Users who Dugg This
David West
460 Followers
Gerakis100
2982 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Muhammad Waqas Khan
452 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
blindoggbooksFeb 13, 2011
If green technology is phased in slowly and efficiently the effect does not have to be devastating.
ect5150Feb 13, 2011
That's kind of the point of the article... that it is not efficient.
And that these types of "assertions are not backed up by any evidence and are inconsistent with the realities of green technologies and energy markets."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xophermvFeb 14, 2011
Actually, this blog post is incorrect on multiple levels.
For one, wind energy now costs as little as coal, particularly when you consider the huge subsidies given to coal companies compared to the tiny subsidies given to wind.
For another, the benefits are not limited to green jobs. We also benefit from keeping our money here and creating jobs here in our country rather than shipping it overseas and creating jobs in countries which hate us.
fluxFeb 14, 2011
wrong wind comes no where near coal in out put or cost .
show proof or is this more yanked of the ass facts
othonoggleFeb 14, 2011
flux, if you demand this you need to also provide it. Where's the proof of what you said?
jefferygomerFeb 14, 2011
I've spent extensive time working with the logistics on several new wind farms. I'm a fan of wind energy, but coal is significantly cheaper than Wind on a Kilowatt Hour basis. Also, coal keeps a significantly more amount of money in the USA than Wind does.
I'm not a fan of coal energy, but the most expensive components of coal power plants, in addition to the coal itself, are built in the USA. With Wind, you are usually dealing with Danish, German, or Dutch Wind Turbine companies, and every component (Tower sections, blades, nacelles) they manufacture is either from their respective country, or made in Vietnam, Japan, Italy, or Russia. There is only ONE US based wind turbine company, and that's Clipper Windpower, and their best turbines are actually manufactured in the UK.
xophermvFeb 15, 2011
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-07-report-wind-power-now-competitive-with-coal-in-some-regions
jefferygomerFeb 15, 2011
So we can get into a pointless blog vs. blog argument. Awesome.
This is the actual article that is being referenced:
http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/139
There are so many additional costs with Wind Farms. Their Construction price is staggering for the relatively small amount of power you get. Then when you don't factor in the subsidies in Wind, the difference of the cost per kilowatt hour is quite high.
Furthermore, you originally made claims that wind energy now costs as little as coal, when that is true in specific regions, it is and not an accurate statement in itself. Furthermore, this is only regarding the price of on-shore Wind Turbines - a more limited resource.
Wind energy is a great source of power, but it can, by chaotic nature, only be supplemental source in regards to a larger energy plan. Wind is unpredictable, efficient locations are uncommon, and the cost of running the main grid to the untapped locations isn't a factored expense.
jbarker6Feb 14, 2011
So he gets dugg up for stating incorrect facts that support wind/new green energy ideas?
Digg is a ignorant cesspool.
xophermvFeb 15, 2011
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-07-report-wind-power-now-competitive-with-coal-in-some-regions
Where's the link to the "facts" which support your point of view?
sanmanFeb 14, 2011
Certainly alternative energy would create jobs, and at the very least lower the cost of living. Look at how alternative energy can create independence from the traditional power grid. People could power their homes with rooftop solar panels or wind turbines. Homes and communities could be built far away from existing built up areas and supporting infrastructure. There will be less need for urban concentration. People will have more personal sovereignty as a result.
Creating newer and more desirable choices for consumers inevitably stimulates demand for those offerings, and jobs to fulfill those needs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2011
inflation never goes in reverse until a collapse, so lowering the cost of living will not happen. the problem is pay hasn't kept up with inflation. The only way to 'lower' the cost of living is to force companies to give the lower 50% of this country higher wages. Not all green energy jobs are permanent, once the solar field is built, there is no need for as many people. then all they're left with is a severely reduced staff for maintenance and management while the ones who built it only got a relatively short term benefit from it.
Even if we were able to switch entirely over to green energy over night, the prices would still remain the same, they may lower at first, but soon they will rise again. They'll just ease us back into paying more until before we know it, we're being entirely screwed and a bunch of that money is funneled into the hands of the wealthy.
