Green” energy jobs projected versus oil-and-gas jobs already created.

From :

The Non-Green Jobs Boom


Forget ‘clean energy.’ Oil and gas are boosting U.S. employment.

So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be “green,” when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that the U.S. jobless rate remains a dreadful 9%. But look more closely at the data and you can see which industries are bucking the jobless trend. One is oil and gas production, which now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period.

The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota’s Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed.

Much more at the link. There’s a lot there that I wish I could reprint, but I’ll review by noting that the liberals absolutely hate the facts and are being disingenuous with their criticisms. The American Petroleum Institute commissioned a study which holds that a more sensible energy policy would create 1.4 million new jobs, and the Democrats are trying everything they can to dispute it. They are particularly critical of the use of “economic multipliers,” calculations which show, for example, that the new jobs directly created would lead to new jobs being indirectly created, such as among restaurants and other lifestyle economic buys by the new workers, while concomitantly using those same types of calculations in their support of the President’s 2011 jobs bill. As the Journal noted:

All such multipliers are suspect, but the liberals can’t have it both ways and invoke them to justify government spending but then repudiate them for private business.

In that, the editors are wrong: the liberals certainly can try to have it both ways, and will do so at every opportunity.

The editors are right about one thing, however: while the Obama Administration can try to predict how many jobs would be created by “green” investments, no predictions are necessary when it comes to the traditional energy boom: the numbers are already there, in real jobs already created.

15 Comments

  1. Don’t look at it as Green jobs do nothing for the economy, becuase they just waste tax dollars, but this is another it’s all about class warfare. Face it, energy from Petroleum is seen as on enriching the rich and making more hated millionaires, but Green is free for all. Except no one has fully shone how.

    My gigantic laugh at the hypocrisy of alleged Green Energy is the NIMBY attitude of the people who want it. Build a hydro-electric dam, ruin fish migration; build a nuke plant, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Japan: Put up a wind mill and it blocks a Kennedy’s view of the ocean, and kills bats and bird; try to harness the sun in the desert, too much land is used for cactus and desert rats; drill for oil, armegeddon.

  2. Green and Political correctness only has one outcome for the Progressives and Socialists, it puts a control on the masses. I just love those watermelons, Green on the Outside, but Red on the inside through and through.

  3. It should be obvious to any intelligent observer that the oil and gas industries are very well established, whilst the green energy endeavors are fledgling, therefore the comparison made here by Mr. Editor is totally invalid, like the proverbial comparing of apples to oranges. And then there is global warming, about which the Right are still in firm denial of the science and of the future thus portended!

  4. WW:
    And then there is global warming, about which the Right are still in firm denial of the science and of the future thus portended!

    If I’m crazy enough to buy into all the GlowBall Warming stuff, then I am under the control of their edicts. Consider this usual statement by the Greens; There hasn’t been this much __________ [choose: rain, snow, warmth, cold, ice melt, ice accumuculation] in a)1,000, b) 2,000, c)5,000, and/or d)10,000 years. Guess what? The earth has been cooler, warmer in the past.

    (Space reserved for a picture of where the ice melted and it shows TREE STUMPS. It meant at one point in time TREES grew there because it was warm enough)

    The retreat of Patterson Glacier (in Alaska) reveals sheared-off stumps of a truly ancient forest.
    There goes that damn common sense again since TREES DO NOT GROW UNDER GLACIERS. Trees need soil to grow and no glacier. COMMON SENSE would say it was WARM THERE ONCE UPON A TIME.

    http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/forest_facts/photogallery/photo.htm

    Also backtracking on this site has HUBBARD GLACIER along with 11 other glaciers GROWING AND NO RETREATING. Damn, another myth shot to hell.

  5. WW wrote:

    It should be obvious to any intelligent observer that the oil and gas industries are very well established, whilst the green energy endeavors are fledgling, therefore the comparison made here by Mr. Editor is totally invalid, like the proverbial comparing of apples to oranges. And then there is global warming, about which the Right are still in firm denial of the science and of the future thus portended!

    So? The proper thing to do is for the government to stay out of it, period, and let both the established corporations and the new ventures either succeed, or fail, on their own merits.

  6. Ed;
    So? The proper thing to do is for the government to stay out of it, period, and let both the established corporations and the new ventures either succeed, or fail, on their own merits.

    It’s in the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist DNA to interfere in their operations to make sure they do it with thousands of regulations to make sure they have the chance to interfere when the time is right. And those who don’t play ball with the regulators and congress suffer. Just look what happened to Bill Gates. He thought he didn’t lobbyists to hand out the largesse other companies do. It took a year in court to convince him that he must pay tribute.

