Trump and The Big Renewable Energy Effort

This article was first published by me on Talkmarkets: http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/commodities/trump-and-the-big-renewable-energy-effort?post=137386&uid=4798


With Donald Trump in the news for pulling out of the Paris Accord, we should look at this renewable energy scam and be concerned. Awhile back I wrote about the self driving auto scam. It was pretty easy to prove. But the Renewable Energy Scam is more complex to decipher. The entire green movement cannot be characterized as a scam. But there are elements of it that clearly pass the threshold of fraud.

The most obvious fraudulent statements come regarding job creation. Even authors use the following quote to defend the net gain in jobs. But reading the quotation carefully, we see that the authors of the study cited are talking about temporary, not permanent, jobs:

There is a reasonable degree of evidence that in general, renewable energy and energy efficiency are more labor-intensive in terms of electricity produced than either coal- or gas-fired power plant," the report said. "This implies that at least in the short-term, building new renewable generation capacity or investing in greater energy efficiency to avoid the need for new generation would create more jobs than investing in an equivalent level of fossil fuel-fired generation. ... Therefore, if investment in new power generation is needed, renewables and energy efficiency can contribute to short-term job creation so long as the economy is experiencing an output gap, such as is the case during and shortly after recession.  However, long-term impacts will depend on how these investments ripple through the economy, and in particular the impact on disposable household incomes.
Once the infrastructure is put into place, jobs will likely be far less plentiful than in the oil patch and related industry now. Yet the author at Econowatch concludes that the jobs issue is not the most important issue. But for Americans, it is the most important issue. You just have to word the polling correctly.

Keep in mind that these green industries are subsidized even more than is the oil industry. These industries are a cash cow for big companies, and for Elon Musk, the guru of renewable tech. That is another part of the scam, that these subsidies are obscene. They will surely mean higher prices for heating and cooling.

It was estimated by Steven Moore that house energy prices will double once fossil fuels are replaced and removed. This will put a major hardship on people who don't live on the California coast where temperatures are nice all year long. It is easy to be green when you won't have to pay too much for home heating and cooling.

A third aspect to the scam is that jobs will be created, but they won't be created in the areas where they are needed. They will be created in the cities, mostly in tech cities or cities which want to cash in on the craze.

I wrote awhile back that Donald Trump cannot fix rural America. I still believe that is true. But he can save what is left of rural America by keeping good paying jobs in the fossil fuel industry intact.

The fourth aspect to this global energy scam is the blatant attack on US sovereignty. We have the European leaders telling us we cannot just pull out of the Accord. That was a tactical blunder. It exposes the scam of control. Controlling the United States is a globalist mission for sure.

We have to look more into the concept of permanent job creation and loss. The data is scarce. Here is a footnote to a pro green job agenda. It is a footnote that is negative to the argument itself!

But buried toward the end of a dense Excel sheet with over 60 tabs, located on a dedicated page within a faculty website, Jacobson quantifies the exact number of job losses by sector from transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy. In transportation, more than 2.4 million men and women would be put out of work. Over 800,000 people working to produce oil and natural gas would lose their jobs. Nearly 90,000 jobs connected to coal mining would be wiped out. All told, more than 3.8 million jobs would be lost, far more than the nearly 2.6 million long-term jobs that Jacobson has estimated would be created.
In a highlighted column entitled “Net Long Term Jobs,” Jacobson’s table shows a negative 1,284,030.The job losses, however, are not equally distributed across the country. Many states, even those with a “green” reputation, would experience tens if not hundreds of thousands of lost permanent jobs......Other states would also see huge losses. Texas, the country’s largest oil and natural gas producer, would shed more than a quarter million long-term jobs by transitioning to 100 percent renewables. In Wyoming, the largest coal producing state, the transition would destroy more than 32,000 jobs connected to the energy sector.
And these net job losses do not count oil product truck drivers, possible self driving auto job losses, mechanics, and other peripheral jobs. The impact on mainstream America will be enormous. And this is just one nation where this job loss will occur.

Of course, regarding electric cars and Elon Musk's desire to power your home with batteries, it turns out extracting the necessary rare metals pollute, and where do you put the batteries when you are done? These batteries are not carbon free: 

At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.
And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.
Before committing billions of dollars to something that does not work, how about making that which does work, work better. Nat gas comes from fossil fuels. There are many things that can be done to conserve that which works, conserving practical solutions.

The Paris Accord was written in such a way as to put America behind the 8 ball right away, while China and other large polluters would be given more time to implement the accord. That is not protective of American jobs. Americans had better be concerned about this usurpation of national sovereignty.

And this scam hopes to decrease temperatures by a measly 1.8 degrees. Scientists say that number is essentially useless in the fight against global warming. The carbon already in the air dooms us to higher temperatures. And it is economically inefficient. If we did more the world economy would collapse.

And Goldman Sach's claim that oil companies are dying was proven to be ridiculous, as shale discoveries, CO2 technology, and massive deposits in Russia have proven since that 1999 claim.

The reason Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord is that it was not ratified by congress anyway, and probably could not be ratified in the United States. President Obama did not even try.

We could hope that Donald Trump would use this pragmatism and jettison his plans for high tariffs and jettison his racism. Then perhaps the American people could fully embrace him as he fights against what is clearly a scam that will hurt an already fragile GDP and is clearly a blatant attack on American sovereignty



 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gary Anderson's Talkmarkets Articles by Subject

The Poison of Trump Comes From Murray Rothbard, Fascist Divider

John Mauldin Discusses What Could Go Wrong