You can't expect oil, coal and gas companies to take that lying down, they own most of the green energy facilities. Here they have a liquid, a rock, and a gas that is now very valuable, and there's plenty more to sell. that's as good as buried money to them, they're not going to make that worthless. You can't expect them to want to introduce green energies at a fast pace because while they'll still have the same customer base, they'll be getting less from each customer. that's as good as forcing gas down to $1 a gallon to them, that is to say, they'd be furious because they wouldn't be making as much money off of it.
even right now, electric plants that supply electric cars are being powered by GASOLINE. it may be a bit more efficient, but it's still polluting practically just as much. If they had their way, we wouldn't stop using oil coal and gas until there was no more left to sell.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sanmanFeb 14, 2011
Japan has deflation, and it hasn't collapsed.
The myth that deflation inevitably causes collapse is just fostered by fanatical Fed-mongers.
Anything that provides more consumer choice helps to free up economic potential.
In the short run, there will always be winners and losers from such new technologies, but in the long run everyone will be better off.
arpadFeb 14, 2011
Sorry, all that "alternative" energy is far too expensive to compete. That's why ridiculous subsidies are necessary. The notion that alternatives are *almost* as cheap as coal simply isn't true.
sanmanFeb 14, 2011
it's just a matter of time before a threshold is crossed, and it becomes more competitive. At the very least peak oil and loss of control over Middle Eastern oil-producing puppet states will help to bring it about.
youareretardedFeb 14, 2011
How much in subsidies do coal, gas and oil receive?
videographerFeb 14, 2011
Well, you can start with several trillion in the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
brutusflyFeb 14, 2011
Yah, and I don't know what Henry Ford is thinking. Cars will never be competitive with horses. They are far too expensive to compete.
torrangeFeb 14, 2011
I guess we should just forget it all - keep subsidizing coal and oil
wessideFeb 14, 2011
So, the fact that we're trying to create energy without destroying the planet isn't a good enough reason to do it to you?
xophermvFeb 15, 2011
Alternative energy is already competing.
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-07-report-wind-power-now-competitive-with-coal-in-some-regions
zetadogFeb 13, 2011
For any kind of shift to some new energy source, a profitable solution is necessary. Unless you get more then you give, no new energy will ever take off.
chadster1000Feb 13, 2011
True, but sometimes we must investigate the alternatives in order to find efficiency. Unfortunately, those who control the real money tend to have only personal gain in mind. I guess we can only hope for cold fusion..... lolComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kwanijmlFeb 14, 2011
maybe. . . but how do "we"/government know where and what research to put money and investment into? How do we know if a particular energy source that we are "investigating" and investing into is efficient and sustainable, if not by the market signals of profit and loss? The hard science is important, but beyond something being discovered or proven scientifically as a viable energy source, it must also be proven sustainable from an market/economic standpoint. . . otherwise you are just thrusting something unaffordable down the throats of the people in a dictatorial fashion. If oil is bad or unsustainable, let it become prohibitively expensive (as it will), if wind or solar are better, then they will become cheaper. Any mandate by the people/government cannot possibly hope to land on the exact right answer (as there is no single right answer for everyone), and can only serve to stifle the sustainable evolution of new forms of energy.
chadster1000Feb 14, 2011
Yes, I agree. But we live on an island as of now and better to put money towards a possible life raft than towards consuming the resources we have left.
