What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake?

Guest “who gives a schist?” by David Middleton

What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake? The “green economy“.

Hat tip to Kevin McNeill…

US green economy has 10 times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry

ENVIRONMENT 15 October 2019
By Adam Vaughan

The green economy has grown so much in the US that it employs around 10 times as many people as the fossil fuel industry – despite the past decade’s oil and gas boom.

The fossil fuel sector, from coal mines to gas power plants, employed around 900,000 people in the US in 2015-16, government figures show. But Lucien Georgeson and Mark Maslin at University College London found that over the same period this was vastly outweighed by the green economy, which provided nearly 9.5 million jobs, or 4 per cent of the working age population. The pair defined the green economy broadly, covering everything from renewable energy to environmental consultancy.

[…]

The US stopped recording green job statistics several years ago, but these suggested 3.4 million people worked in the sector in 2011. Maslin and Georgeson used a much broader set of 26 sub-sectors including wind and solar power, marine pollution controls, carbon capture, biodiversity and air pollution. Maslin says the figures have been underestimated in the past, partly because the green economy is so diffuse.

New Fake Scientist

“The stupid, it burns”

Crowing about an “economy” being larger than an “industry” is as stupid as crowing about a century being longer than a day. Most economies will employ more people than most industries. Economies tend to be composed of multiple industries that provide goods and services to consumers.

Who gives a schist about an “economy” of any color employing more people than a particular “industry”? Furthermore, there is no such thing as *a* fossil fuel industry. Oil & gas are found, produced, processed and sold by the oil & gas industry. Coal is produced and sold by the coal industry. Apart from a handful of companies, like BHP, there is very little overlap of these two industries. The utilities industry converts some of the produced coal, natural gas and oil into electricity. The steel industry uses coal to produce steel. The petrochemical industry uses oil & natural gas to make “plastics, rubbers, resins, synthetic fibers, adhesives, dyes, detergents, pesticides, and petroleum-derived paints and coatings,” as well as the synthetic fertilizer that feeds half of the human population.

Figure 1. Petrochemical flow chart (EnergiMedia).
Figure 2. “Trends in human population and nitrogen use throughout the twentieth century. Of the total world population (solid line), an estimate is made of the number of people that could be sustained without reactive nitrogen from the Haber–Bosch process (long dashed line), also expressed as a percentage of the global population (short dashed line). The recorded increase in average fertilizer use per hectare of agricultural land (blue symbols) and the increase in per capita meat production (green symbols) is also shown.” Erisman et al., 2008

Fossil fuels enable 100% of the employment in most industries. The fossil fuels industries have literally been lifting people out of poverty for more than 150 years.

The “green economy”, to the extent it can be defined, imposes a market on the real economy for the purpose of providing goods and services government bureaucrats decided we should be forced to accept.

The green economy “gives people . . . what a particular group thinks they ought to want.”

“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

Milton Friedman

The pair defined the green economy broadly, covering everything from renewable energy to environmental consultancy.

New Fake Scientist

While there would be at least a limited market for “renewable energy” without government diktats, the demand for “environmental consultancy” is entirely driven by government diktats. This doesn’t necessarily make it bad, but it doesn’t produce anything. In the oil & gas industry, we have to comply with myriad government regulations. The larger a company gets, the larger its HSE (health, safety & environment) and regulatory compliance departments get. These are important things… But they are 100% cost centers.

Scale

If the “green economy” employs 10 times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry,” real economy employs 15 times as many people as the fake economy.

  • US non-farm employees = 151.9 million
  • US “green economy” employees = 9.4 million
  • 151.9 – 9.4 = 142.5
  • 142.5 / 9.4 = 15.2

The purpose of businesses and industries

Industries are composed of businesses that generate goods and services for the purpose of generating profits for the owners of the businesses.

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”

Milton Friedman

Nothing here exists to provide jobs. Businesses employ the number of people they need to execute their business model.

“Public discourse tends to be carried out in terms of jobs, as if a great objective was to create jobs. Now that’s not our objective at all. There’s no problem about creating jobs. We can create any number of jobs in having people dig holes and fill them up again. Do we want jobs like that? No. Jobs are a price and we have to work to live. Whereas if you listen to the terminology you would think that we live to work. Now some of us do. There are workaholics just like there are alcoholics and some of us do live to work. But in the main, what we want is not jobs, but productive jobs. We want jobs that will be able to produce the goods and services that we consume at a minimum expenditure of effort. In a way, the appropriate national objective is to have the fewest possible jobs. That is to say, the least amount of work for the greatest amount of products.”

Milton Friedman

Productivity

What is ‘Productivity’
Productivity is an economic measure of output per unit of input. Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other gross domestic product (GDP) components such as business inventories. Productivity measures may be examined collectively (across the whole economy) or viewed industry by industry to examine trends in labor growth, wage levels and technological improvement.

BREAKING DOWN ‘Productivity’
Productivity gains are vital to the economy, as they mean that more is being accomplished with less. Capital and labor are both scarce resources, so maximizing their impact is a core concern of modern business. Productivity enhancements come from technology advances, such as computers and the internet, supply chain and logistics improvements, and increased skill levels within the workforce.

Investopedia

The New Fake Scientist article asserts that the “fossil fuel industry” only employs about 900,000 people. According to the 2019 U.S. Energy and Employment Report, it employs over 1.1 million people just in these United States. Regarding productivity, there is no comparison between “renewables” and real energy:

Figure 3. Energy industry productivity expressed as tons of oil equivalent (TOE) per job. Employment numbers are from the 2019 U.S. Energy and Employment Report, MTOE are from BP’s 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy.

In a previous post, one of the comments suggested that it was unfair to compare primary energy, because only about 25% of the fossil fuel primary energy is delivered as electricity. In the case of oil, it’s even less. Most natural gas production is used for purposes other than electricity generation and natural gas is still generally the leading fuel for electricity generation in the U.S.

2018 U.S. Natural Gas Consumption by Sector (billion cubic feet, Bcf), US EIA

Sector Bcf %
Electric Power           10,626 36%
Industrial Sector             9,966 33%
Residential             4,974 17%
Commercial             3,476 12%
Transportation                 839 3%
Total Consumption           29,880

In 2018, total marketed U.S. natural gas production was 32,823 Bcf. Net exports amounted to 691 Bcf. Just 32% of natural gas production was consumed for electricity generation.

Despite the fact that >99% of crude oil and 68% of natural gas production are not used for electricity generation, oil & gas generate 2.5 times as much electricity per job as wind and 6.75 times as much as solar.

 TWhJobsTWh/Job
Oil & Gas  1,494,000      924,399         1.62
Coal  1,146,000      197,418         5.80
Fossil Fuels  4,171,000   1,121,817         3.72
Nuclear     807,000        72,146       11.19
Wind       74,529      111,000         0.67
Solar       64,000      269,564         0.24

The “Green Economy” is dependent on fossil fuels

I just love irony. Texas leads the nation (and probably most nations) in wind power production (Yiiihah!). I drive between Houston and Dallas quit often on I-45. I don’t see these as often now as I did back in the mid-2000’s, but I still occasionally see them:

Any guesses at to what fuels that tractor trailer? What about the ships that delivered the turbine blades to their ports of entry?