    Note, this was added 10 minutes later to show I wasn’t blowing smoke:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/05/opinion/la-oe-kinsley-column-microsoft-20110405
    Michael Kinsley: The Washington lobbying dance

    Op-Ed
    Bill Gates initially resisted the notion that Microsoft needed to hire a lot of lobbyists and lawyers. Ultimately, in refusing to play the Washington game, there was a feeling that Microsoft was being downright unpatriotic.April 05, 2011|Michael Kinsley

    My first day of work at Microsoft, 15 years ago, I wore a DOJ baseball cap that a friend had given me when she heard I was going to work in Redmond. DOJ stood for Department of Justice, which is where my friend worked. I wore the cap into the office on my first day, intending this to be a little joke. The Clinton Justice Department had recently filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft, threatening huge fines and even a breakup of the company. But I learned a lesson: Nobody thought the hat was very funny.

    Outside of Washington, they take politics and their consequences seriously, more seriously than in the nation’s capital, where it’s all “just business,” as they say in “The Godfather.” My new colleagues were appalled and hurt by the lawsuit. They felt that they were helping their country (as well as themselves) by developing great software. They didn’t think their company was the monster being portrayed by Justice Department lawyers.

    When George W. Bush became president, the suit was settled on terms generally considered favorable to Microsoft. But the suit and the settlement did the company significant damage, distracting it for several crucial years and forcing it to learn and practice caution, while rivals could continue to behave in the headlong tradition of this new industry.

    More at the link above:

  7. “So? The proper thing to do is for the government to stay out of it, period, and let both the established corporations and the new ventures either succeed, or fail, on their own merits.”

    Actually, this is the height of stupidity, when internationally we are up against competition, like China, whose governments heavily subsidizes start-up enterprises!

  8. “Actually, this is the height of stupidity, when internationally we are up against competition, like China, whose governments heavily subsidizes start-up enterprises!”

    China’s government does not hevily subsidise business, they “partner” with business. Remember why I didn’t open a store in China, Wagonwheel? Because the government there owns the land and can throw one off on a whim. Plus the corruption between government bureaucrats is blatent and rampid.

    The real stupidity here is believing that somehow government bureaucrats, politicians and their crony capitalist partners can somehow out-perform, out-produce and overcome real entrepreeurs in in a free world market. China can procuce low ends items and China can copy just about anything but the truth of the matter is they have no inventive spirit because to think out of their litttle box is well, unthinkable.

  9. “The real stupidity here is believing that somehow government bureaucrats, politicians and their crony capitalist partners can somehow out-perform, out-produce and overcome real entrepreeurs in in a free world market. China can procuce low ends items and China can copy just about anything but the truth of the matter is they have no inventive spirit because to think out of their litttle box is well, unthinkable.”

    I don’t doubt that, Hoagie, but I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate a country whose GDP growth is greater than 9%, who has become the global banker, and who is changing toward a more free market economy as we speak. Also note that the Chinese are setting the pace for lowering their dependency on foreign oil.

  10. “So we were told in the 1980s, about that burgeoning economic powerhouse, Japan, and how they’d overtake and own us. How did that one work out?”

    We are not comparable to 1980 Japan et seq for many reasons: Debt/aggregate GDP ratio >200%, more than double ours; Japan’s debt is largely internal, 88%, ours, also internal, is 77%; Japan has a chronic trade surplus, ours is a chronic deficit; Japan’s currency is very strong, ours weak. The point is, except that both are in trouble from the viewpoint of sustainability, for different reasons.

    Our problem is that we have poor job growth, thus unemployment is too high, we spend too much, and we bring in too little revenue. Isn’t it rather obvious that we need to further stimulate job growth, cut spending judiciously (defense), and increase revenue by increasing taxes on the wealthier segment (>$250k)? Right, and this is exactly the Obama Plan! But the Republicans have turned the Legislature into do-nothing to limit President Obama to one term. If they happen to get power, will they attempt to implement the Ryan Plan? Please! Perish the thought, as that will make the economy much worse in every respect, very quickly, not to mention the Republican dolts who would assume power. OMG!

  11. You’re spot on there Wagonwheel. The Chinese have a few real cute tricks up their sleeve and when they think the time is right, they’ll pull them out. Especially in the area of currency and commodity manipulation. But the one thing I learned from dealing with the Chinese is that when it comes to invention and production, if they can’t buy it or steal it, it ain’t gettin’ done in China.

  12. “…. but I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate a country whose GDP growth is greater than 9%, who has become the global banker, and who is changing toward a more free market economy as we speak.”

    As usual Wagonwheel, when you talk economics you are speaking about things which you are not familiar. Especially the global economics pertaining to China. I know, I’ve been there. I’ve tried to open businesses there. I understand the people and the culture. I live with them.

    Try digesting the following:

    By:
    Kirk Elliott, Ph.D.
    © 2011 Kirk Elliott, Ph.D.

    I recently read an article by Matthew Robertson of the Epoch Times, reviewing a speech by Dr. Larry Lang, a professor of finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong who produced some research on China’s deteriorating economy that may cause a global upheaval, both politically and economically.

    But don’t expect too many voices are going to have the courage to sound the alarm.

    Lang’s lecture just surfaced, but in it he said, “What I am about to say is all true. But under this system, we are not allowed to speak the truth. … Don’t think that we are living in a peaceful time right now. Actually, the media cannot report anything at all. … As long as it is related to the government, we cannot report about it.”