Also....space exploration :P a more literal life raft.
daronicusFeb 14, 2011
The problem with this argument is that we depend on fossil fuels heavily for our energy. If we wait until it is unsustainable before developing new sources, how will we get the infrastructure up? That takes energy, after all. My philosophy is that we should be investing heavily in alternative energy sources now so that when we do run our oil supply into the ground, the world doesn't revert to the stone age. We need time and money spent on building it and developing so it is as efficient as possible. And yes, I think the government should contribute, as they do with many emerging technologies.
kwanijmlFeb 14, 2011
And that is precisely why this is an issue that free markets would have likely solved on their own, and would not require a government agency to commission research on the subject. Because of the government meddling in the market this has caused a distortion of the true cost and prices of oil (I believe that the cost of oil may have long ago become much higher than we Americans currently pay for it). . . had prices long ago been as high for us as they are in Europe (and just about anywhere else in the world), we consumers would have long ago been clamoring to switch to other forms of energy, and the infrastructure to support this consumption would have begun to be put in place to meet this demand. . . in other words, alternative energies would likely have long ago been the better economic choice for most people. But instead, our government has basically secured unsustainably cheap oil for us, through our military and other 'diplomatic' interventions.
So, more to your point: While various government agencies and commissions are partly responsible for informing us that we may have reached peak oil, and the other realities of depleting this natural resource. . . you cannot think for one second that they were the only one's to research this or even the first to know. The oil industry knows this and has known it for a long time. . . and whether or not they intended to share that with the rest of us is immaterial. Their costs for obtaining oil are rising, and those additional costs would have been long ago passed along to us consumers, had it not been for governmental interventions. Oil is not going to suddenly dry up in a day. . . .the real warning signs are passed along the chain of production in the form of higher cost. . . which still allow those consumers who wish to continue using oil to do so, but it also simultaneously makes other sources of energy more attractive to consumers and producers alike.
ferretmanFeb 13, 2011
Interesting article.
laborerFeb 13, 2011
This is foolish. Those other industries wont sustain themselves when competing with the Chinese model, and their growing handle on next-gen energy sources. Those technologies are going to be necessary at some point, and by the time the market can get around to addressing it, the Chinese will be 10 years ahead.
This is about keeping America ahead.
greedonvrfiredFeb 13, 2011
They want to turn down a goose that lays golden eggs because it has to warm up with bronze and silver eggs. Meanwhile their current goose is coughing and wheezing on what IT lays.
darkshroudFeb 13, 2011
The Chinese model is building new coal plants every week with no scrubbers for the smoke from the furnaces and building Nuclear power plants.
The US already has more Wind farms than any other country in the world including China. The problem is the upfront costs vs the rate of return on Wind farms plus the need for a secondary power source when those wind farms are unable to meet the demand.
I'm not saying that Wind & Solar should just be dumped but Nuclear power plants are a sure thing for providing jobs & cheap power.
laborerFeb 14, 2011
We may be leading on Wind power, but for how long? And China is leading on solar power. This is not the time to slack.
darkshroudFeb 14, 2011
There is one problem with solar power in the US, big parts of our country cannot use solar power year round. During cold weather solar panels do very well easily over 100% efficiency. If they're kept clear of snow & ice. The problem is you have to be able to keep them clear. And it takes several years for panels to pay for themselves. Many people including our government just cannot afford them.
laborerFeb 14, 2011
Of course they dont work all the time, thats why you need to diversify. Its not as if Americans are manufacturing anything else.
We cant afford solar panels, or factories to make them, but we can support two 10 year wars? This is ridiculous. If we wanted to, we could. They wont be as efficient as ones in 10 years, but solar tech has come a long way.
torrangeFeb 14, 2011
laborer - the source of the article is someone with ties to big oil and dirty energy.
Nice point, we can fight two multi-trillion dollar wars, but we cannot move ahead with clean energy. Big oil and coal have this country by the balls - stop subsidizing them and move some of that money to clean energy.
Who do you think is telling the doubters we cannot do alternative energy? It is the Koch(sp) brothers, et all spending billions on misinformation. I thought we were Ameri"CANS".
ibdilbertFeb 14, 2011
Chinese solar technology is actually behind 10 years, they are still pushing cheap thin film technology and our uneducated Americans are buying them left and right not knowing any better. A few countires have already banned thin film technology, while our media is hyping how good the technology is and nobody is the wiser.
laborerFeb 14, 2011
I just read they have a much higher solar energy output than we do. That is ahead to me.
darkshroudFeb 14, 2011
You're an idiot. Having more solar panels doesn't mean a damn thing when you can have fewer better quality ones with great out put. On top of that their government is paying for it and forcing it in places.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 14, 2011
Thanks for the name calling, bro. Really makes your argument stand out.
