Sic Transit Gloria Green Jobs.


  • Thanks to the Democrats, we spent 800 billion on a stimulus package that didn’t work.
  • Thanks to the Democrats, we allocated 92 billion of that money (meant to be spent on, well, things that would stimulate the economy) on renewable energy policies.
  • Thanks to the Democrats, we’ve managed to spend only about 20 billion of that money in a year and a half (remember; this was supposed to be emergency spending).
  • Thanks to the Democrats, our best-case scenario (via those mad optimists in the White House) is that the money spent netted us 191K jobs, or $105K a job. The Department of Energy estimates 82K jobs, or $244K/job.
  • And, thanks ever so much to the Democrats, “as much as 80 percent of some green programs, including $2.3 billion of manufacturing tax credits, went to foreign firms that employed workers primarily in countries including China, South Korea and Spain, rather than in the United States.”

You know, it used to be that you could count on the Democratic party to be provincial and short-sighted obstructionists when it came to putting the brakes on international trade, sure – but at least they used to know how to be competent provincial and short-sighted obstructionists. This is embarrassing.

If you’re wondering what happened, the problem is that ‘green’ technologies are notoriously more expensive than ‘non-green’ ones. That’s because ‘more expensive’ and ‘less efficient’ are more or less synonymous in this context: if the ‘green’ solution already is a clearly superior option, generally we would have already started using it. You would think that this elementary observation is, well, elementary: but apparently it comes as a continual unwelcome surprise to environmental activists and the legislatures that deign to listen to them, as anyone familiar with phosphates and dishwashers could tell you. In other words, it’s expensive to ‘go green’ – so if you want to keep competitive, you need to find a place to reduce costs elsewhere. And that’s where the rest of the planet’s ability to make some things more cheaply than we can comes into play.

You should not be surprised by this. Contemptuous of the Democratic party’s inability to function, govern, and/or set a coherent set of policies – but not surprised.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.


  • […] to Moe Lane. Tweet | Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = […]

  • HeartbreakRidge says:

    …or, keep iterating the technology until the “green” option is also the CHEAP option, which is what some call the WIN WIN option.

  • Dick Flynn says:

    Excellent article. Just a peculiarity of mine, why do so many writers use the moniker “democratic party”, giving them perceived stature they do not deserve. Calling them the ‘democrat party’, is who they are and there is no hyperbole.

  • don mitchel says:

    Going green is not what this administration is doing. Stimulus, if it affects the dollar amount of the treasury notes we have to issue, and the notes are bought by those who supply our largest employers their manufactured products, it will continue to enslave our country to the economic policy of foreign interest. If the military continues a plan offering incentives to foreign shipping bringing foreign goods into our country , asking them not to pollute our environment, while trying to limit US carbon emissions in manufacturing, while the administration negotiates currency manipulation, and hidden carbon emissions with a communist country, why would American manufacturing invest heavily in our country? Why is our president, trying to ease the economic problems of foreign ships, rather than trying to level the playing field for American manufacturing? By NOT helping foreign ships and protecting our environment and our economic interest, change with Ballast Water and how it is handled, mainly the timeline will create “CHANGE” that will affect America’s stature in the world for many decades to come. It would be quite understandable for an American plan to subsidize what little shipping industry we have and perhaps even helping promote its growth. A slow plan helping foreign shipping will allow, for foreign ships to continue polluting longer, till foreign shipping industry decides to “take a step”. The type of stimulus this administrations, military plan for change is offering, will only help foreign shipping and those who import foreign manufactured products, but may offer temporary economic recovery as foreign manufacturing powers carry the US on their coat tails , until the next economic crisis. Fast decisive legislation for ballast water as the law of the land, not providing economic incentives for foreign ships, from a foreign tax base, bringing foreign goods into our country, would send a message to American manufacturing and perhaps affect their investing policy, as it would level the playing field for industry to grow, providing long term jobs and economic security to our country and may even create stronger countries on our borders where poverty and a bad quality of life are breeding growing instability and violence. Soon, September this new military study created for “change” coinciding with the Coast Guard 20 year plan, and the EPA, — over two years after Senator Boxer killed the legislation created by the largest elected legislative voice of the American people,– will meet to discuss their “new” findings and they might have “new” recommendations. Will they continue on a slow course for change to protect foreign economic shipping interest, or will they speed up mandatory requirements to retrofit with technology, allowing faster protection of our waters and economic growth for our country?

    The following is from a report prepared for congress in DEC 2009 “Although estimates of the costs of ballast treatment may be imprecise and vary from vessel to
    vessel, there is some general agreement on average costs.14 For example, it may cost an estimated
    $400,000 per vessel for modification of container/bulk vessels to use onshore ballast water
    treatment facilities at California ports. More generally, the cost of retrofitting vessels to treat
    ballast water has been estimated at between $200,000 and $310,000 per vessel for mechanical
    treatment and around $300,000 for chemical treatment.15 Most of this expense will be borne by
    foreign shipping companies, as the U.S. flag fleet is a small percentage of the global fleet,16 and
    likely passed along to consumers of products imported on these ships.”

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by