How much steel and concrete are required for a typical wind farm?

Jul 1, 2012, 10:53 am
Is The Answer, My Friend, Blowing In The Wind?

James Conca

[…]

As an example, a MW of installed capacity for wind requires 460 metric tons of steel and 870 m3 of concrete compared to the 98 metric tons of steel and 160 m3 of concrete for coal, and the even lower 40 metric tons of steel and 90 m3 of concrete for nuclear. Natural gas is the lowest of all, requiring a little over 3 metric tons of steel and 27 m3 of concrete per MW, the reason gas plants are the cheapest and easiest to build.

Forbes

How much coal is required for each MW of wind turbine capacity?

Steel is an essential material for modern life. The manufacture of steels delivers the goods and services that our societies need – healthcare, telecommunications, improved agricultural practices, better transport networks, clean water and access to reliable and affordable energy. Global steel production is dependent on coal. 70% of the steel produced today uses coal. Metallurgical coal – or coking coal – is a vital ingredient in the steel making process. World crude steel production was 1.4 billion tonnes in 2010. Around 721 million tonnes of coking coal was used in the production of steel.

Ram River Coal Corp.

Coal is used as an energy source in cement production. Large amounts of energy are required to produce cement. It takes about 200 kg of coal to produce one tonne of cement and about 300-400 kg of cement is needed to produce one cubic metre of concrete.

World Coal Association

That works out to about 267 tonnes of coal per MW of installed wind capacity.

Even funnier…

Nov 12, 2019, 07:21pm
‘Deep Electrification’ Means More Natural Gas

Jude Clemente

For environmental reasons, there’s an ongoing push to “electrify everything,” from cars to port operations to heating.

The idea is that a “deep electrification” will help lower greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

The reality, however, is that more electrification will surge the need for electricity, an obvious fact that seems to be getting forgotten.

The majority of this increase occurs in the transportation sector: electric cars can increase home power usage by 50% or more.

The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) says that “electrification has the potential to significantly increase overall demand for electricity.”

NREL reports that a “high” electrification scenario would up our power demand by around 40% through 2050.

A high electrification scenario would grow our annual power consumption by 80 terawatt hours per year.

[…]

Ultimately, much higher electricity demand favors all sources of electricity, a “rising tide lifts all boats” sort of thing.

But in particular, it favors gas because gas supplies almost 40% of U.S. electricity generation, up from 20% a decade ago.

[…]

Indeed, EPRI models that U.S. gas usage increases under “all” electrification scenarios even if gas prices more than double to $6.00 per MMBtu.

Some are forgetting that the clear growth sectors for the U.S. gas industry are a triad, in order: LNG exports, electricity, manufacturing.

[…]

Forbes

Irony can be so… ironic. The “green economy” is 100% dependent on the “Climate Wrecking Industry” . . .

Who’s up for some Milton Friedman?

Note on comments

I am a geologist. I know my schist. Pedantic comments like this will be mercilessly ridiculed:

You just misused a perfectly good word……….using it for something it is not. “Schist” is not, cutely, hatched -up slang word. Geologically and petrographically speaking, a schist is a type of metamorphic rock.

Check out your snark before you use it……schist-head.

Pedantic comment

Also . . . An ellipsis consists of three dots (. . .) . . . More dots isn’t cleverer. Spelling and grammar are important. I detest text-messaging gibberish, except for WTF? and variations of LMAO!.

If you are tired of my use geological euphemisms for cuss words . . . I don’t care.

I am also not interested in your predictions about the future, unless there’s a pop culture reference.

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “What’s green, employs ten times as many people as the “fossil fuel industry” and fake?

  1. Wow, an “economy” that employs 10-times as many people as the fossil fuel energy, but only produces less than 15% as much energy?

    That’s hardly anything to brag about.

  2. 10 times as many people you say… You know, if we built some really large hamster wheels and connected them to generators…

    • Yep, that’s the answer. If we are going to count jobs and not results, we could go with hamster wheels. After all, there’s hamster care and breeding, wheel building, housing of the wheels (hamsters freeze solid very easily), committees to deal with PETA and animal rights people (hey, we whack birds with turbines to save the planet, so using hamsters must be moral, right?), lobbyists for the hamster and hamster wheel industries. We can increase job numbers by several magnitudes with this method.

      • We’re also going to need some fancy new units representing cost per hamster-wheel hour or some such. And a chart allowing for quick conversion to Hiroshima’s per Sydney Opera House would also come in handy.

      • theres all those unemployed Rats in NY city and elsewhere I gather, use them not hamsters?

        oh and for a giggle
        PETA in Sth Aus managed to get the sale of rat traps that are a supersticky paper you nail onto the rat runways to trap them..
        as Cruel torture animal abuse and got the shops selling them to remove from sale
        (they also work well for catching snakes in garages)

        and Vic has banned fine mesh for fruit trees(also used to trap snakes) and limited us to larger mesh white only netting.
        why the bans?
        oh because we are supposed to enjoy growing fruit n veg only to have the parrots and possums eat n drop or eat all n crap over everything they didnt eat

        however people in a closeby state can of course post them over to their friends;-)) either product
        ie traps to SA and nets t o Vic

        • Market the filthy fruit as “Net Free” and let the urbanites wash all the “natural coating” off it.

    • That method was used in the Middle Ages to help lift building materials into place at the Gothic cathedrals of Europe (some of which, of course, are still in existence). They used horses, oxen, cows, and people instead of hamsters, of course. But the principle is still the same: the winch, pulley, lever, and hook.

    • You do not need any new hamster wheels. Just hook up all the treadmills in gyms so each time someone uses one there is power going back into the system. With the number of gym memberships that should be enough to power the planet.

      • There was a TV show where they had a large team of people (50+?) peddling away to supply the electrical needs of a family of four. Exhausting – and they failed around dinner time. Electric over, microwave, washer, dryer. The rest of the day was a challenge, but when everyone came home for the evening, the system broke down. When the power failed, the family was introduced to the team that had been powering them all day.

        So, a family of four needs 50+ healthy slaves and a battery array to store power when the family is sleeping. Well, more than 50+. Even slaves have to sleep sometime.

  3. On that criteria shouldn’t they include everyone who uses fossil fuels and plastic in their job in the fossil fuel economy. In orher words everyone?

  4. We would be better off to skip wind and solar altogether and just hire an army of pump engineers to address the under inflated tire crisis.

  5. What is a green company? Al Gore got rich by selling folks stocks in companies that didn’t emit CO2. That meant he was dealing in service companies like Microsoft. So, does that mean Microsoft is a green company? link

    If you define green companies the ‘right’ way, it’s easy to see how the green economy employs a huge proportion of the American population. You’ve heard of Hollywood accounting, right?

  6. “The pair defined the green economy broadly, covering everything from renewable energy to environmental consultancy.”

    ..then let’s define the “fossil fuel industry” the same

    People that make fertilizer, plastics, run a gas station, pesticides, deodorants, clothes, car parts, tires, asphalt…farmers…..and all the people that advise them on how to do it

  7. Middleton displays his bias when he writes “In the oil & gas industry, we have to comply with…”

    Note “we.”

    • Setting aside the moronic logical fallacy… I am a petroleum geolgist… I am part of the “we”. It’s a fact.