The point is, this issue is going to become more and and more important. A solution needs to be found soon, and the faster that good alternatives come out, the faster America can get off of the old generation tech.
nickymouseFeb 14, 2011
Good... we can steal their research, build are own modified version, and sell it back. Since most of Asia doesn't give a damn about our IP laws.
onealcFeb 13, 2011
Nice read!
agmlauncherFeb 13, 2011
Of course more efficient energy won't create more jobs. That's the f**king point of it: EFFICIENCY, as in lower costs (less manufacturing, less energy production).
More efficient energy consumption makes it easier to transition to renewable and purely domestic energy, which will save the US hundreds of billions of dollars a year. That's money which is no longer flowing out of the country, and can remain here to circulate within our economy.
That's why electric cars are so great: their efficiency ratio is miles ahead of ICE vehicles. So while batteries have lower energy density, they just about make up for it in their raw efficiency. Only about 10% of the energy in gasoline ends up powering the vehicle, even less so when you factor in the refinement process to make the gasoline in the first place.
By increasing the efficiency of our energy consumption, we don't need to spend as much time, money, or effort replacing it with something else.
ect5150Feb 13, 2011
Agree & disagree...
Lowering costs is always needed - but as costs drop, so do prices... we'll wind up consuming more of the stuff.
Just look at lightbulbs over the years. They are far more efficient in their consumption of electricity now than ever... but they just wind up in every single part of the house now. Instead of just being on the ceiling, now they are in the phones, in remote controls, in the vacuum cleaner, in USB drives, on the DVD player, on the PS3s, on digital picture frames, etc...
It is true you don't NEED to spend as much... but we wind up doing it anyways.
conservative_zombieFeb 13, 2011
Good job with that light bulb analogy.
maskedslackerFeb 14, 2011
There are no lightbulbs in any of those things you listed. Those are LEDs.
minimumeffortFeb 14, 2011
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately you are responding to the title of the submission and not the article. After you read the article the title makes no sense.
The whole point of the article was that alternative energies are not efficient. Last paragraph: "The fundamental problem is that green-energy technologies are still very inefficient". Whoever wrote the title is misrepresenting the article.
Of course you took it one step further and only mentioned consumption which had nothing to do with either the article or the title. The title is nonspecific but the article only refers to energy production.
calgaryjayFeb 13, 2011
People don't realize the magnitude of oil. Like with Ethanol they spew out a volume number that sounds really big for the year. In reality its only enough to power the worlds oil need for a couple hours out of a year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
greedonvrfiredFeb 13, 2011
Yeah I see your point. Which is... "Sounds like a real pain in the ass, lets forget it."
greedonvrfiredFeb 13, 2011
This bulls**t attitude comes from greed. And not just Oil Corp greed. EVERYBODY greed. "I don't want alternative energies unless they are going to make me rich. Or at least not cost me any money or burden." Well tough s**t crybabies. Transitions are not always get rich bubbles, sometimes they sting a little. And trust me if you go forward with enough green projects you can keep people busy for a few hundred years. We are talking about retrofitting a planet.
jhourcleFeb 14, 2011
Actually, if you read Bjørn Lomborg's writings (including this one), he typically advocates spending the money that would've been spent on environmental efforts towards some other effort that would give a greater return for the amount of cost spent.
greedonvrfiredFeb 14, 2011
That seems like a reasonable stance on the surface, but its not. Which would Lomborg advocate we attempt to eradicate? Malaria or Leukemia. According to him, whichever we have a better chance of actually succeeding on right? Or should I just point out the greed again... "greater return for the amount of cost spent." That makes it Leukemia by a wide margin, most people with Malaria are poor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
torrangeFeb 14, 2011
A little about the author
http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg
kwanijmlFeb 14, 2011
I'm all for the alternative forms of energy. . . but if not wanting to or not being able to shell out extra money, personally, for the same or less energy makes me greedy. . . I am proud to be greedy. You and others like you go ahead and keep being selfless, and see where it takes you, and society.
greedonvrfiredFeb 14, 2011
You want me to be mindful of where my selflessness takes me? And where has your selfishness taken you?... To a place where you are "unable to shell out a little extra money."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
falstaffFeb 13, 2011
'…the American economist visiting Mao’s China (was) taken on a tour of a construction site where 100 workers were using shovels to build an earthen dam. "Why don't you just use one man and a bulldozer to build the dam?” asked the economist. The guide responded, "If we did that, then we'd have 99 men out of work." To which the economist replied, "Oh, I thought you were building a dam. If your goal is to make jobs, why don't you take their shovels away and replace them with spoons?"'
lareaderFeb 14, 2011
If 100 workers cost less than a bulldozer, it makes sense to use the 100 workers. In the US the bulldozer costs less. In China maybe not.
velimirsilniFeb 13, 2011
masterpiece :cool:
chadster1000Feb 13, 2011
Yeah it might not produce as much jobs as people would like. However, people seem to forget that fossil fuels are dangerously finite and destructive. Yet, they are essentially free energy, as once they are extracted they are almost magically efficient. Thus we are addicted to them. The best thing to do would be to steadily and uniformly address every avenue of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, hydrogen, etc) while we still can. If we do it before its absolutely necessary, we might be able to afford it. Unfortunately, this will never happen.
darkshroudFeb 14, 2011
There has to be a certain level of return on investment and not just monetary. Let's look at the whole corn based ethanol debacle. E85 burns hotter so it wear out engines faster while not providing the same amount of power as gasoline. On top of that it costs more energy to make E85 than it does to produce gas.
The side effects are now there is a limited supply of corn for people to the point that some places people are staving. Then there is the cost of live stock feed more than doubling so poultry, beef, & dairy based products have all gone up.
Solar, Wind, & Hydrogen are all good an well. But they need to reach a level of efficiency for return on investment of capital & materials. As well as stability to actually meet the needs & demands of power consumption. If the source can't provide the needed level of energy then why bother wasting money in the first place, especially when tax dollars always seem to be where the wasted funds come from.
bcronosFeb 14, 2011
Well said!
mcarrelFeb 14, 2011
I agree that alternative energy has to make economic sense. But let's not ignore the tax dollars going to the oil industry in the form of tax breaks and subsidies when comparing different sources of energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525
and there's also the massive military we maintain, in part, to defend oil supplies from the middle east.
Also, oil is going to become more scarce and more expensive and it would be good to have some alternatives ready when that happens.
It would be interesting to know what the 'true' cost of depending on oil really is.
chadster1000Feb 14, 2011
@ Darkshroud
Right, which is why it will never happen. The rules of economics still stand in the face of chaos. The billionaires will remain billionaires. The only way the "should" that i suggested would happen is if the rich realized how meaningless their wealth is and contributed to this global problem with passion,
kwanijmlFeb 14, 2011
or better yet, if the rich were forced by market pressures to produce and sell something that is beneficial and non-destructive (or less destructive).
This is much more likely to happen when the government stays out of the way and quits subsidizing oil, and the military industrial complex that sustains our petrol dollar. . . as well as removes the artificial rights of personhood on the oil corporations (and all corps), thereby leaving them in full liability for all the damages (direct and external) that are committed in the production of fossil fuels. Let this happen, and then we see the true cost of oil. . . and suddenly it's not so cheap anymore, and any of the "rich" who wish to remain rich, will have to cater to safer, more sustainable fuels, in order to do so. And. . . nobody had to just blindly guess at what that most sustainable fuel is, and we the people did not have to have needless government regulation and waste forced upon us, all in the name of soaking the rich.
immunofortFeb 14, 2011
Do you really think all the rich people in the world are mafia bosses who profit from non-productive businesses activities? Typical libtard. There will always be rich people, that is unless you want to live in a communist state, but look at how well those have turned out. Even the poorer people living in capitalist countries have higher standards of living than the average person in a communist state.
