Wow, you just have to watch this video.
It turns out that according to the administration, “green jobs” include: college professors teaching classes on environmental studies, clerks at bicycle repair shops, antique dealer employees, Salvation Army workers because they are selling used clothing, stores selling rare books and manuscripts, consignment shop workers, used record shop employees, garbage disposal workers, and even oil lobbyists if they are engaged in advocacy related to environmental issues.
I'm amazed they didn't ask about accountants and tax lawyers working in large multinational financial institutions who create and trade in carbon certificates etc.
If you have a job where you are paid to trawl the internet to promote green propaganda by posting comments everywhere under different names, is that also a green job?
Its tragic that you seem to be so paranoid and deluded that you think there's only one person in the world that disagrees with you and they post all over the internet under pseudonyms.
Whilst I agree that they're being a little liberal with the term "green job" there, surely you can see a growth in recycling and used good markets rather then disposable mass consumerism lifestyle leads to a lower energy intensity. The growth in environmental higher education and trade training also seems to be reasonably classified as a green job.
Whats more interesting is that somehow whenever you discuss green jobs you forget that renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, biomass etc etc don't construct and maintain themselves. Those industries employ millions worldwide, even if you believe their economics are contrived you can't deny that the jobs exist.
So by your definition a mechanical fitter on a wind farm (subsidied by the mug punter) is a green job but a mechanical fitter in a mine is not a green job even though they do the same kind of work.
Reality - you're doing it wrong.
Yes absolutely if the position was created because of the existence of the wind farm, there wouldn't be a position if the green industry didn't exist. Positions created by the construction and maintenance of renewable energy facilities are plainly green jobs.
I'm not sure what Josh Galvin's problem was, there, but the definition of "green job" is online for all to see. And no, servicing bicycles isn't in the list because the definition has been restricted to apply to 333 NAICS-classification industries, and the sales and maintenance of sporting goods is not one of them. That same exclusion applies to a few of issa's other hypotheticals as well. Galvin's question about "what industry is that?" matters - it's crucial to the answer. I don't think Galvin handled that very well. My impression is that he's ticked off with issa's line of attack and he's just saying whatever the guy wants to hear. But the answers he gave weren't all correct.
I don't see why somebody sweeping the floor at a solar cell plant shouldn't count. The focus is the economic impact of the green economy, and that's a job that's clearly affected. It's the same criterion we'd use if we were trying to measure the size of the auto industry, or agriculture or any other economic sector. All companies have support staff of some kind.
I just watched the video of an adult interviewing an adolescent. Why can't we have grown ups like like this in our parliament?
Rob - These positions are created only because of a subsidy or Government Largess (Solyndra ring a bell).
Construction of subsidised ecofoolishness is not a green construction job it is merely a construction job no more and no less. The only difference is that one has been subsidised by the taxpayer and one has not. It is still the same work.
Only the rrusted on ecoharpies could have such a disconnect.
These positions are created partly because of subsidies and also due to billions of dollars in private investment annually. The Australian solar industry has seen subsidies fall from $8/watt in 2008 to $0.80/watt in 2012 and yet annual installations have risen from 20mw per year to over 1000Mw in 2011. If solar growth is purely due to subsidies why is investment growing whilst subsidies are slashed?
I would make the point that the economics of fossil fuels would look horrendous if they had to clean up their own mess, coal results in billions of dollars per year in healthcare costs and similar amounts in environmental damage, those costs aren't paid for by the users it is spread out amongst the whole population. Living in Tasmania 95% of our power is hydro and wind, why should I pay for the damage caused by your power use?
Using your first name again instead of your old Reggy number?
How many people do you think you are fooling? With anything?
This blog seems to be full of paranoids who would rather make cryptic baseless accusations then construct anything resembling a coherent rebuttal or argument.
Rob from Tasmania, are you saying that you would be perfectly happy for Tasmania to be separated from the mainland, pollution-intensive, grid and for the entire island to be powered by Tassie's renewables?
I'm saying any discussion of energy subsidies is incomplete without considering externalities born by the entire community. If coal power increases the governments Medicare bill by 2 billion dollars per year and that cost is paid for proportionally by all taxpayers whether they use coal power or not how is that different to any other subsidy?
With regards to splitting from the mainland grid, we were separate from it until only ~5 years ago and until that time we we're powered ~90% hydro, ~5% wind and ~5% natural gas. I think Tasmania is well positioned to sell some of its highly sought after green energy potential into the mainland market. But I was perfectly happy when we were separate from the grid and I'd be perfectly happy if we were to become separate again.
Do employees at Starbucks count too?!
Hey Rob - 90% Hydro??? Didn't you get the memo from the greens, no dams.............you know those big bodies of water needed to produce hydroelectricity.
Weapons grade stupid son.
Weapons grade ignorance and poor reading comprehension Carpe. I wasn't proposing a theoretical possibility I was outlining the history of Tasmania's power generation.
For example in 2011 79% of Tasmania's power came from Hydroelectric generation, 8% from wind and 13% thermal (10% from natural gas at the TVPS and 3% imported across basslink) The greens opposed the damming of the Franklin 40 years ago, the fact that only micro hydro upgrades to existing dams have occurred in the last 20 years and yet we are still generating 80% of our power needs from hydro would suggest that the Greens campaign against the unnecessary destruction of a world class natural environment has been vindicated.
Rob, you said "if the position was created because of the existence of the wind farm, there wouldn't be a position if the green industry didn't exist", but if existing energy sources weren't so demonised by the green lobby, those jobs you like would exist without the creation of wind/solar farms. They would exist in projects to build/expand/maintain coal/gas power plants. I don't think you can claim these jobs as existing only because of the renewable sector. Remember how our Prime Minister and others have claimed that jobs will move from one sector to another?
Also, you like to talk up Tasmania's contribution to renewable energy and ask why you should pay for what's happening on the mainland. Well, maybe I could ask you why my taxes go to keeping Tasmania's economy going on a day-by-day basis when your contribution to GDP is in the negative and Tasmania is a net importer of my state's GST?
Yep, that's vindication of the Green's campaign for you right there. At the same time, confirmation of the parasitic character of the green dream - all that sanctimony on someone else's dime.
I fully support Tasmania going off the grid and off the teat anytime it likes.
You call it demonising I call it campaigning against polluting health destroying industries. The average life expectancy of a coal sector worker is 15 years less then the national average. That alone is enough reason for me to want to move jobs out of the coal industry and into alternatives. Knowing that would you want your children to work in such an industry?
There a range of reasons why Tasmania is a net GDP importer, one of the most significant ones is that we are also a net importer of retirees, people spend their productive tax paying lives in your state then move to our state where they go through the highest healthcare and aged care burdensome period of their lives. That is fine, I support people's right to retire in our beautiful stat. But if we are going to shoulder the high costs that come with a disproportionate population of Australias elderly population then we should appropriately receive a proportionately disproportionate share of Australia's taxation receipts. If you can find any credible source that argues our power generation system is responsible for our GDP status I'd be fascinated to read it.
I get the idea that Rob has a "green job"
Medicine, I think people would have a different view if they saw ex coal power plant workers with mesothelioma who are dependent on oxygen to get out of a chair and come in every 4-5 days to have 2-3 litres of fluid drained from their chest through a permanently installed drain hose. To be fair I have seen casualties of solar power too, once I had to put two stitches in and give a tetanus booster to a guy who cut his finger on the edge of roofing iron whilst installing a solar array.
Post a Comment