    • Middleton has a bias? – HuH – Is employed in the O&G industry? – WoW
      He makes a living as a Petroleum Geologist and a Dog Manager.

      Karl is employed? = HuH? – in WHAT industry?
      How do you make a living, Karl?

    • If there is bias can you please show where it is rather than just attack the person please. It would be much more productive.

    • @Karl

      And I suppose you have no biases? Bet you dollars to donuts that you would flinch and avoid if you saw someone with leprosy, someone sneezed in your face, smelled bad food. Those are all evolutionarily driven biases developed to keep the species propagating.

      But it also seems you have a bias to people working in the O&G industry in addition to above unconscious biases.

      You should educate yourself on how much an electric car depends on the O&G industry. Do you use pharmaceuticals or cosmetics? Then you have a bias and hypocrisy. Did you use a piece of electronic equipment to post that comment?

      • In the “minds” of leftists, people who depend on government largess for their income are incapable of bias.

    • Yiihah! David, please make sure Karl does not utilize any more carbon-based products, either intentionally or accidently, and he will be a happier person. Or not. I suspect not.

      P.S. That’s a great video showing the size of one wind turbine blade, on its way to chop up some of our flying friends.

    • Note Karl has nothing of substance to say about the points David raises. all he can do is attack the messenger leaving the message unscathed. pathetic.

    • Note Karl’s inability to actually deal with the arguments presented.
      Instead he’s reduced to attacking the messenger.
      Once again Karl demonstrates that even he knows he can’t support the schist he’s trying to sell.

    • OMG, KARL. David said WE!!!! PS — Everyone here already knew that.

      And I have to admit, I was a PE working at a major-utility COAL PLANT!

  8. A few years ago (7 or so) a city (Portland ?) added a battery to the city buses. Then the job of bus driver was classified as a “green job.”
    I knew more at the time, but haven’t kept up.

    Can I assume the pedantic comment was a first time reader of a David Middleton post?
    I enjoy scientific jokes, periodically.

      • I’d love to pass your articles over to my orthodox climate hysteric friends, but the puerile tone means i) they wouldn’t take them seriously, and ii) they’d no longer take me seriously. Serious people don’t constantly use completely irrelevant “schist” puns when they’re trying to communicate serious issues.

        Content should always be taken more seriously than form, but, sadly, amongst the orthodox professionals I move amongst, that’s often not the case.

        I suppose if you weren’t so angry and obstinate you wouldn’t be so compelled to call out the terrible “science” that alarmists are using to stampede the sheep in the first place. It’s just a shame you can’t swallow your pride, step back, see that you’re limiting the spread and effect of your good work, and moderate your tone.

        • I don’t give a rat’s @$$ about the opinions of concern trolls . . . or anyone else, for that matter.

          • … thus re-affirming orthodoxy’s belief that anyone questioning “climate catastrophe” is an adolescent blogger or an adult with personal issues.

            You’re entitled to self-sabotage, of course. But you’re harming our cause, too.

          • The Donald is a twat. But I’d have voted for him over Hilary, or any of the assortment of loons the Dems are now putting up for consideration.

            In the context of this website (ie, combating climate hysteria) Trump’s not a great spokesman for lukewarmists or sceptics (“it’s a Chinese conspiray!”) but at least he pulled the US out in the Paris agreement.

  9. We are supposed to be a developed country.
    If someone can publish this statement, knowing the relevant energy contributions of each:

    The green economy has grown so much in the US that it employs around 10 times as many people as the fossil fuel industry – despite the past decade’s oil and gas boom.

    I despair for my grandchildren.

    Dave you did not need all those words and data; Vaughn’s own words are damning enough.

    • Yeah… But it was fun, easy and as rewarding as hitting homeruns off of a batting practice pitcher who has no breaking ball.

    • Now if we make these things 10% less reliable every 3 years or so, then the ‘green and fake’ could employ everyone on the planet just maintaining these ‘green and fake’.
      Now that’s a goal that socialist-democrats the world over could aim for — employment levels at 110%.
      Couple that with the deindustrialization of food production, ridding the world of ICE vehicles, and making electricity the only source of available energy, and very soon employment could be at 500% or even higher! And with it freedom to produce what you want when you want it.
      Utopia! where slavery is freedom by fighting for a peaceful revolution of sustainability.

  10. Magically make every vehicle electric, and all electricity produced by renewables. Now ban all drilling and oil production.

    How many jobs would be impacted? Virtually all, and in such a way as to render them impossible. Office workers with no technology; doctors with no medicines or equipment; retailers with little to sell; auto manufacturers not able to build cars, construction workers not able to build houses. We have an oil-based civilization. No oil, no civilization.

  11. Hmm…axe = green (ie no fossil fuel used when using it)
    Chainsaw = not green
    Which one produces more ‘cut wood?’
    The, Me – carrying wood after cutting with axe = green
    Truck carrying HUGE amount of wood.- not green
    Me – dead from exhaustion (or frozen because I couldn’t cut enough wood) – green
    Truck – gets oil change, carries on working – not green
    Me – dead and in my grave, adding fertilizer for plants = green
    Truck – doesn’t give a *&^% – but still working – not green

    Now…where do I vote?

    • In the pre-fossil fuel era, when productivity was the sweat of the brow and pull of a horse or ox, a husband and wife had 10 children. 6-7 could be expected to live to teenage years to be productive with the family chores, 4-5 would live to adulthood to productive members who could help as adult with adult things on the farm, the business, the store, the ranch, sending money home from far away jobs.

      Those teenagers would swing that axe and carry that wood for you.

      We’ll all need many more kids and grandkids in the kind of society the Greens want us to return to. The society is the one today in Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, where the large families, high fertility rates, and high mortalities exist. That is the 3rd World existence the Greens want us to return to. One where we cut down forests for fuel. Plowed more acres of marginal soil for food without fertilizers, and everyone went hungry during droughts.

      • To live in a society Greens want would require slavery again. Only a fool would expect the so called elites to create and clean their own clothes and raise and cook their own food and god forbid dump their own chamber pot.

  12. In including “marine pollution,” nowadays everybody working on a ship (even with sails) down to a pirogue could be counted. The paper is open access, includes “Other industries are included because of their significance in responding to climate change, such as Carbon Finance from Finance and Insurance and Environmental Consulting from Professional Services.” I did the latter some, never realized the climate change significance, weather and its products producing possible conflicting causes important. It was especially so when claims were erroneously made. Recall one that was hypothetical, it had happened before so was probably the cause.

    This was particularly interesting–“Fig. 1. The data acquisition process for the transactional triangulation methodology.” And this “Limitations–The transactional triangulation methodology is different to national statistics, but methods have been developed over time to enable it to be more comparable to traditional data sources…..The methodology used means that LCEGSS is not an exact fit with any existing classification systems, nor particular national measurement frameworks.”

    Yep, despite their claims of extensive validation I suspect that I would have been counted, despite never putting the word climate in a report. Same for biodiversity, which must catch a lot now. But it must be true because they quote the Lancet article produced by a mob, too many authors to easily count. Palgrave Communications, Humanities, Social Science, no economics?

  13. The liberal idea of MAGA:

    a) Pay 50 poor workers, using taxpayers $$, to dig holes in the middle of nowhere.
    b) Pay 50 different poor workers, using taxpayers $$, to fill in the same holes in the middle of nowhere.
    c) Repeat steps a and b to keep the poor enslaved to Big Gov !

