cost more that $1800 a day?

 
At 3/08/2012 5:23 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

So, you beleive there is NO green energy source that makes sense under any circumstances?

Incorrect. The argument is that "green" energy sources in the current set of circumstances are inefficient and expensive compared to "dirty" energy sources. If something should come along, some technology, that makes these energy sources cheaper and more efficient, we'll embrace them. But to force inefficient energy to replace efficient energy is just...stupid.

 
At 3/08/2012 5:39 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Democrats furiously beat back valiant GOP attempt to create jobs, oil security.

Somebody tell me again how there's no real difference between the GOP and Democrats.

 
At 3/08/2012 6:45 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Ship Tracks South of Alaska : Image of the Day

earthobservatory.nasa.gov




"in the current set of circumstances"


All circumstances?

How do we know when the circumstances change if we dismiss every effort as "just stupid"?


Some people voluntarily sign up to buy power at a higher rate in order to support "green energy sources".

Therefore a market exists, but those people would not have the opportunity to waste their money had there not been some quotas imposed. They could put up their own (even less efficient) turbine, of course, but surely you don't advocate even less efficiency.

 
At 3/08/2012 6:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Paul,

"Somebody tell me again how there's no real difference between the GOP and Democrats."

Hmmm. It appears there's even a real difference between Democrats and Democrats.

"Democratic opposition to the Republican measure was complicated by reports last week that former President Bill Clinton came out in favor of building the pipeline."

 
At 3/08/2012 6:49 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

"green" energy sources in the current set of circumstances are inefficient and expensive compared to "dirty" energy sources.


=================================

I dont think we can properly or fairly say that without an agreement on how to assess the External (dirty) Costs and the Government (subsidy, monitoring, and enforcement) Costs.

On both the "green" and "dirty" side.

 
At 3/08/2012 7:19 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

If something should come along, some technology, that makes these energy sources cheaper and more efficient, we'll embrace them.


=================================

When Santa comes along, I will embrace him too.

Technology doesn't just 'come along'. Someone is going to have to invest in it.

Free enterprise won't invest in it until they are pretty certain they can make a profit, meaning long after the technology COULD have been competitive.

Dozens, no hundreds, of currently profitable businesses owe their existence to some kind of former government investment.

Has the government screwed up as in Solyndra? Sure, but Venture Capitalist don't bat 1000 either.

Can we improve what government does? Sure, but not by starting out with the statement government should not do it, ever.

If the usual scenario plays out, it is Government that will take the first steps that cause that new technology to "come along", and private eneterprise will compete like crazy to get their hands on government money, all the while their generally conservative CEO's are going TUT TUT on government wastefulness, that they hope to clean up on.

 
At 3/08/2012 7:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"We are not going to replace fuel oil with kites for moving container ships, but if a kite reduces oilk the consumption by $1800 a day, why is that a bad thing, provided the kite doesn't cost more that $1800 a day?"

That is not a bad thing, obviously at one time, every ship used such mileage enhancing techniques. Something happened to cause ship owners to prefer something cheaper and more reliable but is it really a meaningful savings? Obviously the SkySails company is enthusiastic about it. It would be interesting to see some actual real world data provided by a nuetral party.

Is there any German taxpayer money or loan guarantees involved with this company?

 
At 3/08/2012 7:34 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Has the government screwed up as in Solyndra? Sure, but Venture Capitalist don't bat 1000 either."

Venture capitalist puts private money at risk. Venture capitalist suffers if he bets wrong. Compare to Obama who just pisses my tax dollars away against my will to his cronies with no repercussions.

 
At 3/08/2012 7:43 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"... and private eneterprise will compete like crazy to get their hands on government money, all the while their generally conservative CEO's are going TUT TUT on government wastefulness, that they hope to clean up on."

a)It would be stupid not to get in line for the free yet wasteful money, especially if somebody else is going to get it if you don't. That's reality, not really hypocrisy.

b)I agree conservatives are generally against government wastefulness. What's that say about liberals?

 
At 3/08/2012 7:58 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How do we know when the circumstances change if we dismiss every effort as "just stupid"?"

Who is "we"? Not everyone agrees that all efforts are stupid, and when an economic solution develops, that saves people money, they will embrace it, just as they always have in the past.

Meanwhile, people are welcome to venture their own money, not mine, on any effort they wieh, and those that succeed will become wealthy.

"Some people voluntarily sign up to buy power at a higher rate in order to support "green energy sources"."

Yes they do, and people buy more expensive fair-trade coffee, believing that farmers get more for it. They are welcome to buy whatever they wish, at any price they wish, but they are NOT welcome to spend my money as they wish. Note that no one has money taken from them for fair-trade coffee.

It's not *what* is bought, it's the choice that's important.

"Therefore a market exists, but those people would not have the opportunity to waste their money had there not been some quotas imposed."

Nonsense. People can promote any idea they wish. You're implying that someone, some "central planner" perhaps, knows what is best for everyone. It doesn't work that way. Look at the wreckage of countries that have tried it.

"They could put up their own (even less efficient) turbine, of course, but surely you don't advocate even less efficiency."

You are getting off course here. I'm only advocating free choice, and free markets.

 
At 3/08/2012 8:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I dont think we can properly or fairly say that without an agreement on how to assess the External (dirty) Costs and the Government (subsidy, monitoring, and enforcement) Costs.

