Bring it on Maggie!
The Colorado Governor is touting research (paid for by…The Governor of Colorado) about hwo specatularly wonderful renewable energy is and how its provising food for 90,000 families and:
Gov. Bill Ritter made the startling claim this week that “the renewable energy industry is creating directly or indirectly 90,000 jobs” in Colorado – in other words, 20,000 more than the estimated employment associated with the booming oil and gas industry.
Let’s put the figure of 90,000 jobs in perspective. It’s nearly twice the number of cops, firefighters, security guards and prison guards in Colorado – combined. It’s more than the combined total of every teacher in K-12 schools together with every lawyer and paralegal. Ninety thousand is twice the waiters and waitresses in this state, twice the number of fast-food workers, and only 10,000 or so less than the total for all major health-care occupations (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the occupational employment totals).
Here’s another reality check: After the legislature increased the renewable energy standard for utilities last year from 10 percent to 20 percent for 2020, the League of Conservation Voters – not known for soft-pedaling the impact of green energy – told its members that the measure would create a grand total of 4,100 jobs.
Well, how do you get to a figure that there are more renewable energy jobs than teachers, firemen and policemen?
The report admits that the energy efficiency business is “much more nebulous and difficult to define” than renewables, but that doesn’t stop it from trying. For openers, its definition includes “partial segments of large industries such as vehicles [those considered energy efficient], buildings, lighting, appliances, etc.” And don’t sneer at that “etc.” because it covers a lot of ground, too, including “insulation sales” and the recycling industry.
Never mind that people have been blowing insulation into walls for decades: That activity has now been drafted into the New Energy Economy, where it can be displayed by politicians as a trophy of their economic leadership.
Of course, this will be touted as an example of the wonderful leadership provided by the Dummycrats in Colorado who are working to ensure that every single person either works for the government or is dependant on it.
Basic economics people – trade is a win/win – now if only somebody would tell the two major party Presidential candidates:
McCain and Obama talk constantly about how much they will “invest” — with money taken from the taxpayers, of course — to achieve energy independence. “[W]e can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market,” Obama said.
What makes Obama think he’s qualified to pick the “best plans”? It’s the robust competition of the free market that reveals what’s best. Obama’s program would preempt the only good method we have for learning which form of energy is best.
And John McCain seems to be no better:
McCain promises a $300-million prize to whoever develops a battery for an electric car. But the free market already provides plenty of incentive to invent a better battery. As George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux writes, “Anyone who develops such a device will earn profits dwarfing $300 million simply by selling it on the market. There’s absolutely no need for any such taxpayer-funded prize“.
Central energy planning and government-funded prizes are economic idiocy.
Why has this science not been reported too much?
For some years now, reports have been growing from around the world that the massive amounts of synthetic birth control hormones being pumped into the water systems through sewage outflow is changing the sex of fish stocks. Recently, scientists have also begun to warn of the possible carcinogenic effects of the build-up of estrogenic chemicals in drinking water.
As early as 2002, the UK Environment Agency warned that fish stocks in British rivers were showing signs of gender ambiguity as a result of high levels of estrogen in the water. A survey of 1,500 fish at 50 river sites found more than a third of males also displayed female characteristics.
Dr. Conrad Daniel Volz from the University of Pittsburgh Center for Environmental Oncology, warned that the rise in steroid hormones in the drinking water in the Pittsburgh area is a threat to health. Numerous studies have shown a link between contraceptive estrogen and hormone problems and some cancers, including testicular cancer.
There are ecoNazis screaming about snowmobiles in Yellowstone, but possible cancer risks in the water and there’s no noise from the environmental activists at all. Wonder why?
But scientists and environmental groups are careful to avoid recommending restrictions on artificial contraceptives.
The National Catholic Register, reporting on the issue, quotes George Harden, a board member of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, saying “If you’re killing mosquitoes to save people from the West Nile virus, you can count on secular environmentalists to lay down in front of the vapour truck, claiming some potential side effect that might result from the spray,” Harden said. “But if birth control deforms fish – backed by the proof of an EPA study – and threatens the drinking supply, mum will be the word.”
Curt Cunningham, water quality issues chairman for the Rocky Mountain Chapter of Sierra Club International, told the Register that people “would not take kindly” to the suggestion of banning or restricting hormonal contraceptives.
“For many people it’s an economic necessity. It’s also a personal freedom issue,” Cunningham said.
So birth control pills are a personal freedom issue. But having the government put restrictions on your land to keep some slimy snail in breeding territory isn’t a personal freedom issue?
Your hypocrisy is showing.