    • Schemes like that of course run on OPM since, in economic language, they are not a productive use of labor and capital. “Productive” is the operative word. Productive means utility to the furtherance of more economic production.
      As such, those digging holes-filling holes schemes “work” until the OPM runs out.

    • This would also increase reported GDP and show reduced unemployment! A win win for socialist bureaucrats everywhere!

  14. David
    “If you are tired of my use of? geological euphemisms for cuss words . . . I don’t care.”

    Personally, I love your “euphemisms” … ROTFLMAO… !

  15. Propaganda and nothing more. The infuriating part is those who question the orthodoxy aren’t given equal or any time.

    • markl
      What I find interesting is how logically contorted the articles supporting environmentally correct programs are. I have yet to figure out if it is done purposely, assuming most people won’t see through the charade, or if the writers are so stupid that they don’t realize they are writing gibberish.

    • It is not the questioning the orthodoxy that should allow “equal time.”
      There are lots of quacks out there on almost any subject who should be given “equal time.”

      It is having hard data counter to the consensus that is not given “equal time.” The post normal science of Climate science though rejects counter-explanations to the CAGW-CO2 hypothesis that are also supported by data, observations, paleo-reconstructions, and recorded history.

      (Note to MODS: this reply comment was posted at 9:21 pm PST. No “new” comments have appeared since markl’s here at 8:20pm. I have a “lost” comment from about 8:30pm PST. Appears WordPress may be bit-bucketing comments again.)

  16. “If the Greens aren’t lying, they aren’t trying.”
    – me

    Everything about the viability, sustainability, economics, and benefits to climate and society of a green economy, green jobs, green new deals, green energy are based on lies, lies nested in lies, nested in more lies.

    There are so many lies and, half-truths, and fabrications to support “green” claims, it is hard to know where to begin on their debunking and refutation. Green is a small truth, wrapped in half-truths, rolled around in fat covering of lies, covered with gobs of tax-payer money to get investors to buy it, and force feed it to the public without consent, and pick their pockets with exorbitant meal costs as they gag on it.

    “Green” is such a ball of twine lies. They overlap repeatedly, they get lost amongst all the other lies until it is hard to impossible to figure out where one set of lies ends and others begin.

    1. Not one MW of “green” renewable solar or wind energy would be on any grid, anywhere without massive tax payer subsidies. They are built to harvest subsidies, not free energy. Yet those subsidies and the distortions of capital investment and compounded inefficiencies are rarely if ever counted as costs.

    2. Renewable wind and solar are not sustainable or even possible without massive fossil fuel use at every step of raw material extraction, refining, manufacturing, assembly, transport, to site preparation, installation to maintenance, to ultimate tear-down and disposal.

    3. Grid integration of widely dispersed, non-spinning, zero kinetic mass electricity from “green” is much more costly in the connection and stabilizing infrastructure than a few concentrated large spinning mass generators providing grid inertia, kinetic reserve, and frequency stability.

    4. “green” renewable solar and wind replaces not one single kW of power from fossil fuel, nuclear, or hydro that the grid operators have to be ready to bring on-line. Grid operators must have these backups online within minutes of sunset, clouds rolling in on large weather front, or widespread wind subsidence, all of which are common. The added complexity, the added infrastructure all cost much more to build maintain and operate, which all means more fossil fuels are continually needed than if solar or wind were not there in the first place.

    5. The “green” costs of wind and solar installations marring the landscapes of many areas now, with prospects of them reaching from horizon to horizon is a horrifying thought.

    And then one day, when this Climate-Green sickness has passed from scoeity as the reality of the need for affordable reliable power returns, we will be stuck with these landscape marring dead, life-less monuments to this Era of Green Stupidity… thanks to the GreenSlime billionaires and their Green socialist enablers.

    • Joel,

      Tax payer subsidies, when wind and solar are now as cheap as fossil fuel generation? Show me the math.

      I agree they would not have reached this stage without subsidy in the past (something they have in common with, for example, nuclear), but we can’t undo the past.

      • Not even close. Wind and solar still require spinning backup and/or storage, which doubles the LCOE.

        Coal with CCS is comparable to nuclear power. LCOE doesn’t include the cost of backup or storage. Add in the cost of storage and the LCOE of wind and solar is roughly doubled.

        • … and subtract the added operational costs required of conventional power generation to ramp up and down for the inadequacies of wind and solar.

          It is somewhat ludicrous to think an energy source is cheaper when it requires 3 to 10 times the number of employees for the same production- some of the time.

  17. David
    “Geologically and petrographically speaking, a schist is a type of metamorphic rock.” The schistosity of the complaint aligns with the pressure applied to your euphemisms. Well, I suppose you could use a sedimentary term — coprolite. However, I suspect it would slide right past most pedants. It would be too hard for them to grasp. The question of the day is, “What kind of a rock would a coprolite form if it were subject to metamorphism?” Any petrographers here?

    • As coprolite is mostly a dehydrated-carbohydrate (dried dog shit for example), the sustained heat and pressure would eventually convert it to reduced hydrocarbons – olefins, alkanes, and methane. One doesn’t have to be a “petrographer” to understand basic organic chemistry and carbon’s reactive transformations.

      • Joel,

        Real coprolites, unlike dehydrated dung (paleofeces), as from recently extinct ground sloths, have undergone permineralization, which means that the volatiles have been lost and most of the remaining material has been replaced with carbonates and/or silicates. Think fossilized wood. One needs to understand more than just organic chemistry.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

        • Kamikazedave

          Good choice of words — a member of what my petrology professor called the “mineralogic waste basket.”

  18. “… The fossil fuels industries have literally been lifting people out of poverty for more than 150 years …”.
    =======================================
    Quite so, fossil fuels are concentrated forms of energy, the past 150 years have seen that energy delivered increasingly more efficiently.
    In the First World it is taken for granted by latter generations.
    Conversely it is an inescapable fact that wind and solar are diffuse forms of energy and the widespread mandated use will have inevitably the opposite effect:
    http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EROI-of-Solar-Wind-Nuclear-Coal-Natural-Gas-Hydro.png

    • The powerful images of Slumdog Millionaire are lost on the West’s “Baizuo.”
      That’s because sacrifices for their Green Schemes are always supposed to be someone else’s sacrifices.

      Today’s Baizuo only think they hold the moral high ground with their climate claims, when in fact they are the lowest forms of moral human filth. They are a moral filth because their energy poverty plans and policies will bring about a genocide and ecological destruction. A destruction that will make the 20th Century genocides and wars look like a warm-up round.

      • Geez Joel, tell us how you really feel about Gang Green.
        I fully agree with your summary and believe only banishment of these fools and bandits will prevent civil collapse.

  19. Most renewable energy jobs (wind/solar) involve installation and are therefore construction industry jobs, not renewable energy jobs. Once facilities are built those jobs go away, just like with fossil fuel plants, unless there are more to be built. The only reason there may be more now is because of the larger build out phase currently happening.

  20. Joel,

    Tax payer subsidies, when wind and solar are now as cheap as fossil fuel generation? Show me the math.

