Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Green Job Bonanza -

On ABC's The World Today, Eleanor Hall reported:
"One of the key unions representing power workers today welcomed a report which says a price on carbon could lead to more than 30,000 jobs in regional Victoria over the next 20 years. The Climate Institute report says a price on carbon will create new job opportunities in all a range of clean-energy industries."
The Climate Institute report was launched by the independent member for New England, Tony Windsor in Canberra yesterday. The chief executive of the Climate Institute, John Connor says the research shows a carbon price will lead to big growth in renewable energy jobs in Australia particularly in regional areas.

The day before,  ABC News reported:
New research suggests a carbon price could help to create about 34,000 new power sector jobs across Australia, with more than 6,000 flagged for Queensland.
The Climate Institute commissioned the study to examine clean energy opportunities and the policies needed to make them a reality.
Not wanting to be left behind, the Sydney Morning Herald's Lenore Taylor wrote:
RESEARCH has found that a $45 a tonne carbon price could create almost 8000 more permanent jobs in the electricity sector by 2030 than there are now and 26,000 more temporary manufacturing and construction jobs, as tens of billions of dollars are invested in clean energy projects.
The research, which predicts 1500 new permanent jobs in NSW, will be launched today by the independent MP Tony Windsor, whose vote will be crucial for the passage of the government's proposed carbon price.

Similar reports can be found on SBS, The Age and from Tony Windsor. I hope, when they prepared the report they considered the Insulation scheme that caused scores of businesses to lose money, jobs galore lost and the deaths of four young Australians.

From these various reports  the jobs created are described as 8000 permanent and the balance temporary. At the same time as the Climate Institute report was released, a report was issued in the UK by consultants Verso Economics. It was reported on the Pro-Warmist BBC.
A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry. It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in "honest debate" about the issue.

Most people would be aware of the Spanish study by Dr. Gabriel Alvarez from King Juan Carlos University.  (pdf) Interviewed by the Frontier Centre (here)
The experience in Spain is that after 10 years more or less we have about 50,000 jobs created and some 30 billion Euros committed to the experiment. Which means that more than half a million Euros were needed per worker. Of course if you look at this it gives you an idea of the problem that we have. It is incredibly expensive to create a green job. We are creating jobs that are very inefficient jobs.  To create jobs is not a difficult thing, it is quite easy. Wherever you throw billions of Euros you will create jobs. The problem is that we don’t just want jobs, we want productive jobs. This is not what this scheme is creating.
We created nearly 50,000 jobs. The problem was that it required so many financial resources that you needed to take them away from other parts of the economy. If you look at the capitalization per worker in this society then you get an idea of how many jobs these financial resources would have created in the rest of the economy and you compare them. You compare the created jobs with the jobs that have not been created because you pulled resources away from the rest of the economy you find out that for every job you were creating at least 2.2 jobs were not created or were destroyed by this policy. 

What we saw from both these reports are that Green Jobs cost and also create unemployment.

Looming catastrophe in Antarctica - Not

A comment by Anonymous to a previous post "Watching (BY) the deniers and deceivers" contained some statements needing responses. Anonymous is a nervous nellie here not having the courage to use his real name but has outed himself in boast posts over at "Watching (BY) the deniers." Courageously over there he has outed himself as the cooloolafool John Byatt.
Everywhere we look globally we see very unstable climate changes happening quickly and without any warming.
Now, I am assuming, from the tone of his comment, Mr Byatt didn't mean "without any warming" but really meant "without any warning." Am I correct there, anonymous? Was it a Freudian slip?

Mr Byatt goes on:
We cannot lower temperatures NOW.

Well, I doubt if we can ever have an effect on global temperatures - up or down. There is no proof that CO2 causes runaway warming. In fact the hypothesis has been falsified. (Link)

As to temperatures, it has been reported that 2010 was the hottest year ever. It was stupid for any scientist to make such a generalisation.

See 2010 the 'warmest' year? See also my post on doctored figures here. So, perhaps we are not doomed after all.
Note the downward temperature trend line (although 8 years is not a long enough sample)
Back to An's comment:
"An Antarctic ice shelf used as a runway is breaking away forcing an emergency airlift to close summer operations on the continent."
Here is the temperature record for McMurdo and surrounding stations:

Essentially unchanging to cooling over the last 30 years; so what is causing the ice break is not warming; my bet is the ice has grown so far over the sea that it is losing its support; often when ice breaks off in the Antarctic it is not due to warming but ice growth. Note that the "warmest" summer temperature is greater than MINUS 14º. Long way to go before the ice melts.