• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Green Jobs? Mandated Wind and Solar? Cap & Trade? We’ll Pass on that Showcase

    Members of Congress like to play games and they like to spend money. What better analogy to use to describe Congress’s proposed green energy policies than the Price is Right? As Congress seeks to implement policy that would create green jobs by mandating renewable energy projects, three cautionary European tales suggest the U.S. should take a second look at cap and trade and renewable energy mandates. We’ll take you through a Price Is Right showcase style tour of three failed renewable energy initiative.

    Our first stop takes us to Germany where think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung just released its study on the economic impacts of the country’s green energy initiative. Commissioned by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), the report finds with per worker subsidies for solar industry jobs are as high as $240,000. Last year, “the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.” Government subsidies for wind and solar are projected to be over $100 billion from 2000-2010 and, to make matters worse, as the subsidies run out, so do the jobs.

    Our next stop on the trip brings us to Denmark, and if you don’t mind a brief layover in Oslo, you’ll receive a complementary Nobel Peace prize.  President Obama stresses we should be more like Denmark since 20 percent of the nation’s electricity comes from wind power. But is that really the case? According to a study from the Danish Centre for Political Studies (CEPOS), also commissioned by IER, the road to increased wind power is less traveled for a reason. The study refutes the claim that Denmark generates 20 percent of its power from wind stating that its high intermittency not only leads to new challenges to balance the supply and demand of electricity, but also provides less electricity consumption than assumed. The new study says, “wind power has recently (2006) met as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual electricity consumption with an average over the last five years of 9.7%.” Furthermore, the wind energy Denmark exports to its northern neighbors, Sweden and Norway, does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because the energy it replaces is carbon neutral. The study goes on to say that absent of government subsidies, Denmark would be absent a wind industry.

    The third and final destination on our green energy tour takes us to Spain, another country Obama says the U.S. should replicate when it comes to energy policy, saying, “they’re making real investments in renewable energy.” But real investments aren’t necessarily good investments. Another IER-commissioned study coming out of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008.

    Which brings us back home to the United States where our government wants to create green jobs by subsidizing windmill and solar projects as well as cap carbon dioxide in what they call a pollution reduction bill. But there are two fundamental problems with this: First, as shown in the Spanish study and explained by Heritage analyst David Kreutzer: “Environmentalists do not see government expenditure as having a cost. They employ the same free-lunch fallacy that underpins essentially all the analysis showing green-energy subsidies increase employment.

    The first week of every principles of economics class goes over the problem with free-lunch assumptions. The labor and material used to make windmills or solar panels or to install insulation cannot simultaneously be used to make refrigerators and automobiles. When government spends more money, it necessarily diverts labor, capital and materials from the private sector. Dr. Calzada simply calculated how many jobs, on average, would have been supported with these resources had they been left to the private market.”

    Secondly, with cap and trade Congress is mandating higher energy prices and killing many more jobs throughout the process. Consumers spend less. Businesses, faced with higher prices, are forced to make production cuts and reduce labor or they will move to another country where the costs of operation are cheaper without cap and trade and renewable energy mandates. Our analysis of the proposed green energy economy will destroy 1.9 million jobs in 2012 and 2.5 million by 2035 – after accounting for the green jobs created.

    George Mason economist Tyler Cowen writes, “We’re dealing now with something beyond the Keynesian short run and so those extra jobs are a drain of resources from elsewhere. If you wish, sub out the word “energy” and sub in the word “agriculture” and then reevaluate the sentence from the vantage point of 1900. Would it truly create net jobs — much less good jobs — to trash tractors and industrial fertilizer? The ideal situation would be a technology where very few jobs were required to create and distribute the nation’s energy supply.”

    Heritage energy expert Ben Lieberman sums it up well, saying, “Real-world experience bears this out. Governments that subsidize or mandate green jobs reap fewer overall jobs and a weaker economy.”

    When it comes to green energy economies and green jobs, the price is wrong. When the price is right, the market will invest in alternative energy technologies without help or mandates from the government. But as it stands now, we’ll pass on that showcase.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to Green Jobs? Mandated Wind and Solar? Cap & Trade? We’ll Pass on that Showcase

    1. Jim, Copenhagen says:

      The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway, not in Copenhagen, Denmark. But then again, distorting facts is your specialty, so…

    2. dean, illinois says:

      This program is not about the environment. It is about the money a few will reap from the sale of the carbon credits (Al Gore to name one). It is also about overloading the system to destroy our present way of life. If our present congress is so stupid to pass this they all should be replaced.

    3. Nicolas Loris Nick Loris says:

      Good call on your first sentence, Jim. Amended.

    4. Amy, Arizona says:

      It does grow tiresome to see this so-called "commissioned" study from Spain continually pop up in conversations like this.

      That study has been debunked many times over: http://www.mnn.com/business/green-jobs/blogs/span

    5. Nicolas Loris Nick Loris says:

      The critiques have also been debunked. Again, it assumes that government spending comes without a cost – both a real cost and opportunity cost.

    6. Bobbie Jay says:

      It is evident this government and the American president are destroyers who run without value, principles or consideration. They are a disgrace in the name of freedom, dignity and HUMAN LIFE!

    7. Pingback: Obama’s Energy Budget: A Revenue Neutral Cap and Trade System? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    8. Pingback: Obama’s Energy Budget: A Revenue Neutral Cap and Trade System? | Conservative Principles Now

    9. Michael Dunker says:

      Why follow the Europeans…we can see where that would lead us…why can't Congress make the right decesions…this political correct nonsense will be our death nail….less government…let the private sector sort it out…it's worked in the past…we need to stay vigilant at every turn.

    10. Michael Dunker, Nape says:

      Thanks for the research and honest projections…wake up American

      voters!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×