    I agree they would not have reached this stage without subsidy in the past (something they have in common with, for example, nuclear), but we can’t undo the past.

    • It really amazes me how some people are so desperate to believe the lies they are told to repeat.
      Wind and solar are only “cheap” because of the subsidies, and that’s while ignoring the cost needed to provide energy when the wind and solar aren’t.

      PS: The alleged subsidies of other power sources never were.

  21. ” Quick, quick come, come my lord, come and see, I have perfected it, I have made gold”
    After a few moments of inspection Blackadder corrects Percy.
    “Percy, the name of what you have made, if indeed it has a name, is green, you have made, green”
    ” Oh my lord, can it be true? I hold in my hand a nugget of purest green!”
    “Well more of a splat actually”….
    Blackadder’s summary of Percy and his green achievement was, ” You are an utter berk”
    This clip, should become the defining image of the “green” movement.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkZFuKHXa7w
    If only Blackadder had been “woke” and four hundred years into the future, he would have seen Percy had indeed made, “gold”, the colour of the modern delusion. If it’s green, it’s gold.
    I would happily write an up to date Blackadder series, with Blackadder as a politician relaying the pointless and futile, usually hypocritical activities in modern world politics.

  22. Milton Friedman recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

  23. No Schist, Sherlock!

    Tangerine Dream – Through Metamorphic Rocks

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HhzElCPny4

    Solar and wind farm utopias, spiced with the promise of “fusion just around the corner” and “grid-level storage” are little green lollipops for environmentalists to suck on. So says my father. And they do suck.
    .
    Who would come out in favor of taking our critical base load electricity generation out of a few multi-gigawatt weather-hardened buildings, and dispersing it all over the landscape? Raising an impossible number of wind turbines on giant stalks, with millions of foreign-made precision moving parts out in the elements, supposed to last 30 years but fail within 10, all waiting for a single continent-wide ice storm and hard freeze lasting for weeks? Or any single natural event that would be a grid down overnight slate-wiper to our civilization?
    .
    Who would come out in favor of so-called ‘base load solar’, where acres of solar panels or reflectors are placed to gather a tormented bell curve of solar energy that dips with clouds, failure to clean, or that ice storm slate-wiper?
    .
    Why is ‘grid level storage’ being considered as a solution to anything? After the ice storm that paralyzes wind and solar infrastructure, how would a few hours (or days) of energy storage help? These ideas are fun. But every penny spent to implement these ‘solutions’ has been squandered. Time has been wasted.
    .
    We must take steps to preserve modern civilization, not just enjoy it while it lasts. We must plan for depletion of accessible petroleum, ice storms, global volcanic or asteroid impact events, solar minimums, and strife from the known and unknown. Are we prepared?
    .
    Utility wind and solar must end, now and utterly. If engineers entrusted to advise decision-makers get behind crap-solutions because they’re afraid to upset people, they’re not engineers. They’re bad politicians.

    ~Apri 2016 letter to Candidate Trump. Either he listened, or it’s just common sense. I’m happy either way.l

  24. Great article, completely lays bare the fallacy in the “green economy” claims.

    And how much of that economy is government betting on losers with taxpayers’ funds?

    and…Broken windows and all that…

  25. In traditional economics, the idea was to have all workers employed in jobs that used cheap and reliable energy to create goods and services at a competitive price. With green economics the concept is to have all workers paid by governemnt subsidies to produce green energy that is too expensive or uneliable to produce goods and services in any case.

  26. It has gone beyond surreal.

    Fortunately I’m a chick magnet at bars now, when a woman starts going on about ‘sustainable energy’ and how they know someone who knows someone whose house sells power back to the power company… I ask nonchalantly, “Is it one of those ~$50k systems with batteries that partitions the storage and also serves as emergency backup, or that ~$20k scam junk that spins your meter slower but leaves you without electricity along with your neighbors?” they answer honestly with appreciative fascination and buy me a drink.

    When I start talking about municipal water and wastewater treatment and heating and cooling of public buildings such as schools, the electricity-intensive aluminum smelting process, and how these are never part of the Utopians’ “Let’s all go wind and solar!” energy budgets… I now have several women hanging around swooning on every remark and taking notes, giving me slips of paper with their phone numbers. Someone buys me a free dinner and a round of drinks for the table.

    Towards the end of the evening when everyone is nodding off at the table, I have saved the best for last: and go on to describe the Haber–Bosch process that collectively consumes close to a third of the world’s generated electricity, and yet has made perpetual in situ agriculture possible through the manufacture and transport of anhydrous ammonia.

    The Haber–Bosch process is the clincher. With glances around the table they take a silent vote and a chosen one graciously offers me her arm, and we all leave.

      • That is correct, thanks kindly for the corrections. I was in an electric stupor when I posted, what I meant to say was that this single process ‘feeds’ roughly one third (~2.7 billion) of the world population alive today by making mass agriculture ‘sustainable’ …

        The Wikipedia article is careful to present this great news with a disclaimer,

        Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the “detonator of the population explosion”,

        We’ll have to forgive the authors for that, since they’re obviously talking about the scourge of other peoples’ children.

  27. Very odd how experienced geologists, engineers, even scientists are fooled by Milton Friedman of the Chicago school.
    The ugly truth about this fake economist, is easily shown in the poster boy Pinochet’s Chile economy after he dismantled it with Chicago Boys as ministers.
    Now see Venezeula’s fake Guaido, trained by a rabid Friedmanite north of the border, holds out hands to Bolivias new nazi usurper which wants to “liberalize” .
    Anywhere Friedman’s mesmerism is applied , always with violent regime change, is a text book case of economic insanity. No surprise he got a Nobel which Chile was being strangled.

    Nuclear power is from the US Government-run Manhattan crash program – no Friedmanite could even dream of such a development. NASA is a Grovernment Program, no “free-market” billionaire ever landed on the Moon.

    Now for The Ugly Truth about Milton Friedman :

    But it’s not just the Chile example which gives away the fascist content of Friedman’s economics. Friedman himself openly identified with the policies that were implemented by Hitlers economics minister Hjalmar Schacht—just as did his “leftist” Keynesian opponents like Abba Lerner. “The object of such controls [on wages, prices, and credit] is the restriction of spending on the part of individuals,” Friedman wrote in his Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money.
    “Such a policy, if rigorously enforced, should restrain a rise in the price level. This policy appeared to have
    been successful in Nazi Germany.”

    Such open discussion led the supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to respond to the question of whether Friedman as follows: “You want to prove that Milton Friedman is a fascist? It’s easy. Quote him.”

    Milton Friedman loved to popularize his economic theories as “freedom to choose.” But in his academic work, and among his colleagues, there was widespread recognition that he was a fascist.

    Back to the green economy – it is not capable of reproducing itself, and has to implode if only by attrition. Totally missing in Friedman’s monetarism and the green economy is any concept whatsoever of scientific progress, development intention, mission oriented crash programs. These are the original American System key drivers, rabidly opposed by monetarists such as Friedman and exactly now by the GFI, Green Finance Initiative, Green New Deal.

    In other words falling into the Friedman trap, you jump right into bed with the GND.

    Horrible thought, really.

      • Not interested in crackhead conspiracy theories.

