Government Chooses Green Policies over Job Creation

Every day we see news stories that discredit the hysteria of "Global Warming." Winters have been colder for the past five years and those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s remember when the fear was another "ice age." To make matters worse for "green" advocates, thousands of discovered emails written by Global Warming scientists show the agenda was more about control and politics than improving the environment. Add to the fact that the barriers between people and jobs are so numerous, the last thing you would think that policy makers would want to do is add regulations and taxes in pursuit of a green economy, but that appears to be the priority of the Obama Administration.

President Obama has made the creation of green jobs one of the biggest priorities of his energy and environmental agenda. Becoming the "leader in developing the clean energy technologies that will lead to the industries and jobs of tomorrow"' is described by Obama and his Administration as "'critical to the future of our country." They are investing billions in pursuit of this goal, according to Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum.

The stimulus bill of 2008 and 2009 had huge amounts allocated to "'green"' enterprises, including:

• $6 billion for a loan program targeted for "green" industry.
• $5 billion for weatherization aid, and $11 billion for "'smart grid"' technology and modernized high-tech transmission lines
• $500 million to help train workers for "green-related" careers.
• The new budget doubles down with similar "'green"' investments.

In addition, the subsidies allocated hundreds of millions for the research and development of new technologies in the energy field. There are also billions of tax breaks for companies investing in projects that pursue clean energy. Finally, you will find $74 million for initiatives to encourage young people to pursue careers in clean energy.

Taxpayers should be warned that creating a "'green job"' is not affordable, says Lukas:

• State and local "green job" creation efforts have cost in excess of $100,000 per position.
• Instead of creating domestic "green job" industries, much of the dollars for such projects are actually being sent overseas. For example, ABC News has reported that nearly 80 percent of the almost $2 billion in the stimulus bill dedicated to wind power, went directly to foreign manufacturers for wind turbines.

In the end, what may be of greatest concern are policymakers who know that direct government spending alone will not usher in a new "'clean"' economy, so they are also pursuing a more deliberate path to "'green"' job creation -- driving up the costs of traditional energy sources either through regulation or a costly cap-and-trade system that acts as a carbon tax. Essentially, the government will try to force businesses to use "green" fuels at the expense of their international competitive edge. This will mean that average American families will find that these policies cost them thousands of dollars as the price of everything from food (transported by gas power vehicles) to fuel itself, rises. Something with this kind of cost should generate "green" jobs, but will likely do so at the lost of many traditional jobs. Businesses will be forced to put more resources into cutting energy costs rather than on business expansion or job creation. The US already has the highest unemployment it has experienced in a quarter of a century. One has to wonder what our economy will look like after the radical health care agenda and an environmental plan that is simply not needed.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Questions that Should be Addressed by Environmentalists

The world is about to meet in Copenhagen about the future of Global Warming. In spite of chilling news of the revelation of thousands of emails that indicate that the alarmists have distorted information about climate change, world leaders seem to be on pace to move on with an aggressive agenda designed to massively expand government control in virtually every industry. The environmental agenda includes heavily taxation and increased regulation of many industries.

With this agenda, it is time to ask some serious questions.

What kind of impact have these policies had on other countries?

Although most European countries have been passionate in its environmental activism, one of the most aggressive has been the country of Spain and the results have been disturbing for any country considering a similar approach.

A study (by Gabriel Calzada Álvarez PhD) about Spain's efforts provides an insightful view of the negative impact the pursuit of green jobs have had on the economies of Europe. The chasing of "green jobs" is nothing new, according to Calzada. He points out that European countries have lived under regulations and subsides for the development of such industries since 1997, and the economic impact has been both impressive and very negative.

According to Calzada, Obama's "model country" of Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for every job created. That translates to 9 jobs lost for every four new jobs provided. Calzada goes on to extrapolate the numbers and points out that, if the US was "fortunate" enough to create 3 to 5 million green jobs, it would do so at the lost of at least 6.6 to 11 million jobs that already existed. For most Americans, this is simply too big of a price to pay.

What is also disturbing is how much these green jobs cost. According to the study, each job cost an incredible $800,000 each. This for jobs that often only pay approximately $15 an hour. In a situation where the US unemployment rate is growing at a rapid pace, this type of cost for employment and the trade off of pre-existing jobs is a difficult sale.

The technology/prosperity question.

The countries with the worse environments, generally speaking are poor and have primitive technology. The countries who have made the biggest strides in the environment are economically rich. When countries are poor they simply have fewer resources to improve the environment or to make better technology.

