• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US green economy generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions, new study finds

I like clean energy. I don't like dirty and polluting propaganda disguised as research or argumentation.

I do not pretend that horses or mules are unicorns.

Prof. Michael Kelly: Energy Policy Needs ‘Herds Of Unicorns’


  • Date: 11/11/19
  • Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation
Utopian thinking is putting the economy at risk says Cambridge professor The UK’s decision to embark on a wholesale decarbonisation of the economy is beset by superficial thinking that ignores engineering reality. That’s according to Professor Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of engineering at the University of Cambridge. At the Annual GWPF Lecture Professor Kelly told […]

So do you think the following is "utopian thinking" that ignores reality too?

This, from Trump's own labor department:

Labor Dept: Renewable energy jobs fastest growing sector in U.S.
 
Why? Has something changed in the last 2 years? From just a few months ago:
Renewable Energy Job Boom Creates Economic Opportunity As Coal Industry Slumps

Why are you so hostile to the idea of economic growth from green energy? It's like you just really don't want it to be true. It is soooo odd and puzzling. :confused:

These are eye-catching percentage growth numbers because they start from a very small base. And btw, your link is to an advocacy organization.
I'm not hostile to economic growth from green energy. I'm hostile to statistical trickery in the service of issue advocacy.
 
These are eye-catching percentage growth numbers because they start from a very small base.

So how is that different from economic growth in any sector?

And btw, your link is to an advocacy organization.
I'm not hostile to economic growth from green energy. I'm hostile to statistical trickery in the service of issue advocacy.

This is common knowledge, at least outside of WUWT.

2020 Renewable Energy Industry Outlook | Deloitte US
America's Renewable Electricity Forecast Grows To 2050, Even Under Trump
Renewable energy to expand by 50% in next five years - report | Environment | The Guardian
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/28/thanks-and-a-note-for-the-future-of-wuwt/"][/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Thanks – and a note for the future of WUWT[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]On this traditional day of reflection and thanks, it is only fitting that I give thanks to the many many people who have made WUWT what it is today, and helped me personally. From memory (which is of course imperfect, so I have likely missed dozens if not hundreds) I offer my thanks to these…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/28/thanks-and-a-note-for-the-future-of-wuwt/"]5 days ago November 28, 2019[/URL] in Announcements.


You just admitted that WUWT helps you feel good. Thank you, Jack, that's the most honest thing I've ever heard you say about that crackpot website. :thumbs:
 

I wish them well, although I note you're still trying to pass off your advocacy site as research.
My point is that none of this supports the overblown claims of the OP.
 
You just admitted that WUWT helps you feel good. Thank you, Jack, that's the most honest thing I've ever heard you say about that crackpot website. :thumbs:

Sorry, but there's not a word of mine in that post, so I haven't "admitted" anything.
 
US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.





CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.



Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:

Dishonesty exposed.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake?[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest “who gives a schist?” by David Middleton What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake? The “green economy“. Hat tip to Kevin McNeill… US green economy has 10 times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry ENVIRONMENT 15 October 2019 By Adam Vaughan The green economy…
[/FONT]
 
Sorry, but there's not a word of mine in that post, so I haven't "admitted" anything.

Then you shouldn't spam crap from crackpot websites, should you? ;)
 

Here's the full takedown.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake?[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest “who gives a schist?” by David Middleton What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake? The “green economy“. Hat tip to Kevin McNeill… US green economy has 10 times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry ENVIRONMENT 15 October 2019 By Adam Vaughan The green economy…
[/FONT]
 
Here's the full takedown.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/whats-green-fake-and-employs-ten-times-as-many-people-as-the-fossil-fuel-industry/"]
Green-Hammer-and-Sickle.png
[/URL][/FONT]

[h=1]What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake?[/h][FONT="]Guest “who gives a schist?” by David Middleton What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake? The “green economy“. Hat tip to Kevin McNeill… US green economy has 10 times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry ENVIRONMENT 15 October 2019 By Adam Vaughan The green economy…
[/FONT]

None of my links claim “10 times as many jobs”. It seems you enjoy beating up on straw men- with nothing but WUWT to help you. What would you do without them?

Wow, your seething contempt and disdain if green energy is just absolutely astounding. It’s palpable. I just keep wondering what the source, the psychology of it is. Do you have some links to the industry? Was it some kind of childhood trauma? It is truly an interesting and puzzling phenomenon. I am sure there is some kind of explanation. I just have not been able to figure it out yet.
 
US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.





CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.



Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:

Yes but just how large a taxpayer subsidy was involved and how many real world jobs were lost as a consequence. The failed Spanish experiment from a decade ago hardly inspires confidence neither does the German from more recently :(

Destinys Choice - America Is: Green Jobs In Spain A Total Failure

German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future - SPIEGEL ONLINE
 
None of my links claim “10 times as many jobs”. It seems you enjoy beating up on straw men- with nothing but WUWT to help you. What would you do without them?

Wow, your seething contempt and disdain if green energy is just absolutely astounding. It’s palpable. I just keep wondering what the source, the psychology of it is. Do you have some links to the industry? Was it some kind of childhood trauma? It is truly an interesting and puzzling phenomenon. I am sure there is some kind of explanation. I just have not been able to figure it out yet.

1. The jobs claim is in the study on which the OP is based. The WUWT essay is a direct refutation.
2. You seem intent on imputing to me views I do not hold. I have no problem with green energy although I doubt it will replace fossil fuels on a large scale for quite some time, if ever. I do​ have a problem with propaganda presented as research.
 
I do​ have a problem with propaganda presented as research.

Well that’s an odd thing to say, considering you have a problem with the systematic body of research presented in all the science textbooks, the overwhelming majority of scientific articles, and the unanimous consensus of every single formal scientific organization on the entire planet, but you glom onto every word from a propaganda website WUWT.
 
Well that’s an odd thing to say, considering you have a problem with the systematic body of research presented in all the science textbooks, the overwhelming majority of scientific articles, and the unanimous consensus of every single formal scientific organization on the entire planet, but you glom onto every word from a propaganda website WUWT.

I have no problem with science. I have a problem with what has clearly been a political movement to assert claims well beyond the evidence.

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

And of course widespread belief is not a guarantee against error.

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]
 
I have no problem with science. I have a problem with what has clearly been a political movement to assert claims well beyond the evidence.

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

And of course widespread belief is not a guarantee against error.

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]

Where do you get this nonsense? What science do you know that’s NOT a current consensus of the experts in that field?
 
Where do you get this nonsense? What science do you know that’s NOT a current consensus of the experts in that field?

Consensus can be a shorthand for convenience in day-to-day activities, but it has no place whatsoever as a restriction on inquiry. It is also simply irrelevant in any discussion of the merits of contending hypotheses.
 
You could subsidize people to dig holes and fill them up again or
pay them to manufacture buggy whips and slide rules and then
make claims about what an important part of the economy it
represents. The classic make work scheme is breaking windows
to create employment. In other words, the green economy isn't
producing anything that anyone wants or can't be bought at a
cheaper price from some other sector of the economy.

If it weren't for subsidies, the so-called "Green Economy" would
collapse overnight.

Yep.

I want to see what happens without subsidies.
 
The wind farm outside of my hometown has definitely helped the local economy.

How close would you tolerate living to it?

Are you upwind or downwind of it? What do you think the long term health hazards are of breathing in the particularized fiberglass coming off the blades?
 
How close would you tolerate living to it?

Are you upwind or downwind of it? What do you think the long term health hazards are of breathing in the particularized fiberglass coming off the blades?

we're all dealing with the windmill cancer, but my doctor says that i should live to see next summer at the very least. we're thinking of building a big pit to burn coal in to counter the windmills for medicinal effect.
 
US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.





CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.



Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:


Regardless of the politics of anyone on CNBC, the report highlights the fact that the global warming denial industry has fought itself to the point of diminishing returns.

Wall Street and the financial sectors around the world have recognized the viability and future of renewable energy and are investing in it at a level never seen before.

Three significant factors have driven the change.

The rapidly falling cost of wind and solar.

The economic power of distributed energy sources. Wind and solar do not require massive capital investments, or long term financing. Tailings pond don’t blow out and poison rivers, and there will never be a meltdown of a windmill. Wind and solar power are cheap and quick to build.

The lithium ion battery has finally gotten cheap enough that stored energy in the electrical grid is now possible. This lowers base load, Eliminates the “duck curve” associated with balancing production with consumption. By storing peak energy instead of spending on peaker power plants to satisfy it, capital costs are lowered. Predictions are that natural gas plants will begin to displace both coal and nuclear for base load power. No one is building nuclear or coal, and no one wants to be stuck with high fixed costs and high carrying costs.
 
How close would you tolerate living to it?

Are you upwind or downwind of it? What do you think the long term health hazards are of breathing in the particularized fiberglass coming off the blades?

Particularized fibreglass????

Better stay away from marinas and Corvette shows!
 
Back
Top Bottom