If There Were A Massive “green Jobs” Program, Wouldn’t Most Of The Jobs Go To Red States?
Alcohol production, wind power, solar power and vegetable oil—don’t they all come from red states? The only blue state activity might be aluminum can recycling. So why all the talk about urban “green job communities”?
No. Obama spends our money on his supporters…like the United Auto Workers. The ‘green jobs’ will go wherever there are Democrats.
That is not necessarily true. New Mexico would potentially be the nation’s largest solar power producer, and they voted Democrat in 2008. Arizona is also not a particularly republican state, and they would produce an equal – if not greater – amount of solar power. So while some red states would benefit hugely from alternative energy production (Kansas, Texas) and no deep blue states would benefit to a large degree, some states that voted democrat in ’08 would benefit from from “green jobs.”
Not if the states with productive workers have anything to say about it. Urban jobs for solar and wind abound. Ethanol and other crops products are a mistake considering the world food shortage. Sugar cane is a good renewable, cheap and easy to produce, but wasting corn and other crops for oil is more expensive than drilling or importing petrochemicals, and almost as bad for the environment.
No, there should be plenty of jobs for every state, red or blue.
The whole thing is a bunch of crap. Spain has already been doing the cap and trade, and green economy thing and they now have unemployment over 18%. Economists have calculated that Spain’s tax payers spend nearly $1 Million per green job created, and in fact lose 2.2 other jobs for each of those green jobs created.
I’m all for clean energy, but let the market work and the best technologies will be implemented. Right now, the technology just isn’t there. Subsidizing research is OK, but not actual energy production.
Lets push that so we can lose more jobs like in spain.On April 14, Fox News Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream cast doubt on President Obama’s proposal to fund green energy by touting a Spanish study showing that “for every green job created [in Spain], 2.2 jobs are lost.” Fox News host David Asman stated that the study is evidence that “green jobs could actually kill other jobs.” However, Bream, who appeared on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Your World, and Special Report to report on the study, identified the study’s research director, Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, only as “an economics professor from Spain.” She did not note that Calzada is reportedly a founding member of the Prague Network, which, according to Radio Prague, is “an international grouping of institutions aimed at countering panic connected with global warming,” or that Calzada is reportedly a fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, an organization that has reportedly received funding from ExxonMobil. Moreover, during her reports on America’s Newsroom and Your World, Bream did not note any criticism of the study.
According to the Calzada study:
2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.
3. Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.
Why in the hell would you think it would go mostly to Red States?
That makes no sense whatsoever. For instance, California has the wind and solar markets. R&D has to happen somewhere, why would THAT be in red states where the average education level is far below the national average, especially in the South.
Well I will tell you this – because of Republican deregulation – I will Not buy Food that is processed in the Southern Red States .
I like peanut butter but not when it is contaminated with Salmonella.
My state went Blue and we have plenty of wind here . Great opportunities for Green energy employment.
P. S. And Plenty of Solar too
the bio fuels would go to red states being they got the farms as far as solar power and wind power it is unsustainable as Obama would say because you cant make a profit the whole thing would have to be government subsidize indefinably
The energy production will mostly be in red states but the research will mostly be in blue ones and the new technology needed will be manufactured in the rust belt which is kind of purple.
You forgot about the Big Red State..China. I’ve read that ..like everything else..much of the parts production for solar and wind has been, and will be contracted out. Check out General Electric.
Yes, but liberals don’t wangt jobs to start with. They want others to work so liberals can steal their money with higher taxes.
Yes, because that’s where people actually work instead of whining for Obama to save them.
Cause libs are not smart and will fall for anything.