Green Policies in California Generated Jobs, Study Finds

The really HOT topics of the day... be careful to not get burned! Please try to remain open minded...

Moderator: The Moderating Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Green Policies in California Generated Jobs, Study Finds

Post by Hostrauser » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:38 am

Felicity Barringer wrote:California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000, according to a study to be released Monday.

The study, conducted by David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, found that while the state’s policies lowered employee compensation in the electric power industry by an estimated $1.6 billion over that period, it improved compensation in the state over all by $44.6 billion.

Built into that figure were increases of $1.2 billion in the light industrial sector, $11.2 billion in wholesale and retail trade, $7.3 billion in the financial and insurance sectors and $17.8 billion in the service sector.

“Consumers were able to reduce energy spending,” the study said, adding that “these savings were diverted to other demand.”

“When consumers shift one dollar of demand from electricity to groceries,” the report said, they create jobs among retailers, wholesalers, food processors and other businesses.

The study, which examined household spending, comes as state and regional initiatives on climate-change policies have been gathering momentum. At the same time, arguments have sharpened over how much it will cost the economy to cut the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, which are linked to climate change.

Roughly half the country’s electric power is generated by burning coal, the fuel that produces among the highest greenhouse-gas emissions of any in widespread use.

Some economists focus their studies on the cost of converting the power grid to run on low-carbon technologies, like wind energy, or the cost of developing technologies to separate the carbon dioxide from coal-plant emissions and bury it underground. Others focus on the job creating potential of new energy industries.

The Berkeley study is different in that it focuses as much on historical data as on modeling the future. California’s energy-efficiency policies were adopted in 1978, long before the widespread push for greenhouse-gas reductions, but the data they provide is highly relevant to the current economic debate.

Professor Roland-Holst said that he based his calculations on residential spending on electricity over the last 30 years, factoring in both the decrease in per-capita demand for electricity — now 40 percent below the national average — and the increase in California’s electrical rates, which were about 40 percent above the national average in June, the latest month for which data is available. Household spending represents more than 70 percent of the gross state product.

Historically, Professor Roland-Holst said, the decrease in per-capita demand for electricity outstripped the increase in rates. Much of the economic growth, the study said, was driven by both efficiency standards for large appliances like refrigerators and for residential and commercial buildings.

In an interview, Professor Roland-Holst said, “What I wanted to do to support the forward-looking vision is go back and look at the evidence we have in front of us.”

In two months, California is set to adopt broad policies to enforce a new cap on greenhouse gas emissions signed into law two years ago. More detailed regulations will then be developed; that process is likely to be contentious, as it divides the overall costs of the new program among competing sectors of the state’s economy.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

User avatar
frankiE
All Star
All Star
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 11:40 am
Location: new jersey

Post by frankiE » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:41 am

it also produced an economy begging for an economic rescue effort
wherever you go there you are

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:24 pm

Right. Green policies are to blame for the sagging economy. :roll:
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

User avatar
frankiE
All Star
All Star
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 11:40 am
Location: new jersey

Post by frankiE » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:58 am

frankiE wrote:it also produced an economy begging for an economic rescue effort
you are correct, poor use of language! How about

" it helped produce an economy begging for an economic rescue effort "

Have you ever opened a box that says " contains products known to cause cancer by the State of California "? I guess we all owe our lives and safety to the Bear Republic!

I am all in favor of " going green ", but not " going overboard "!
wherever you go there you are

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:29 am

Hostrauser wrote:Right. Green policies are to blame for the sagging economy. :roll:
What is one of the main reasons we are not drilling on our own soil/land, especially in Alaska?
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:58 am

LAMystreaux wrote:What is one of the main reasons we are not drilling on our own soil/land, especially in Alaska?
Right. The lack of that extra 0.5-1% of world oil (any benefits of which to world oil prices would immediately and effectively be negated by a equivalent reduction in oil production by OPEC) is to blame for the sagging economy. :roll:
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

User avatar
Bandmaster
Director
Director
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 6:13 pm
Location: Upland, CA
Contact:

Post by Bandmaster » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:27 am

Two related comments...

Isn't it amazing that most of the media has ignored an announcement from scientists monitoring the glaciers in Alaska about the shrinkage of the glacier over the past year? In case you missed it... the report stated that the glaciers in Alaska GREW in size over the last year. The shrinkage has stop and reversed itself. So is global warming over now?

We are importing over 70% of our oil at a huge cost to our economy. Please explain how reducing these imports by drilling for oil here would damage our economy? Our sagging economy IS to blame for the recent drop in oil prices! How many of you know that we import NO oil from the middel east? Our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico and our refinded oil products come from the Netherlands. Kind of puts the kabash on the idea that we send our oil money to terrorist nations, but it also disproves that went to war in Iraq over oil!
Dave Schaafsma
The Sound Machine

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:42 am

Bandmaster wrote: Isn't it amazing that most of the media has ignored an announcement from scientists monitoring the glaciers in Alaska about the shrinkage of the glacier over the past year? In case you missed it... the report stated that the glaciers in Alaska GREW in size over the last year. The shrinkage has stop and reversed itself. So is global warming over now?
Just feeds even more into the idea of a liberal media bias.
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

SCVStar
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:39 pm

Post by SCVStar » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:54 am

LAMystreaux wrote:
Bandmaster wrote: Isn't it amazing that most of the media has ignored an announcement from scientists monitoring the glaciers in Alaska about the shrinkage of the glacier over the past year? In case you missed it... the report stated that the glaciers in Alaska GREW in size over the last year. The shrinkage has stop and reversed itself. So is global warming over now?
Just feeds even more into the idea of a liberal media bias.
I'm not a liberal and I believe in global warming. Also, according to scientists, the Polar Ice Caps have shrunk this past summer at the same record breaking rate of 07. And this is depstie much cooler weather. Scientists have noted it would take several years of cooler weather to turn this thing around. The reason noted for a few areas gaining is due to the increase of cooler weather along with an increase of annual snowfall. But overall, the Polar Ice Caps are still melting at a fast rate.

User avatar
LAMystreaux
All Star
All Star
Posts: 4374
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Leesville, LA

Post by LAMystreaux » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:24 pm

SCVStar wrote:
LAMystreaux wrote:
Bandmaster wrote: Isn't it amazing that most of the media has ignored an announcement from scientists monitoring the glaciers in Alaska about the shrinkage of the glacier over the past year? In case you missed it... the report stated that the glaciers in Alaska GREW in size over the last year. The shrinkage has stop and reversed itself. So is global warming over now?
Just feeds even more into the idea of a liberal media bias.
I'm not a liberal and I believe in global warming. Also, according to scientists, the Polar Ice Caps have shrunk this past summer at the same record breaking rate of 07. And this is depstie much cooler weather. Scientists have noted it would take several years of cooler weather to turn this thing around. The reason noted for a few areas gaining is due to the increase of cooler weather along with an increase of annual snowfall. But overall, the Polar Ice Caps are still melting at a fast rate.
So even moreso don't you think an oddity (according to your facts here) that one is increasing in size should be reported?

Also, not all conservatives have a disbelief in global warming, but the sticking point for many seems to be the causes and solutions. Goodness, the man at the helm of the "crisis" has done more fear mongering than anyone, all to line his own pocketbook (carbon footprints, anyone).
Just because your hate is masked by "free thinking" or being "open-minded" does not make it right.

User avatar
Hostrauser
All Star
All Star
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 11:19 pm
Location: Poway, CA
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:32 pm

Bandmaster wrote:Two related comments...

Isn't it amazing that most of the media has ignored an announcement from scientists monitoring the glaciers in Alaska about the shrinkage of the glacier over the past year? In case you missed it... the report stated that the glaciers in Alaska GREW in size over the last year. The shrinkage has stop and reversed itself. So is global warming over now?
No, because the term is GLOBAL warming not ALASKAN warming. If Alaska gets colder by 3 degrees and 50 countries in Africa and Central America get warmer by 2 degrees, guess what? WE STILL HAVE GLOBAL WARMING.

This very basic concept repeatedly eludes even the brightest conservative minds.

Lastly, "Global Warming" is a media catchphrase; almost all of the scientists I read and hear only talk about climate change. Yes, "global warming" could be one effect of climate change, but not the only one.
Bandmaster wrote:We are importing over 70% of our oil at a huge cost to our economy.
Actually, the number is closer to 66%. And we don't do it by choice, we do it because America's demand for oil products far exceeds our capabilities to produce it. You could cover every acre in Alaska with new oil wells and we still wouldn't be getting enough oil to supply our demand.

THE ONLY solution is to pursue alternative energy sources. Environmentalists have been saying this for years, but conservatives continue to ignore the solution right in front of their faces and continue to bitch about OPEC and oil imports.
Bandmaster wrote:Please explain how reducing these imports by drilling for oil here would damage our economy?
I already did: the small extra portion we'd gain from more drilling would be instantly offset by a reduction in drilling by OPEC and a rise in price of our smaller quantity of imports.
Bandmaster wrote:Our sagging economy IS to blame for the recent drop in oil prices!
Kinda. Our sagging economy is partially to blame for the global economic downturn which in turn is largely to blame for the recent drop in oil prices. Which is why OPEC just announced large petroleum production cuts: restrict supply to boost the price.
Bandmaster wrote:How many of you know that we import NO oil from the middel east? Our oil imports come from Canada and Mexico and our refinded oil products come from the Netherlands. Kind of puts the kabash on the idea that we send our oil money to terrorist nations, but it also disproves that went to war in Iraq over oil!
Probably the same number of people that "know" that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. :roll:

Sorry Dave, you're completely wrong. Canada is the #1 exporter of oil to the US, and Mexico is #3, but by no means are they our only sources (Saudi Arabia is #2, Iraq is #6).

U.S. Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports, August 2008
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti

Blurae1
All Star
All Star
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: North Louisiana

Post by Blurae1 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:19 am

We were sitting at the Chalmette ferry landing right next to the Tenneco\Exon dock about 4 months ago. The ship offloading oil was registered in Dubai. I believe that's somewhere in the United Arab Emeriates. Further the refinery worker whom we were bringing to work at the time said there were 3-5 ships a week from the middle east.

I'll put the disclaimer on this by saying this was 4 months ago & my friend of 45 years could have been lying, although I doubt it............Bill

Post Reply