As for subsidizing oil. It doesn't really matter what you think of oil; Oil is a Necessity of modern life. By subsidizing oil they are just trying to keep the costs of businesses as well as cost of transportation.
Also, paragraphs. Use it. Nobody wants to read a huge f**king endless block of text.
minimumeffortFeb 14, 2011
What you suggest is already happening. There are reasons to develop solar, wind, etc and it happens. The effort to find and extract oil is going up and has been going up for a long time. Why do you think we are drilling in the deep waters? Because it's reached a point where it's worth the effort. They have also developed new techniques to detect and extract and the costs to do this have gone up significantly compared to the old methods of being able to just stick a hose in the ground. The costs still have not made it less competitive than wind/solar but when it is does investment in wind/solar will pay off. If we insist on investing before they pay off what you end up with are investments that don't pay off.
nerysFeb 13, 2011
ANYTHING more efficient and green REDUCES jobs. but things that are truly more efficient and green ALSO reduce cost by a greater amount than they reduce jobs.
this lets the private sector higher more at lower wages BUT since cost is down by more than wages are down its effectively "more" money for each person.
alas that is not how we do it. we "slurp" up the savings and spend it with more budget hikes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
minimumeffortFeb 14, 2011
Except the article is all about jobs that are green and inefficient. Article: "The fundamental problem is that green-energy technologies are still very inefficient" If you can find a green job that is more efficient I'm all for it.
nerysFeb 14, 2011
and that is the way it will stay. inefficient or "only more efficient enough to appease people" is more profitable.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2011
slate spamming digg a lot lately. They must think it is 2000 and that people still read their crap.
SpeakOfTheDevilFeb 13, 2011
Gurcan Gulen
Senior Energy Economist
Bureau of Economic Geology
The University of Texas at Austin
Oh no, no conflict of interest at all. He's only an energy geologist, there's no way he has vested interest to see oil industry boom, right?
/heavy sarcasm
ibdilbertFeb 14, 2011
I disagree with this article. More efficient energy "will" create more jobs, providing we don't outsource our products to china. The solar industry alone is wide open to create an unlimited amount of jobs, including equipment manufacturing, panel manufacturing, panel design and panel installation and the ever endless cell design.
minimumeffortFeb 14, 2011
Right which is the point of the article. If you want energy efficient jobs you will stay away from green energy technologies.
uscitizen1245Feb 14, 2011
we need to drill for our own oil.
uscitizen1245Feb 14, 2011
we need to drill for our own oil.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2011
I stopped reading at:
"asked Gürcan Gülen, a senior energy economist at the Bureau for Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin"...
You can always replace "economist" with "astrologer". Same thing. And Texas? Yeah like they don't have an angle on the oil story.....
torisutanFeb 14, 2011
This article is retarded.
First off: yes it WILL create more jobs.
A) Green Energy relies on SMART GRIDS, which means they need computers to work to provide consistent energy while not producing too much or too little for the various changing and increasing demands of consumers. That means it will need people to monitor the computers and fix any bugs or glitches, as well as faulty parts and downed sections of the power grid.
B) Green Energy relies on power plants that DON'T EXIST YET. There are existing green power plants, but in order to switch over entirely it will require MORE to be built. Last I checked, building don't construct themselves, and we create jobs for people to build the plants.
C) Green Energy will also create a new industry based on making energy production more efficient. That's going to create new jobs for scientists who can figure out ways to improve energy consumption and output, as well as those who can devise new methods of producing energy and reclaiming energy from the environment.
Second: It's going to cost money. DEAL WITH IT.
A) Hey guess what? We used to not HAVE power plants! Did you know that? Well, one day they just sorta appeared and all of a sudden we had pow-OH WAIT THAT'S NOT TRUE. We built them. We paid for them too. Just like EVERYTHING else in our lives, we paid for them because what existed before wasn't good enough. Our current power production methods are inefficient and don't work well enough to provide sustainable energy.