        David, that’s pretty much all bonbon ever posts. As soon as I see his name I already know that the post will inevitably be about one or more of the following: UK conspiracy to rule the world, National Bankers conspiracy to rule the world, Milton Freedman’s conspiracy to screw up the world, How Bretton Woods was utopia until Nixon nixed it, Petrodollar conspiracies, etc.

          • Ribbit!

            I’m reminded of a remark by Mark Twain: “It is human to want to be liked. One sometimes even observes the trait among the French.”

        • My personal theory has been that when he was a child Lyndon LaRouche’s parents tormented him with a King George V doll. Maybe also a Secret Intelligence Service Squeaking Squid that resurfaced in his later works as The MI6 Octopus.

          Though he was an erudite and persuasive writer on many topics when not stuck in some tentacle porn rabbit hole. His modern day movement at larouchpac.com, especially the young, are interesting. Almost cult like at times.

  28. Friedman was the one who urged Nixon to impose a money crunch in 1969, which threw the economy into recession, and ultimately set the conditions for taking the dollar off gold in 1971. The “free market” advocate Friedman certainly bemoan the destruction of the Bretton Woods system.

    In other words the PetroDollar and the deal with Saudia began with Friedman’s advice to Nixon.

  29. Watermelons.
    Green on the outside. Red on the inside.
    A dangerous & bloody totalitarian regime by another colour, remains a dangerous & bloody totalitarian regime.

    Green economics are post normal economics. Post-normal science is a concept coined by Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz to describe fields in which high-cost decisions must be made, but there is a good deal of uncertainty with relation to the relevant scientific facts. The corollary would be if the facts are uncertain, then how does one know whether any decision needs to be made, especially if it’s high-cost.

    Millennial Angst or Failure to Launch Syndrome is the the growing phenomenon of young adults not making the transition to adulthood.

  30. “…The “green economy”, to the extent it can be defined, imposes a market on the real economy”

    A better way to phrase that would have been, ” imposes a TAX on the real economy”

    • Even better way to phrase it: “imposes a BURDEN on the real economy” that burden can take many forms. TAX is certainly a common one. as is unnecessary regulations.

  31. My favorite way to watch a tree huggers head explode is to remind the that fossil fuels saved the whales. Without Kerosene, whales wouldn’t be here here today.

  32. The real story follows:
    The green jobs push publicly and in Congress is a typical lobbyist ploy directed at a combination of low information audiences or politicos in need of talking points. The ploy itself is from high cost, tax credit dependent, small business rooftop solar associations touting their importance for extending the tax credits in tax law. The side usage is for mindless spin with the public.

    In reality, solar PV manufacturers are constantly looking for labor saving equipment and plant design. At this point in the industry evolution all leading PV producers are going with robotic plants in China and the U.S. (First Solar) while other players are dropping out. Utility scale solar is working on reducing balance of system costs (BOS) via racking system designs, auto loaders of panels, and robotic panel cleaners. That leaves high cost rooftop solar installer companies and various allied advocacy groups to push the labor intensive claims to people who are too busy to fact check or to misinformation professionals who need more spin material.

  33. The W&S industry claims employment at about 250 000 jobs. The relative productivity per employee is
    7.5 kW for solar; 32 kW for wind; 1300 kW for fossil fuels, and 2000 kW for nuclear.
    Do the math – the presently available total workforce will be insufficient to manufacture, erect, operate, maintain, tear down, and dispose of all those millions of W&S plants that would be needed anew five times a century. All of us would work for the W&S industry, its operators, suppliers, contractors, maintenance, line crews, wreckers, etc.
    And we should recognize that jobs are a labor cost that raises the electricity cost to customers ($/kWh). Employing robots instead, as has been suggested, implies more energy needed which requires more W&S plants to generate it, which requires more …… (you got it). Jobs are a cost and not benefit if economics matter. Employees and contractors can do other things besides manufacturing, erecting, manning, dismantling and disposing of W&S plants.

  34. Just quote Milton Friedman, guys.
    He admired Nazi Germany as an example of his policies, which he got the Nobel for.
    Not strangely, his Tweedle Dee, Lord Maynard Keynes published his much quoted tome in nazi Germany, also clearly stating his economics needs a total-state.

    So there ye have it, Friedman, the libertarian, and Keynes the “socialist” both adoring in print, publicly and repeatedly, Hitlers economics.

    How can it be that serious engineers are played like cats on a hot tin roof by Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee?

    Cozying up to fascist economics only leads to one thing. The GND and GFI will not be stopped by nutcase Chicago Boys economics, nor Keynes’.

    Following Milton Friedman means ye have not the slightest interest in defeating the GND, even with geologic arguments, basically shadow boxing. Amusing but not effective.

    • “Serious engineers” don’t rely on Lyndon LaRouche/Alex Jones/Lew Rockwell style crackhead conspiracy theory websites to understand Milton Friedman… They read his books.

      • Mr. Laffer’s award ceremony was attended by several of his longtime allies in the decades-long push for tax cuts at all levels of government, including Mr. Moore; a former presidential candidate, Steve Forbes; and Mr. Kudlow, who championed to Mr. Trump the idea of awarding Mr. Laffer the medal. When Mr. Trump praised supply-side economic policies, Mr. Kudlow let out a low “yee-haw.”

        Accepting the award, Mr. Laffer praised a wide range of economists and politicians who advocated tax cuts, including Mr. Cheney; the economist Milton Friedman; former Representative Jack Kemp; Presidents Reagan and John F. Kennedy; and Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of Britain — along with Mr. Trump.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/politics/arthur-laffer-medal-of-freedom.html

        What would my good friend Milton Friedman say? Well, unfortunately, we don’t know for certain because Milton is no longer with us. That said, Nobelist Friedman weighed in on the issue of central bank independence on several occasions. Indeed, an essay he penned in 1962 was titled “Should there be an Independent Monetary Authority?” His essay appeared in In Search of a Monetary Constitution, which was published by Harvard University Press and was edited by my collaborator, the late Leland B. Yeager. Friedman was unambiguous. He concluded that “The case against a fully independent central bank is strong indeed.”

        Milton Friedman’s position on this issue was quite clear at the time. There is little doubt that, as a matter of principle, Friedman and Laffer would be on the same side of the street with regard to the Fed’s independence.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevehanke/2019/07/08/art-laffer-on-the-fed-what-would-milton-friedman-say/#985204225e9a

        As President Carter noted at the time, the 1970s was a period of economic malaise. Inflation and interest rates were in the double digits, and the economy was flat. Most countries, including the United States, had adopted Keynesian economic policies (named after the British economist John Maynard Keynes) that called for more government spending when “aggregate demand” was insufficient to create full employment.

        Each round of new government spending delivered less and less. Central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, kept creating new money as a way to stimulate the economy, but the money creation showed up in the form of inflation rather than real growth. Milton Friedman was the best-known critic of the Keynesian policies, while in Europe, F.A. Hayek was the leading intellectual critic of Keynesian policies.

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/24/medal-of-freedom-recipient-arthur-laffer-the-harm-/

        In 1978, Laffer was already a rising force in conservative economics. He had graduated from Yale, earned a doctorate from Stanford, taught at the business school at the University of Chicago, the same campus that included the free-market champion Milton Friedman. He had been the first chief economist of the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, under President Richard Nixon, with the legendary George Shultz as his mentor.

