Supporters of today's "infrastructure" spending-spree say that it will create endless, well-paying "green jobs" to replace the fossil fuel jobs that our government plans to destroy. In reality, green jobs schemes will destroy, not create, millions of well-paying American jobs. 🧵
A largely "green," solar-and wind-based, energy system will necessarily destroy far more well-paying US jobs than it creates because the "green jobs" will be 1) far less productive, 2) largely in China, and 3) cause job losses in other industries via skyrocketing energy prices.
Reason #1 why green energy "infrastructure" policies will destroy productive US jobs: "green jobs" are far less productive than the fossil fuel jobs that our government is destroying--so they cannot possibly pay as well.
The only way well-paying jobs are sustainable in the long-term is if they are highly productive. For example, the reason US oil-and-gas extractions jobs pay very well is that they produce an average of $2 million per worker annually. Nothing in wind or solar can compare.
Workers involved in generating electricity from natural gas and coal produce *9 times more electricity per person* than workers generating electricity from wind and solar. And the fossil fuel electricity, unlike solar and wind, is highly reliable.
theobjectivestandard.com/2021/02/per-wo…
Reason #2 why green energy "infrastructure" policies will destroy productive US jobs: "green jobs" mostly exist in China, which has a huge competitive advantage in mining, processing, and manufacturing.
The main jobs involved in solar and wind energy are mining jobs (to get the raw materials), processing jobs (to transform the raw materials into valuable form) and manufacturing jobs (to make solar panels and wind turbine components). Those jobs exist largely in China.
China's dominance of "green energy" is due to a combination of vices (low environmental standards, human rights abuses) and virtues (lower energy costs, valuing mining and manufacturing). Today's anti-mining, anti-fossil fuel government will make us even less competitive.
Consider Tesla's "green jobs" debacle in Buffalo. Tesla got almost $1 billion plus artificially low electricity rates (at other customers' expense) in exchange for a promise of 1460 jobs--that's over $650,000 a job! This kind of welfare work is totally unsustainable.
Reason #3 why green energy "infrastructure" policies will destroy productive US jobs: by making American energy unaffordable and unreliable, it will destroy American industry and with it, American jobs.
The biggest cost of "green jobs" is unaffordable and unreliable energy. Because unreliable solar and wind can't replace our reliable power plants, they always add costs to the grid. And if we try, like CA and TX, to cut costs by closing reliable power plants, we get blackouts.
Germany, which gets 37% of its electricity from solar and wind, provides a mild preview of the path we're on. Germans have seen their electricity prices double in 20 years thanks to wasteful, unreliable solar and wind. Their electricity prices are 3X our already-too-high prices.
By driving up industrial energy costs, "green energy" schemes will make every American-made product more expensive and every American company less competitive. That means more productive jobs lost to other countries where energy costs less and is more reliable.
For a preview of what "green energy" schemes will do to American industry, consider rising "green joblessness" in Europe and Australia. Like the workers at the Australian recycling company that, after 37 profitable years, went under when "green" policies doubled power costs.
Green energy "infrastructure" policies = "green joblessness."

By shifting us from productive, America-centered energy production to unproductive, China-centered energy production, they would be the largest destroyer of productive jobs in American history.
energytalkingpoints.com/green-energy-j…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

31 Jul
If today's world lacked the bias that human impact on nature is inherently immoral and self-destructive, what would be our expectation about the badness or goodness of rising levels of CO2--a warming gas and a fertilizing gas--during a very cold period of the planet's history? 🧵
I think the reasonable baseline expectation about a slow rise in CO2 levels during a cold period of the planet's history is that it's significantly net positive, especially if you factor in global greening. An argument that it's 75% negative would require a huge burden of proof.
Given that rising CO2 levels have obvious warming and greening benefits, it is an obvious sign of anti-human bias that media reporting on the impacts of rising CO2 levels is >99% negative. This bias involves the dogma that Earth is a "delicate nurturer" that human impact ruins.
Read 7 tweets
23 Jul
The rise of the commercial space industry is a truly exciting development that we should be celebrating and liberating. Instead, a huge portion of the reaction is to condemn the ultra-productive people leading this industry as well as trying to loot this new industry.🧵
Looting the space industry: US Congressman @RepBlumenauer's immediate reaction to recent space triumphs was call for a hefty tax on trips to space that he deems to "produce nothing of scientific value." But every step of commercializing space travel is of crucial long-term value.
We should be getting out of the way of space innovators so that they can bring the benefits of space travel--including the wonders of space tourism--to the masses. I know I certainly would love to be able to afford a trip to space--the ultimate vacation destination.
Read 6 tweets
22 Jul
In my career studying energy, I have never been more scared of a government policy than I am of the Federal Government's push for a "CES"--"Clean Energy Standard" that would dictatorially mandate 80% "clean," including 50+% unreliable solar and wind, electricity, by 2030. 🧵
Thanks to government mandates and subsidies, solar and wind--"unreliables"--provide about 10% of American electricity. This 10% has already caused big electricity price increases and huge reliability problems. Politicians should admit their failure, apologize, and reverse course.
Instead of admitting that the US's 10% solar+wind electricity is causing huge cost and reliability problems, our government, led by @SenTinaSmith, is *quintupling down* on this disaster by pushing a "Clean Energy Standard" that would require minimum 50% solar+wind in 8 years!!
Read 22 tweets
18 Jul
Observe that whenever there is a problem, some people want to *solve* the problem and some people want to *use* the problem to advance an agenda that is irrelevant to the problem or that would actually make things worse. 🧵
"Solving the problem" with climate danger means advocating for better climate adaptation/mastery practices.

It can also mean liberating cost-effective non-carbon alternatives like nuclear energy--but recognizing that CO2 levels will not decrease for a long, long time.
"Using the problem" with climate danger means using problems with extreme temperatures, storms, floods, wildfires to advance policies that prohibit people, especially poor people, from using the low-cost, reliable energy they need to deal with those ever-present problems.
Read 7 tweets
15 Jul
Most smart people have taught to ignore the massive benefits of fossil fuel use and catastrophize its side-effects. This renders them dumb and, worse, dangerous on this issue. A good case study here is the latest NYT article by the very smart @EzraKlein.

nytimes.com/2021/07/15/opi…
One way in which @EzraKlein and most other thought leaders both ignore the benefits and catastrophize the side-effects of fossil fuels is by denying the fossil fueled *climate mastery* that has occurred as temps have risen 1 degree in 170 years.

Image by @ShellenbergerMD
The climate mastery denial of @EzraKlein leads him to the unbelievable conclusion that "three degrees" of warming--which really means two, because one has already occurred--"is still a catastrophe of truly incomprehensible proportions" for the most adaptable species ever.
Read 5 tweets
15 Jul
I love fossil fuels. They alone provide low-cost, on-demand, versatile energy for billions of people in thousands of places.

Over the years, readers of mine have created many #ILoveFossilFuels memes like this one. Here are 5 more of my favorites. 🧵
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(