Energy efficiency is not a jobs policy

October 14, 2010

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) just released its state energy efficiency scorecard.

Spurred by ACEEE’s ranking of California as the most energy efficient state and the fact that California is only exceeded by Michigan and Nevada in unemployment, we ran a simple regression of ACEEE energy efficiency rankings versus state unemployment rankings according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for August 2010.

Unemployment ranking was positively correlated (slope=.15) with energy efficiency ranking — i.e., states with higher unemployment rankings tended to have higher energy efficiency rankings.

ACEEE claims that energy efficiency creates jobs — and maybe it does. But do the jobs created through energy efficiency efforts wind up destroying other jobs — and more of them?

Energy efficiency is a policy of contraction, not one of growth — and job gains only occur during periods of growth. While energy efficiency may make sense on a case-by-case basis, blindly implemented on a societal scale, it is a suicidal policy.

There is plenty of energy out there. We need to put as much of it to good use as soon as possible to get our economy and standard of living back on the positive track.

7 Responses to “Energy efficiency is not a jobs policy”

  1. steve384 Says:

    You do a lot of ranting. Stop, take a deep breath…..that’s it settle down.

    So much anger.

    Yes, I have taken economics. Several classes. Have even used some of what I learned.

    Here are a couple more articles you can read. So much to learn. Must be hard.

    Now think………….what do these articles have in common with the original article?


  2. steve384 Says:

    False intelligence permeates your post. You need to read the post and try to understand it before you make baseless comments.

    Read the article linked to below, maybe it will give you a hint as to why the above post is sooooo correct.

    Spain has tried the solar efficiency experience. It is costing them dearly in jobs and in their general economy.

    If you had taken a class in basic economics you would have understood. But I’m thinking you haven’t. Too bad, ignorance is not bliss if you want to make coherent statements.

  3. antigreennuke Says:

    Real “efficiency” improvements would mean we don’t have to cut back on anything, it just takes less energy for the exact same thing. It would mean we can drive the exact same full size SUV with the exact same horsepower, but use less gas.
    – NOBODY disagrees with this concept!

    Most of what the greenies want is not improving efficiency, but to ration our use of resources at all costs. It’s things such as eating less meat, using less water in the shower, less water in the toilet, to turn down the thermostat in winter, and up in the summer. Remember the singer that wanted us to use only one sheet of toilet paper? This is what they call efficiency!

  4. steve384 Says:

    The true cost of solar and wind renewables is nearly a magnitude higher than conventional fossil energy.

    When the cost of purchased energy is higher in one state than in another, businesses and companies leave. When the cost of energy in the country is higher than in other countries, businesses leave.

    We do not import coal. But under the proposed cap and trade rules, power companies will be required to burn natural gas. We do import natural gas and oil.

    It is STUPID to think “green” is good if the end result is unemployment.

    Making the use of “green” power even STUPIDER!

    It is even STUPIDER to think that coal is causing catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming. If you buy into this drug, you haven’t done your homework.

    • steve384 Says:

      The use of the word STUPIDER was inspired by someone using the word STUPID. Both words are inappropriate.

      As for coal subsidies:

      The Federal Government spent an estimated $16.6 billion in energy-specific subsidies and support programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. Energy-specific subsidies have more than doubled since FY 1999.

      Natural Gas – $0.25 per megawatt hour
      Coal – $0.44 per megawatt hour
      Hydroelectric – $0.67 per megawatt hour
      Nuclear – $1.59 per megawatt hour
      Wind – $23.37 per megawatt hour
      Solar – $24.34 per megawatt hour

      As for cost:

      Solar is the most expensive way to generate electricity. Solar is about 35 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour (unsubsidized), compared to 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for natural gas and coal.

      Your choice of quoting the “97% of active climate scientists is wrong.

      Here are the results of the survey:

      Click to access GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf

      Only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” And equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.

      There are 32,000 scientists convinced that CAGW is not a problem, and the list probably contains the name of Steve Milloy. You should read some of his articles. You might learn something.

      CO2 is not a pollutant. If you still feel that way, quit exhaling.

      Here is the link to the article that got me thinking and looking.

      Let me know what you think.

      Gas production companies are looking forward to replacing coal with their natural gas in power plants to help decrease carbon emissions. And of course the consumer will have to pay the add-on cost.

  5. rgoulet Says:

    What we have here is a failure to communicate!

    Making the corelation between energy efficiency and loss of jobs might be a forthnight to furlong comparison. Many of the energy efficient state have higher utility rates, which has a larger effect on employment.

    Also I would love to see the back up data used. Telling me the slope is only the beginning. Make a comparison to energy cost and unemployment per stae would probably show a closer corelation.

    I am an energy and operations and maintenance consultant. More than one of my clients have told me the energy we are saving may mean they have to lay off one or two fewer people, or even keep their doors open.

Leave a Reply to steve384 Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: