Ever wonder why Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and any other Marxist Watermelon Environmental organization never produce any “green products” that actually prove the theories they are supporting will actually do any good? The reason is simple, the economics simply aren’t there. Watermelon groups spend most of their money lobbying the government to spend tax dollars to fund their projects.
They hire lawyers, lobbyists, event coordinators, fundraisers, politicians, judges, journalists and newsletter/donation request editors/graphic designers, not engineers. Their product is propaganda, not commercially viable solutions. If anything they promoted actually worked economically, they wouldn’t need the government to get involved. Steve Jobs didn’t need the government to pass regulations to force people to buy and use the iPhone. The following excerpt from a Washington Examiner pretty much speaks for itself. Other than the observation that modern environmentalism is more associated with waste, inefficiency, and incompetence than conservation, it needs no further commentary.
In an April 25 New York Times article (“Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal”) reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that “Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs.” Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report (“U.S. Energy and Employment Report”) released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.
To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.
Bottom Line: The goal of America’s energy sector isn’t to create as many jobs as possible (as the NYT article would apparently have us believe) especially the politically-favored and heavily-subsidized renewable energy jobs. Rather, the economic goal is to produce as much electric power as possible at the lowest possible cost, and that means we want the fewest number of energy workers!
Maybe the New York Times should hire more free market economists and fewer climate alarmists.
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.