I remember an encounter I had while conducting seminars on Free Market economics. When I traveled to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, I was in shock at the pollution levels. Poland was particularly bad. I remember escaping to a local park because of the trees there made it easier to breathe. Much of the time my eyes simply watered and I coughed. It was miserable. I had a meeting with an economist in the Polish government and he noticed my distress and he quickly concluded it was due to pollution levels. He said that Poland did not lack regulations and in fact "we have the toughest environmental laws of any country in the world." Sure enough, I did my homework, and that was true at the time. This gentleman became quite philosophical about the problem, stating "the problem was recognized long ago by Aristotle who said 'What is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own; they care less for what is common; or at any rate they care for it only to the extent to which each is individually concerned. Even when there is no other cause for inattention, men are more prone to neglect their duty when they think that another is attending to it.'" The economist went on to say that he hoped that the efforts the country was taking towards free markets would lead to more ownership and better care of the environment.

Later, in another meeting he said, "the answer to these environmental problems are found in technology, not regulation." I liked the sound of that, so I asked him to go on, he said"as we recover economically and have more ownership, we will enjoy greater capital formation, which will lead to better and more efficient technology. That, more than anything else will reduce pollution." I casually responded, "I have never seen a poor country that was not polluted" he shrugged his shoulders, lifted his hands in the air and said "neither have I."

The rhetoric coming from Copenhagen seems to be ignoring the scandalous emails that have rocked the environmental movement, the negative impact this agenda has had on jobs, and the linage between prosperity and technology. Watch carefully what comes out of this event.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Global Warming Campaign Proves to be Expensive Joke

Conspiracy theorists have argued for years that government officials who support the massive regulation of industry in the name of environmentalism, do so in order to pursue even greater government control It is not about a cleaner environment, but a more powerful government. Meanwhile, scientists who have advocated Global Warming have often been accused of being professional "Chicken Littles," who make a living predicting that the sky is falling. After all, if research studies had indicated that things were fine or temperature changes were cyclical, there would be no need for future research and the funding that comes with it. There is a business side to everything, including environmental research, and fear has proved to be a successful element in obtaining increased funding.

The media has been quick to defend those in government and science in the alarmist camp, creating a powerful and effective troika supporting an ambitious agenda. They have apologized for the many exaggerations and have gone to great lengths to defending the most outrageous of claims. The recent release of some rather incriminating emails are embarrassing to the media, scientists, and government officials behind the Global Warming movement. Forget embarrassing, the movement is now on life support.

The Wall Street Journal discusses the content and the implications of the emails in question, quoting several including one stating that "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

"So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to 'Mike.' Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet."

"The 'two MMs' are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions-a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked."

The emails in question are in the thousands and the thread demonstrates a similar theme and are most enlightening. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to point out that "In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a 'unified' view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the 'common cause'; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to 'hide the decline' of temperature in certain inconvenient data."

In essence, the world has been duped by scientists driven by the desire of prestige and funding, politicians driven by a lust for control and power, and a media that makes a living by creating alarm. The cost of pursuing a battle plan against these false problems has cost countries like Spain millions of jobs in its "cap and trade" style legislation and countries through out Western Europe and the United States billions of dollars in regulations to date. What will these false prophets receive for their crimes against economies? Probably Pulitzers and Nobels. What a strange world indeed.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Christopher Horner on Global Warming

This week on the Houston Business Show (Monday at 1 PM on CNN 650 and 24/7 at HoustonBusinessShow.com) I interviewed Christopher Horner (photo) of the Competitive Enterprise Institute about his controversial book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. He is one in a list of national interviews I am doing each week on my show (recently I have had Jonathan Hoenig of Fox News and next week I'll be visiting with my old friend, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal).

During the interview, Christopher quickly tackled the "sacred cow" of liberals, which is the "Global Warming" scare. The facts he brought to the discussion were impressive and deserve more air time else where:

* "Technology means good ecology." The countries with the best technology, produce the least amount of pollution. Encouraging economic growth helps to preserve the a sound environment.

* Excessive regulation and excessive taxation makes the environment unhealthy. Chris and I discussed the Eastern Europe experience and I mentioned that, during my travels to countries like Poland and Hungary, that pollution was terrible (especially Poland, which had the toughest environmental regulations for decades). He pointed out that the more aggressive countries are in taxation in regulation, the worse the environments. Money that would go to capital improvements (making better technology and less pollution), is instead going to fighting legal actions against them in the name of environmentalism.

* There are very few true climate scientists (approximately 80) in the US and they do not have "consensus" on what is going on with the environment. Some attribute it to cycles, others point out that we are moving to global freezing, and others still offer different perspectives. The reports that point to the "scientific community" supporting concerns of global warming are inaccurate because that so called community is made up of individuals who simply lack the right credentials.