        […]

        Candidates keep coming back to Laffer, said his friend Larry Kudlow, the popular conservative economics commentator, “for the same reason you pay attention to Milton Friedman, even though he’s dead. For the same reason you listen to John Maynard Keynes, even though he’s dead. For the same reason we still read Friedrich Hayek. You don’t throw things out because they’ve been around so long.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/arthur-laffer-has-a-neverending-supply-of-supply-side-plans-for-gop/2015/04/09/04c61440-dec1-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

        THE PRESIDENT: This is your day.

        DR. LAFFER: Thank you very much.

        Let me, if I can: Sincerity and brevity — or so they say — go hand in hand. And in that vein, Mr. President, I want to thank you from the top, the middle, and the bottom of my heart. Thank you.

        Good economic policy is a team effort. And goodness knows my fellow teammates are the best ever: Larry Kudlow, my friend forever and ever and ever. Steve Moore. Where are you, Steve? Steve Moore. Steve Forbes. Steve Forbes canceled his trip abroad to be here today. Is David Malpass here? Kevin Hassett. Team players, Steven Mnuchin, wherever — there you are. You’re way back there. Steven. You don’t get a better team than that, ever. I mean, this is the team of all teams.

        And I just want to reflect for a second on some of my past colleagues and working with other administrations. For example, in the past, my colleagues included Nobel Laureate and dear friend Bob Mundell; the legendary editorial page editor, Bob Bartley, of the Wall Street Journal; Jude Wanniski, the crazy, wild revolutionary for supply-side economics; Milton Friedman, of course; my godfather and dearest supporter, Justin Dart; George Schultz, my mentor who has hired me four times and not gotten tired of it yet, I guess; Jack Kemp, who we called, “The Weapon” — he’s delivered it; and my classmate at Yale, and my dear friend, a guy named Dick Cheney. It’s just really wonderful to have — each of whom deserves a lot of praise.

        By the way, just for the record, Bob Bartley, Milton Friedman, Justin Dart, George Schultz, Jack Kemp, and Dick Cheney all received the President Medal of Freedom. Isn’t that amazing? I’m in great, great company, let me tell you. I’m awed by that.
        But to get over the — to get the ball over the — to get the ball over the goal line, committed leadership is the sine qua non for this. And we had President Kennedy, President Reagan, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and of course, you, Mr. President, Donald Trump, to really make it all happen. Without the leaders — (applause) — and all I can say is, wow.

        I mean, you know, President Kennedy established the current Presidential Medal of Freedom, and both President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were recipients.

        […]

        https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-presentation-medal-freedom-dr-arthur-laffer/

        • Bolton and Bannon turned up too in Trump’s administration.

          Let’s see what President Trump does about Glass-Steagall as the financial system goes south. One look at the Repo market might explain FED Powell’s little confab this week. This will make Lehmann look like a tea-party.

          Milton Friedman, true libertarian, would not tolerate direct government intervention as FDR did in 1934, nor the post war Bretton Woods. That intervention, with the original proven New Deal, so soiled by AOC and Sanders, saved the US economy just in time to defeat fascism, and fascist economics so praised by both Keynes and Friedman. It was Friedman who pushed Nixon off gold.

          Now we have the true faces of both Mark Carney, Bank of England governor, and Ursula van der Leyen,EU commissioner (elect), pushing a global NGO strictly green credit line, and since it originates in London, as the Mont Pelerin Friedman and Hayek mantra’s do, the mask is off.

          If these powers succeed in such a monetary policy, Friedman austerity, with Keynes greens, the economic destruction will be catastrophic.
          This is not MAGA guys, it is the ultimate enemy. It makes even Obama’s greenism look amateur.

          Do not be blindsided by Friedman, nor Greta – this stuff is going ahead full steam.

    • Nothing here posted about Milton Friedman is inaccurate.
      He never made a secret of it all at the Chicago school.
      He saw his theory as a success in Nazi Germany.
      Where’s the problem?
      His economics is on full display in Chile, and now Bolivia and Guaido both want Friedman economics.

      Are ye climate warriors now claiming economics is settled?

      Now where have I seen that before, I wonder?

      I realize economics is not your forte, David, yet “climate” does in fact boil down to economics. There is a lot of territory to cover, and CO2 is a mere distraction, as are the antics of XR, F4F, Mann et al. So I will grant you one point – this article is about economics, even if just a toe in the water.

      • You’ve cited nothing but a crackhead conspiracy theory rag to support your defamatory lies about Milton Friedman.

        • Indeed. his lies (or rather the lies he’s forwarding from Larouch) are numerous. Just take Chile for example, he tries to make it out that he was buddy-buddy with Pinochet, implying Pinochet came to power to implement Friedman’s economics policies. what utter nonsense.

          The fact is that Friedman never worked for, and never accepted a penny from, the Chilean regime. He even turned down two honorary degrees from Chilean universities that received government funding, because he did not want to be seen as endorsing a dictatorship he considered “terrible” and “despicable.” He did spend six days in Chile in March 1975 to give public lectures, at the invitation of a private foundation. During that visit he met with Pinochet for all of about 45 minutes and then wrote him a letter afterward, arguing for a plan to end hyperinflation and liberalize the economy. That was *two years after* Pinochet’s violent coup. (and incidentally he gave the same kind of advice to communist dictatorships as well, including the Soviet Union, China, and Yugoslavia. Giving unsolicited advice is hardly the same thing as “cozying up to fascist economics”).

          The reality was that Chile’s military officials were initially in charge of the economy. They were corporatist and paternalist, and they opposed “the Chicago Boys” ideas. The air force controlled social policy, for example, and it blocked market reforms until 1979 (that would be 4 years after Friedman’s short visit or 6 years after the coup – that’s hardly following Friedman now is it?). It wasn’t until this approach led to runaway inflation that Pinochet belatedly threw his weight behind liberalization and gave civilians ministerial positions. Their success in fighting inflation impressed Pinochet, so they were given a larger role.

          In short the conspiracy nonsense bonbon spews bears no resemblance to the historical facts.

          • I hope you realize playing stringer for Milton Friedman is doing severe damage to the campaign against CO2, GND, GFI, and assorted flanks?

            Well now we know your true allegiance, don’t we? It is one reason the anti-climate campaign is going nowhere, and devolving into silly cartoons.

            Interesting this pans out now. It looks like end-game.

          • The idiotic notion that Milton Friedman was a climate alarmist or would have supported a carbon tax is pure fiction.

            Milton Friedman: Climate Realist, Not Alarmist (no carbon tax support here)
            By Robert Murphy — October 30, 2014

            […]

            There is no direct evidence that would tie Milton Friedman to climate alarmism, much less a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. As I wrote in a blog for the Institute for Energy Research:

            [The conferees] gave no actual quotes of Friedman supporting a carbon tax, even though he died in 2006. Furthermore, there is at least one quotation from Friedman in which he denounces the fear-mongering of the global warming movement. Contrary to the claims of a few academics and retired government officials, a U.S. carbon tax is not a “conservative free market solution” to the issue of climate change.

            What I did find was a blurb Friedman gave in 1999 to Thomas Gale Moore’s Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming:

            This encyclopedic and even-handed survey of the evidence of global warming is a welcome corrective to the raging hysteria about the alleged dangers of global warming. Moore demonstrates conclusively that global warming is more likely to benefit than to harm the general public.