B) Eventually we WILL have to switch to renewable energy sources anyways, because unless you're an idiot you know that the Earth has finite resources available to exploit. Our current "non-green" power solutions use those finite resources. It is a fact that eventually we will run out. Debate "when" all you like, you cannot deny that "finite" means "it'll end". It makes NO sense to wait until the last minute to switch over our energy production from non-renewable to renewable. The sooner we switch over, the sooner we can use the resources we use for energy for other things that might be more productive, or maybe even not use them at all. Either way, it'll need to happen eventually so why not sooner rather than later?
C) To all the imbeciles who deny climate change, how about this: deny pollution. Go on, I f**king dare you. Tell me that pollution isn't real. You can't! You can't deny pollution is real because if you do I'll be forced to ask you to sit in a room with a car running in it, and oh-ho-ho you better not leave it because you don't believe in pollution! I'll put a tree in the room, don't worry, and maybe some other things like a fan (no open windows, just a desktop fan). Because according to climate-change deniers, the climate won't change just because the atmosphere gets filled with exhaust and other pollutants. So, you should be fine in that room, right? It won't increase in temperature, because you've got a tree and a fan in there, right? Right. It won't kill you, because you've got a tree and a fan in there, right? Right. Point is: we should switch to green energy anyways regardless of whether oil is put there by god and never runs out, or not, because Green Energy will result in less pollution. That means cleaner air and water, and who the hell doesn't want that?
torisutanFeb 14, 2011
You know what? f**k YOU people that buried me. I usually don't care, but in this case I know that you're people who agree with this article.
Let's talk about it's base claim, that green energy creates only temporary jobs but gets rid of permanent ones.
What jobs does it get rid of? Mining the raw materials for traditional energy? No, those jobs are already mostly automated, and they can be transferred over to maintenance of the wind/solar/geothermal farms that will exist anyways.
And as for the claim that alternative energy sources cost more money than traditional energy, BULLs**t. Hey, guess how much a 1TB hard-drive cost in 2004? Answer: more than most consumers could dream of affording. How much does a 1TB hard-drive cost now? Answer: under $100. Inflation isn't to blame either. It's that as we invested in technology, the cost went down. It ALWAYS works that way. Why is traditional energy so damn cheap? BECAUSE WE INVESTED IN WAYS TO MAKE IT CHEAP. So what, is there a guy with a gun to our heads that won't let us do the same exact thing with green technology?
It sounds to me like this article was written by a guy who stands to benefit from traditional energy remaining the de facto source of energy for the globe.
anomaly100Feb 14, 2011
If you don't mind if I interject, do not worry about people burying comments. Welcome to my world. It's insignificant and there are people <looking around> who bury comments and subs en masse. I don't mind digging things from another perspective, but there are some that will not tolerate it. That said, do not take offense.
torisutanFeb 14, 2011
Lol I wouldn't mind if they had another viewpoint, as long as they post it. If they have a differing opinion, it's their responsibility to say what it is. The problems with our society would be solved much more quickly if people actually spoke about their ideas, rather than simply saying, "No you're wrong f**k you".
Case in point: I could have simply buried this submission and moved on. Instead I've dugg it and posted my own thoughts on it, because without the free flow of information and thought we cannot be sure that any idea is better than any other. Information is the key, and while burying incorrect information might serve to prevent ignorant people from reading it, thus preventing the spread of disinformation, it is actually better to spread it when you include the truth alongside it, so they can see both points of view. Usually, the truth is actually obvious.