There is much more a reader can garner from this excellent book and it should be read by everyone -- particularly those in the manufacturing industry that the new green laws are targeting. I consider Christopher Horner's book "must reading." By the way, you can order it today at our new and improved bookstore.

What Will Global Warming Advocates Do with Coldest April Ever?

Bloomberg is reporting that this April in New York is the coldest in recorded history. The agriculture industry is reporting the same thing nationwide. Such news is having a chilling effect of the global warming campaign. Well, at least it should. But the common belief among the global warming crowd is "please don't bore us with facts."

The facts are is that weather has shifted in different directions for years. In the 1970s, when I was a young person in school, the fear was global freezing. Every serious weather scientist has told me that these changes have been cyclical and have serious doubts about global warming. The current extreme weather in April is indicative of this fact.

Why are conservatives and many libertarians suspicious about global warming warnings? Here's just a few reasons:

• Environmentalists need to produce negative reports in order to get more money. The alarmism fuels a very lucrative industry called "scientific research"


• The real issue for environmentalists is control. They are not nearly as interested in stopping pollution as they are in controlling the economy. For example, if the rain forest is so important in preventing climate change, environmentalists should buy large portions of the land, rather than try to force the Latin American governments to do what they demand. The ten largest environmental organizations have more money than the two major political parties in the US combined. They could certainly afford to preserve much of it.


• The best way to improve the environment is technology, not regulation. I visited Poland and found it almost impossible to breath. While there I found out it had the toughest regulations of any country in the world and that they existed for decades. Another example is the Super Fund, which was designed by the EPA to clean up waste from factories and other environmental disasters. The vast majority of that fund goes to lawyers, according to the National Center for Policy Analysts.


• The safety of such reforms are questionable. For example, every time fuel mileage requirements goes up, auto safety goes down because cars are not as safe when they face such difficult fuel mileage requirements (they reduce the weight in order to improve the mileage).

I can go on, but the theme is the same. The science is suspicious and the consequences to dramatic reforms could be huge and devastating on the economy. Freedom and economic prosperity could be victims of the global warming hysteria.

Starvation in Africa: Global Warming vs. Man Made Poverty

This morning I saw several headlines about how Global Warming will be particularly devastating on poor countries. Vast starvation will become common place in the years to come because of the "climate changes," these articles argue.

Ironically, I also recently stumbled on an article by the Heritage Foundation that noted that Zimbabwe had 7 million people facing starvation and it is one of the fastest declining countries of the last two decades. This is not proof of climate changes, however, but policy changes. Until the late 1970s the country then known as Rhodesia was the second richest country on the continent (following South Africa) and until the mid 1970s was a country who's economy was comparable to many countries in Western Europe in many ways.

If one studies climate and other issues since the late 70s when it comes to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), there has not been any of the dramatic changes that people would expect to cause the type of deprivation that is rampant. The real problem is the same ones facing most African countries: bad policies. Impoverished African countries suffer from common themes:

* Corrupt governments that put their own personal wealth as their single biggest priority.

* Price controls that forces farmers to charge less for their products than it costs to make them (this is a leading cause of starvation), people will not make food if they can't make money from it. This has been a rampant force behind the "droughts" that Ethiopia has suffered from over the years.

* Punitive tax laws that discourage economic growth.

* Often the total disregard of private property rights, forcing land to be redistributed without cause.

These are just a few of the examples that relate to Africa's poverty, although we will see more news stories pointing to climate change than the real culprit of policy change. This type of government created poverty has been around for decades in Africa. Blaming it on the environment makes these third world dictators victims and allows Liberals to promote their environmental agenda.

The headlines continually warn of global warming, but many in the United States are preparing for a White Easter, including some who live here in Texas (in the Panhandle). There is discussion by very few in the media about "global freezing" (see picture). But, don't expect such an idea to become rampant in the media, it doesn't meet the media or the global warming communities' objectives, which have more to do with government control than the environment.

When Sports Publications Take Themselves Too Seriously

Sports publications tend to want to shift to "serious" journalism whenever they can (e.g. current events news, business news, etc.). Keith Oberman of MSNBC used to be an anchor on ESPN and now he is one of the most liberal hosts on TV. About a week ago Sports Illustrated decided to take on the heady issue of climate change as a cover story of its magazine.