            Thankfully, the manufactured myth of Friedman and a carbon tax was put to rest by Milton’s son, David Friedman, who recently blogged in part:

            To [believe my father] would have favored a carbon tax requires … a reason to think that he would have believed that global warming due to CO2 emissions produced net negative externalities large enough to justify doing something about them. The problem with that claim is that warming can be expected to produce both negative externalities such as sea level rise and hotter summers and positive ones such as longer growing seasons and milder winters. The effects will be spread out over a long and uncertain future, making their size difficult to estimate.

            My own conclusion, defended in past posts here (one example), is that the uncertainties are large enough so that one cannot sign the sum, cannot say whether the net effect will be positive or negative.


            Those pushing for a carbon tax have no constraints on their behavior, since they think they’re saving the planet. I wait with bated breath to hear which other deceased icons also would have supported a carbon tax.

            https://www.masterresource.org/friedman-milton/milton-friedman-climate-realist/

            Milton Friedman’s actual words…

            “This encyclopedic and even-handed survey of the evidence of global warming is a welcome corrective to the raging hysteria about the alleged dangers of global warming. Moore demonstrates conclusively that global warming is more likely to benefit than to harm the general public.”

            Friedman was referring to this book: https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Climate_of_Fear.pdf

          • I hope you realize playing stringer for Milton Friedman …

            I hope you realize you’ve wrapped the tin-foil a little too tightly around your head. (yeah, I know, I’m hoping in vain there).

  35. Taking their statistics at face value, let’s consider their point:
    Fossil fuel industry provides 10 times actual energy as “green” industry, but “green” industry employees 10 times as many people.

    Which is more efficient?

  36. To dig out the foundation for a new buildings construction, you can employ a small handful of workers, and a few fossil fuel powered construction equipment or you can employ a thousand works each equipped with a wooden spoon. The later “employs more workers” (just don’t expect the workers to thank you for the grueling work you are giving them). The former costs less and gets the job done much more quickly and efficiently.

  37. David Middleton

    I don’t miss all the slow traffic caused by those blades being dragged down 45 or IH10, going to San Antonio. If the traffic was too bad, a stop at Buc ee’s (buck teeth are sexy) would be in order.

    I do make the haul, not as much as you. My daughter lives in Dallas, near Love Field, and has chosen to purchase Wind electricity….sigh!

    I’ll drink a cup of coffee in your honor; noting your effort to inform.

  38. “Maslin and Georgeson used a much broader set of 26 sub-sectors including wind and solar power, marine pollution controls, carbon capture, biodiversity and air pollution. Maslin says the figures have been underestimated in the past, partly because the green economy is so diffuse.” ,/blockquote>

    Actually, it’s called grasping at straws in a shameless attempt to call ordinary jobs as”green”.
    While ignoring their claims of so any “green jobs” reduces the efficiency and increases the costs for renewable energy.

    Making LCOE energy claims even more erroneous than they are.

  39. David Middleton

    This is seriously off topic. Some months ago, I think it was you who recommended Press & Siever 3rd edition ‘Earth’ to someone who wanted to learn some geology. Well, I bought an ex Edinburg library copy for peanuts, and have been both edified and entertained. Some of my long-time questions were answered in the first few chapters.

    Much Thanks

    • I’ve been a professional geologist/geophysicist since 1981… And I still have my copy from my first semester in college, fall 1976… It’s actually in my office on my desk.

  40. “In a way, the appropriate national objective is to have the fewest possible jobs. That is to say, the least amount of work for the greatest amount of products.”

    We’re getting close to what used to be an utopia: Comparatively few people have to work in order to grow enough food for everybody, make enough clothes and build enough houses. We have enough doctors and nurses, teachers and all the other necessary jobs and there’s still people left over. We can afford to have thousands “work” in hypertrophic bureaucracies and there’s still people left unemployed. The service and entertainment industry have grown but can’t employ them all, either. What to do with a growing number of people who can’t do any work we’d pay them for? What do to with people at the lower end of the IQ scale who could thresh wheat with a club but who can’t drive a combine harvester?

    Sending young people to school/college longer to keep them off the job market is mitigating the problem, but not solving it.

  41. The Green Industrial Complex needs tons of subsidies (direct and indirect) in order to survive. Proof: cut the subsidies and they die instantly. This means that it takes ich people to pay those subsidies. Rich people are made by fossil fuels. This means that the green extremists feed on wealth that was generated by fossils. Contemplate that for a moment. But it goes further. As green technologies are wealth destroyers and they also want to bring down fossil industries, the basis for their own survival must necessarily go away. And we start to see that as people put their heads in the sand but they cannot escape the pain of poverty anymore.

  42. But what does it really add to the economy or the country. I understand that Spain tried this “”Make work”” scheme and its made a big mess of their economy.

    Green groups have always told government s that their “”Renewables”” “” will create Jobs, and governments faced with the Age of Automation, which means less real jobs, accept such lies.

    Problem with the Renewables is that while they y do make some jobs, the higher cost of electricity then kills off other businesses which had previously employed people.

    MJE VK5ERLL

  43. What this article really says is that each and every fossil fuel worker is worth at least 50 “green economy” workers.

    You actually have to work at being that inefficient. Either that, or fossil fuel workers are actually supermen/women.

    • You actually have to work at being that inefficient

      or rather not work much at all. Reminds me of all the jokes about unions. How many union workers does it take to change a lightbulb? while it is commonly believed that union members will screw anything, in the case of the light bulb being changed it will require: one to change it, a supervisor to supervise it, one to take it out of the box, another to carry the box, under supervision, a shop stewart to complain to management about the weight of the bulb, a business agent to negotiate a high contract for changing light bulbs, and finally an inspector to insure it was done

  44. This article is complete tripe. It equates to “what we’re doing is fine, no reason to look for anything better”. Generally the idea is that fossil/ oil and gas are not the best way to do something and although we are here and history had made it so we need them currently in our society doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move away from them. Most of the comments I suppose are from people that work in these industries and see this as a personal threat without any eye toward what actually might be better for everyone including future generations. I upgrade power plants, so yes my job mostly exists because of fossil fuels, but understand that there might be better ways to generate, store, and distribute energy. Some cave-man thinking right here.

    • Generally the idea is that fossil/ oil and gas are not the best way to do something

      Whether or not they’re the “best way”, they’re currently better than the alternatives. You don’t replace cheap reliable energy sources with expensive and unreliable ones. Not if you want a steady, reliable source of energy when you need it.

      • Ring-a-ling. Now most of society had agreed to subsidize the switch to better ways (wind, solar, etc.) Specifically to dig out entrenched oil and gas companies (they’ve spent mountains of money to battle these new scourges) . The argument that it’s cheaper and should therefore stay is crap. Solar prices have plummeted because as a society we’ve agreed to finance their development. The final remaining hurdle is storage. Many people are working on that.

  45. Generally the idea is that fossil/ oil and gas are not the best way to do something

    Whether or not they’re the “best way”, they’re currently better than the alternatives. You don’t replace cheap reliable energy sources with expensive and unreliable ones. Not if you want a steady, reliable source of energy when you need it.

Comments are closed.