Plus, I'm pretty sure it's some of my Digg Stalkers that are doing it, blindly burying every post I make because they disagree with my political views.
anomaly100Feb 14, 2011
Oh you have stalkers too! Suddenly, I don't feel so alone. My stalkers (who are probably your stalkers too):
http://digg.com/news/politics/she_who_must_not_be_named_lambastes_rick_santorum
As far as green energy, of course it would create jobs, as well as delve into the possibility of one day finding another fuel source, but hey, let's be dependent on oil until it runs out!;-)
rjeyFeb 14, 2011
"What jobs does it get rid of? Mining the raw materials for traditional energy? No, those jobs are already mostly automated"
No, they are not automated. Mining is very labor intensive still.
woemirth73Feb 14, 2011
LOL... This guy was mentioned in a Rolling Stone article (Who Is To Blame), The 12 politicians and corporate executives responsible for blocking efforts to halt global warming... He's #11 by the way.Funny because I just finished reading the article a few minutes before I read this one... Nice Slate! Good job! Hacks.
woemirth73Feb 14, 2011
His name is Bjørn Lomborg.
ano233Feb 14, 2011
While I can't say that I disagree with the conclusion of this "study", but I do question its timing. Shortly after the congressional switchover and just as the Republicans are gearing up for cuts to environmental programs this thing pops up, sounds like bought and paid for "science" to me.
chatbanFeb 14, 2011
Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) the famous inventor of the alternating current power system deployed worldwide had the answer but the legendary investor and banker JP Morgan did not like the idea of wireless energy because there was no meter on the system to measure usage for money profits.
glbernsFeb 14, 2011
Yes, it's foolish to think that being on the cutting edge of technology, and being an innovator will lead to more jobs. History has shown several times that it's the ones that cling to old technology that prosper.
/s
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2011
It would in the beginning, but overall, no. More efficient energy might lower costs though, so it is beneficial. Research into new energy technology does create some jobs, but those are not permanent. However, we are basing this off of what we know right now. We might create something that would require more jobs, but no one would use it for that reason.
ifpk454Feb 14, 2011
Obama and the greens are morons.
People matter more than ideology, Obama's policies will cost millions of jobs and make America even more uncompetitive with the rise of the third world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbtshoeswoFeb 14, 2011
i agree with you.
tod987Feb 14, 2011
ITER in France 1st Fusion Reactor and Ati-Matter made at CERN is worlds first REAL Energy that will change the world!
GrnDolphinLvnFeb 14, 2011
Bunch of crap...
wherleyFeb 14, 2011
Author = Bjørn Lomborg.
Ring a bell? Might want to check:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
dankertonFeb 14, 2011
Let's be frank and think for a second... All those jobs associated with "conventional energy" SHOULD be ended (eventually). Green jobs are the "good" jobs of the future, the morally respectable jobs. Oil jobs, for instance, are "bad." In the future I hope we do not have any bad jobs and just good jobs. The transition will be rough but the fate of human longevity is at stake. People will need to learn new trades (more science and engineering) but eventually there will be enough green jobs for everyone because humans will rely solely on green energy (roughly 500-1000 years from now based on overall fossil fuel reserves. I studied this in College).
torrangeFeb 14, 2011
Check the source/author of the article. He is steeped in controversy and has some loose ties to big oil.
http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg
GrnDolphinLvnFeb 14, 2011
Green jobs are not just wind, turbines, solar panels... they can modify heating systems to burn cleaner.
patbox00Feb 14, 2011
GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD. EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE HAS A WAY OF GOING BACK TO NORMAL. PART OF A CYCLE. GREEN BULLS**T IS WHAT I CALL IT !!!!!
fortheamericanconsumerFeb 15, 2011
The only way we are going to establish green energy all across the country is if it's funded by the deep pockets of investors and rich businessmen. But in order for that to happen, the American People must stress to the very rich that change must come and that we need to make our business and industrial sector more efficient or we won't spend.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-American-Consumer-Awareness-Movement/141756795887181
Spread the link as much you can! Spread the word!
JTarmannMar 15, 2011
This pluralistic, non-dogmatic, and committed investigation of the values of ecological sustainability, economic justice, and human dignity provides balanced analysis of environmental problems and their potential solutions. http://bit.ly/fQmJxd
randomvoiceJul 16, 2011
Green energy an create more jobs because of R and D and all of the remodeling that needs to take place in existing homes. . Check out http://remodelmegreen.com/