Watermelon Environmentalist Economics; More Waste, Inefficiency, and Incompetence than Conservation

050317Slide1

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.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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.

Read more:

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.

Related Posts:

Bill Nye The Science Guy; Catastrophic Ice-Age Averted, Man-Made CO2 Saved Mankind

March For Pseudoscience and Watermelon Environmentalism

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Take the Gloves Off; Turn the Crippling EPA Regs on Wind and Solar

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Counter-sue The Climate Loons

Hey, Genius!!! Thick Polar Sea Ice Kills Whales and Polar Bears

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

Climate “Science” on Trial; Germany Builds Wind Farms While NATO Burns

Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Watermelon Environmentalist Economics; More Waste, Inefficiency, and Incompetence than Conservation”

  1. It is all feel good nonsense for snowflakes, to make it appear that we fighting climate change. But absolutely no real world benefits from the billions spent.

    Like

  2. You are so right co2islife, and this was something that had been gnawing away at me for some time, yet I couldn’t put my finger on the issue.
    It doesn’t matter how many jobs are created in the ‘green’ energy field, its productivity which counts, and the more people there are to produce ‘X’ amount of energy, the LESS productive that field is and always will be.
    There were many more people working on farms, before the development of the mechanized farm, and would that mean therefore, having to go back to manual labour – and employing more people – so that it is better for our future?
    How can producing the same or less amount of energy, be a good goal to be working towards?

    Ditto for the costs associated with any product or commodity.
    China (or anywhere else) may produce cheaper products, but that is off the back of a hugely lower cost for the labour supply.
    Who wants to volunteer to take such a huge pay cut?
    Who wants to share their current work, with 10, 20 others, and each getting a fraction of the pay, they were before?
    And then only being productive to the level previously possible?

    Sounds a lot like going back to a serfdom paradigm is you ask me.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s