The Problem with Obama's Green Campaign Strategy

. . .is that it is based on a set of lies. The Hill is reporting that Obama's "green team" is launching speeches intended to convince the public that Obama's energy and environmental policies are building the basis for a future of great jobs. EPA Chief Lisa Jackson argued thusly:

Jackson also touted tens of billions of dollars in federal investments in green energy projects, which largely came through the stimulus law, arguing it has leveraged private capital and that “those projects are helping put people to work.”

Really? She wants to open the door on more discussion of Solyndra?

Meanwhile Ken Salazar, Secretary of Commerce, is touting his "all of the above" energy record, saying that Obama has been opening up federal land to oil and gas exploration. But here is the actual record:

U.S. oil and natural-gas production has risen under Obama, but combined oil production from federal lands and waters dipped in fiscal 2011 as offshore output was affected by limits imposed after the BP oil spill, according to Energy Information Administration data.

The rise in production has largely occurred in North Dakota. Meanwhile, the administration continues to believe that government can magically cause green energy to become more effective than hydrocarbon based energy.

. . .the Interior secretary urged Congress to make tax credits for renewable energy permanent and pass legislation requiring that a major portion of the country’s electricity is generated from low-carbon sources.

The fact of the matter is that we won't lessen our dependence on oil and gas for a long time. The only reasonable philosophy is to tax carbon to the extent that it contributes to pollution and let the free market make a judgement about the best source of energy.

In the meantime, I don't think most voters will care about green energy jobs of the future, when they have poor job prospects now and face high gasoline prices. Not to demagogue the issue, but the real problem with Obama's energy policy is that he is killing American jobs by preventing oil drilling and pipelines from Canada. If gas prices stay high and the economy continues its present anemic recovery, voters won't be buying into this line of attack.

The "Fairy Tale" of Green Jobs

Stephen Moore slays all of the lies and hypocrisies behind AB 32 and the campaign to defeat Proposition 23 in today's American Spectator article. Key quotes:

It's hard to know where the fairy tale of "green jobs" first came from. It was probably a clever marketing scheme by radical environmentalists who realized that their anti-growth climate change agenda wasn't going to sell among the American electorate if workers realized how many jobs would be eviscerated by the new taxes and regulation.
. . .
The governor's office study concluded that California's already iron-fisted environmental and workplace regulations translate into about $176 billion in lost output and nearly 4 million lost jobs. This study was so embarrassing to the legislature and the Schwarzenegger administration that it was suppressed for many months, until several Republican legislators demanded its release.
. . .
Even the politicians in Sacramento are starting to realize the tomfoolery of one state trying to stop planetary global warming all on its own. So Mr. Schwarzenegger has been trying to persuade the governors of other neighboring states like Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington to sign a Western state cap and trade treaty. The other governors have declined, no doubt having observed how well climate change legislation has worked in California.

Sorry for the extended quotes, but the utter lies that have been issued arguing for California tackling global warming by itself are utterly preposterous. You could concede that global warming is real, man-made and catastrophic (which I don't) and still believe that AB 32 (which Proposition 23 merely proposes to postpone) is a crappy bill.

Stephen Moore cites examples of a cement plant and a steel foundry, both examples of carbon intensive industries, moving out of state. Not shutting down, mind you, but merely depriving Californians of much needed jobs.

If you click the "green worker" at the top it links to an economic study that concludes:

Unfortunately, it is highly questionable whether a government campaign to spur “green jobs” would have net economic benefits. Indeed, the distortionary impacts of government intrusion into energy markets could prematurely force business to abandon current production technologies for more expensive ones. Furthermore, there would likely be negative economic consequences from forcing higher-cost alternative energy sources upon the economy. These factors would likely increase consumer energy costs and the costs of a wide array of energy-intensive goods, slow GDP growth and ironically may yield no net job gains. More likely, they would result in net job losses.

Join the Campaign to Suspend AB 32

Why are Democrats to intent on doubling down on stupidity this year? Despite repeated set backs that indicate their agenda is not popular, they forge ahead, seemingly oblivious to the looming electoral disaster that awaits them. Health care, cap and trade, amnesty are a few examples. At the top of the Democrat ticket in California both the nominees for governor and lieutenant-governor, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom are still supporting the so called Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32. I think it gives the Republicans an opening in an otherwise challenging political environment. (Jerry Brown is touting the creation of a "Renewable Energy Jobs Czar" who will singlehandedly create 500,000 green jobs. Beyond parody.)

The proposed repeal is actually a very modest roll back, saying only that its draconian provisions would be suspended while unemployment remains above 5.5%. Just a quick common sense note. How can anyone in their right mind think that California, by itself, make a dent in carbon emissions. Given that energy production and use are somewhat fungible, at least on a national scale, doesn't this effort ignore physics and economics.

Here is some of the pretzel logic used in support of AB 32, courtesy of reason.com:

AB 32’s proponents say it will create a plethora of new “green jobs.” Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta, founder of VPC Energy and of Strategic Energy, Environmental & Transportation Alternatives, recently declared, “When it comes to job growth, there is substantial, irrefutable evidence that growing more efficient and greener will create jobs, not kill them.” That, she explained, is “why I am heartened that CARB’s new economic analysis reaffirms the benefits of implementing California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.”

Verdugo-Peralta was referring to a March report from the California Air Resources Board, the agency that will oversee carbon rationing. Its analysis finds that implementing emission cuts will increase the price of electricity by up to 20 percent, the price of natural gas by 13 percent to 76 percent, and the price of gasoline by 6 percent to 47 percent.

Wow! If I had only know that increasing energy costs resulted in more jobs; I guess I forgot about the famous example of the 1970s, where the Arab oil embargo resulted in record dips in unemployment.

Temple of Mut alerted me to the opportunity for the Tea Party to make a difference on this issue. Besides suspending a stupid law, good turnout on this measure may help defeat leftist candidates supporting such tomfoolery. Check out the Proposition 23 web site and support the effort to suspend AB 32.