On both the "green" and "dirty" side.
"And you can never have that, because it requires objective values that don't exist.

What CAN be done, is compare energy sources by EROEI which puts wind, solar, and biofuels out of the running at this time. Ignoring hydro, which is just about at maximum practical development in the US, coal wins by a long shot.

 
At 3/08/2012 8:29 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

What Paul wrote is worth repeating:

"Venture capitalist puts private money at risk.

The money in my pocket is safe unless I choose to take it out.

 
At 3/08/2012 8:45 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Technology doesn't just 'come along'. Someone is going to have to invest in it.Free enterprise won't invest in it until they are pretty certain they can make a profit, meaning long after the technology COULD have been competitive."

That's nonsense. Do you know the term "venture capital"? have you read of people who invest their life savings in an idea?

The difference is that MY money doesn't get poured down a rat hole year after year for the benefit of political cronies.

Dozens, no hundreds, of currently profitable businesses owe their existence to some kind of former government investment."

And, how many trillions of dollars have been wasted to produce those few results? Even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

No doubt you now will point out that many private ventures result in unprofitable outcomes also, and you're absolutely right, but someone has invested *their own money* in it.

 
At 3/08/2012 9:42 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

Has the government screwed up as in Solyndra? Sure, but Venture Capitalist don't bat 1000 either.

Are you purposely obtuse or are you really this obtuse. When government screws the pooch and invests in the wrong business, this means it wasted taxpayer money taken by force, i.e., against their will, and dumped into a stupid "investment". When venture capitalists fail, they lose only their money and the people who voluntarily gave them money.

Additionally, when venture capitalists consistently fail, people stop trusting them with money and they go out of business.

When politicians fail, no problem, they'll simply raise taxes and double down with other people's money.

 
At 3/09/2012 7:41 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"We can reach full employment at the end of 2012 if the U.S. creates 11 million jobs and 125,000 to 150,000 jobs per month in 2012"...

Interesting about that comment PT and I've read/heard that the number has to closer to 200K range per month (example) to reach what would be called full employment...

I'm wondering if your guesstimate is more reflective of improving conditions and other details?

 
At 3/09/2012 7:57 AM, Blogger juandos said...

hydra says: "Free enterprise won't invest in it until they are pretty certain they can make a profit, meaning long after the technology COULD have been competitive"...

Well you're right hydra free enterprise isn't normally about 'make work' projects...

"Dozens, no hundreds, of currently profitable businesses owe their existence to some kind of former government investment"...

Hmmm, interesting point and I keep thinking of that 'what came first, chicken or the egg?' kind of question here...

Then I think about previous history of how people like Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse got their inventions off the ground without federal intervention...

I'm curioujs hydra if you believe the following to be valid: 'Frankly, history has proven over and over again that the majority is usually wrong about most things. Groups and collectives do not create, or discover, or advance humanity. Only individuals are capable of this. All great concepts begin as seeds within independent people, and then spread like wildfire as they educate others. A society that strives for artificial normality and collectivist harmonization is a society on the verge of chaos and death'?

 
At 3/09/2012 9:21 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Juandos, although your article is over a year old, it shows much more unemployment.

An article today says:

"...the pace of improvement remains too slow to do much to absorb the 23.5 million Americans who are either out of work or underemployed."

 
At 3/09/2012 11:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Cost of doing business, the successful ones past on all "costs" to the consumer. Any tax, be it income, windfall, energy ... are passed on as increase cost to Joe Consumer. The government spends our money on green energy, it costs, when the government imposes taxes on business, it costs.

 
At 3/09/2012 11:52 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Juandos, although your article is over a year old, it shows much more unemployment"...

Yes I know it more than a year old PT and exactly the reason why I used it...

I'm wondering about the economic conditions since then and why the difference in numbers...

Do you think the conditions have actually improved enough to start to bring the economy back to the point that unemploymenjt will drop below 8% this year?

So far Gallup's numbers are what might be described as uninspiring...

For what its worth Zer0Hedge was equally uninspired but does note that there is one part of the market going great guns...:-)

 
At 3/09/2012 12:03 PM, Blogger juandos said...

hydra says: "Some people voluntarily sign up to buy power at a higher rate in order to support "green energy sources""...

Sign up for one these hydra: Obama's Algae-Powered Car: Chevy Fishtank

BTW hydra green energy is dirty energy...

 
At 3/09/2012 12:06 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Juandos, what I see is a few months of improvement, and then a few months of deterioration, etc. in a depression.

The warm weather likely boosted economic growth:

msnbc.com‎ - 1 day ago

"This has been one of the warmest winters ever. It's the fourth hottest in the lower 48 since they started keeping records in the 1890s.

And with the mild winter comes a lack of snow. It's the third smallest winter snow cover across this country in the 46 years they've started keeping satellite records."

 
At 3/09/2012 12:50 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Juandos, what I see is a few months of improvement, and then a few months of deterioration, etc. in a depression"...

OK PT Isee where you're coming from....

Yeah, I also think it will be cyclical and some of those cycles will be sharp and short...

 
At 3/09/2012 2:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos:

[Your Zerohedge link.]

That's a good one, thanks. I especially like this part:

"5) Build A Terrifying Gun Collection

If the contents of your house doesn’t scare the living hell out of your yuppie next door neighbor, then you aren’t an extremist yet. Time to pay off the layaway on that 50. Cal!
"

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home