    Dr. Lang’s assessment of the Chinese economy warns, not of a nation rising on the world, but of a nation about to plummet into bankruptcy:

    •China’s debt is about $36 trillion yuan (or $5.68 trillion USD). This number is astronomical considering that it is just a little more than one-third of the U.S. total debt, but the difference between the U.S. and China is that the U.S. national income per capita is $47,140, whereas China’s national income per capita is $4,260. Not even one-tenth of the U.S. amount. To be on par with the U.S., China’s total debt should be around $1.5 trillion USD, but it is three times that! Considering the U.S. has an unsustainable debt position, China’s is ridiculously out of control and puts that country in extreme danger of a financial collapse of epic proportions.

    •China’s officially published interest rate of 6.2 percent is fabricated. In reality, China’s inflation is 16 percent. This is eerily similar to the United States as well. The U.S. official inflation of around 3 percent is nowhere close to unofficial inflation estimates of 10-13 percent. What does this mean for China? This means cost of living, wages and cost of goods sold in China will have to rise, and instead of exporting deflation, China will be exporting higher priced goods, thus affecting the rest of the world that purchases its goods. The world is on the verge of an inflationary cycle like we have never seen. Additionally, central banks around the globe are printing money on a massive scale to try to stimulate liquidity and spending (this is the definition of inflation!). Add to this a rising price structure in China, the major exporter to the world, and we could be preparing for a global hyperinflation.

    •Excess capacity in the economy and private consumption is only 30 percent of economic activity. Of course this is the case, as China’s population is extremely poor, and China is an exporting nation. The vast majority of their goods should not be private consumption. But, what the excess capacity indicates is that there is a global economic slowdown. Since China’s growth is dependent on the rest of the world purchasing their goods, a global recession does not bode well for China’s economic future.

    •China’s officially published GDP growth of 9 percent is fabricated. The real number is a negative 10 percent! China’s robust GDP has always been a pipe dream, as the country has been building infrastructure (railroads, highways and real estate development – including ghost cities). Since personal spending is only 30 percent of China’s GDP, roughly 70 percent of China’s GDP can be attributed to this massive build up. It will dry up, as has already started. The regime is about to be exposed, as people are starting to wake up to the fact that the “emperor has no clothes.”

    •China’s taxes are too high. Taxes on Chinese businesses – indirect and direct – are 70 percent of earnings. Individual tax rates are 81.6 percent. There is no way China can remain strong with these high taxes. We thought our taxes were high – because they are! But we are like schoolboys compared to China. It is the big boy on the taxation block. It’s just economics 101 – a country cannot remain strong or viable with tax rates this high! The population will ultimately revolt. I really believe China is ripe for revolution given these numbers; it’s just a matter of time. Sadly, for Chinese citizens, their strong-arm government will not look kindly on any kind of political or social opposition.

    So according to these fellows China ain’t what it may appear, Wagonwheel. I knew that because I was there and the Chinese fly loose and free with numbers and statistics. So your 9% growth may not be ( and probibly isn’t ) anywhere near the truth. Also what you percieve as the Chinese changing to “more of a free market” is really a statist illusion put forward by pols intent on decieving us, the West, that they are of Good Face. I know they have Two Faces, one they show us and one they show each other. The sooner you learn THAT little Asian tidbit the better off you’ll be. There is not ONE scrap of information, one statistic, one GDP number, one accounting prinpiple or one statement which comes out of China that can be relied upon as truth. That’s because they all must go through the “filter” of the state propaganda machine and are then spit out only to frame China in a favorable light.

    Please believe me Wagonwheel, as a die hard Rah-Rah American who lives with and among Asians (Korean, Chinese and Japanese), who does business with them, eats with them, celebrates and mourns with them. The Face they show you has zero relevence to reality to them. They wouldn’t be caught dead showing a Round Eye like yourself anything but EXACTLY what they want you to know.

  13. Oh, and Wagonwheel. As far as reducing dependency on foreign oil goes, the United States in in a better position to do that than almost any other nation. All a real President would have to do is begin an Energy Initiative. That’s what I would do if President. And it would go like this:

    1. Our policy is to locate, drill and refine all fossil fuels within American territory. This includes coal, oil and natural gas.
    2. An initiative to double our refining capabilities.
    3. The elimination of different gasoline formuals among the states for a singular formula therby making distribution cheaper.
    4. My 5/50 initiative. That is in five years we will build 50 neuclear power plants throughout the United States.
    5. The refurbishing of existing and the building of more hydroelectric facilities.
    6. Encouraging the further exploration of wind and solar power with tax incentives for private investors in those industries.

    Now, in typical politician fashion I will pull the number of 8,000,000 American jobs created by the drilling, refining, building, distribution and infrastructure to do the above out of my butt.

    American Jobs Through American Energy! Sounds like a good campaign slogan.

    ( All of this may sound like a spoof to you Wagonwheel, but as I’ve explained before we need new ideas. Here’s one. )

Comments are closed.