The cover was compelling (see photo, left), with water up to the thighs of an ace picture at the Florida Marlin's stadium. It is made to make us fear the future, not only of the weather and the planet, but of sports itself (something that is a real concern to armchair quarterbacks)

The magazine is full of speculation and is alarmist, but does not have much science, except for the anecdotes at the beginning of the story. I don't consider Sports Illustrated a serious source for science or current events (except for maybe steroid use of athletes). I actually want it to be the one place I can check out from all the drama dominating the news and where I can focus on my favorite past times.

I get my science, politics, and other current event information else where. I want my sports publications to do the important thing of keeping me entertained.

Why the Media Hates Good News

If you love conspiracy theories, you will love this post, but I think I have finally figured out why the media hates good news and loves bad. This subject has been of great interest to me and the following are just a few of the titles I have had on the subject:

* More Bad News for Those Who Love Bad News

* The Half Empty World of the News

* As the Economy Enjoys Good News, Critics Receive Bad

I have written several more and they all have a similar theme, the media lives off of bad news. Furthermore, I believe that the media makes a living off of bad news. There are some logical reasons for the media to like bad news.

People are not nearly as interested in good news as they are in bad. As Don Henley said in one of my classic rock favorites -- give us the dirty laundry! News, by design, is meant to warn, protect, and prepare. Most of the stories that fall in these categories, tend to be negative in nature. If the weather was perfect, who would need to know the forecast? If all neighborhoods were safe, there would be no stories about the parts of town to stay away from. And if all things were perfect, we would likely find the news really boring. This has been a huge force in driving the global warming hysteria.

More sinister than this, and this is where my conspiracy theory comes out, when the economy is performing well, many businesses don't invest nearly as much on advertising. When people can easily find clients, they are less likely to invest money in marketing. When the economy gets weaker they are often forced to make such expenditures or face terrible consequences. Bad news can foster a negative view of the economy, which can lead to an actual economic decline.

I know, it is a little far fetched, but when I talk to my associates in media many are actually glad about the possibility of a rumored economic decline and think things might be improving for their business. Call it what you will, but I call it the economics of bad news.

Run Gore Run

I am formally announcing my endorsement for Al Gore to run for President. As a Democrat, of course. Which means I will never vote for him, but he could do an excellent job of further dividing the Democrats for the '08 elections.

Since becoming something of a rock star and actually winning an Academy Award for best documentary (for his apocalyptic assessment of the environment called An Inconvenient Truth), many on the Left are hoping he might jump into the race. All of the Hollywood money that Barack Obama was receiving will quickly shift to "one of their own", in my opinion. (By the way, Gore has his own inconvenient truth, since the media is reporting that his own home consumes ten times the energy of the average house in the US. Can you spell hypocrite?).

Now we are being "tempted" by the idea on AOL, as they ask visitors whether or not Gore should run. Interestingly, he won overwhelmingly in the poll against Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary, both in the Democratic nomination and the general election (at least compared to the other mentioned Democrats in the survey). I hope Al Gore drinks from this Kool Aid and jumps in, but I doubt the poll is accurate. I know many people, like myself, voted in the survey and was favorable to Gore on every question. Why? Because the other candidates are already in and the more competition the Democrats have, the better it is for Republicans. At least that's the theory.

I want to encourage you to go vote for Gore too at the AOL poll. Let's give the Democrats some of the chaos Republicans have recently suffered from.

Winter Blast Puts a Chill on Global Warming

"The Coldest Temperatures in a Decade" was a lead story on the Fox News Channel this morning, describing the weather in the Midwest and Northeast. Later the announcer described the freezing temperatures in the New England area as "deadly."

The big discussion, when it comes to the environment, is that Global Warming is a "fact" and should not be disputed. Furthermore, the ones who caused it are the "industrialized nations who continue to use carbon fuels as we move rapidly to our demise." These are the stories we see and hear daily and the message our children get in the classroom as if it were gospel. However, a few decades ago, these same forces were concerned about Global Freezing. They claimed we were facing a future ice age, unless we turn around our energy and environmental policies.

The truth is, no one appears to know definitively what is happening and what needs to be done to "stop" it. Some scientists, like Richard Lindzen of MIT believes the changes of temperature are cyclical and have gone on for centuries. Many scientists who are pushing global warming make a living off of their alarmist announcements, because every study that scares people justifies funding of another study that will scare people more. Imagine if a group of scientists received a grant to study the "problem" and came back with, "it isn't a problem." How likely will they be to get more funding?

The United States has seen a huge improvement in its environmental situation and energy usage over the last few decades. The real sources of pollution are the emerging economies of India and China that are building factories, but their technologies lag far behind. The "solution" to "global warming" being advocated by experts are policies that will make countries, including the US, more poor by excessively taxing and regulating industry. Such policies will damage both the economy and the ecology. We need to be very careful about how we "solve" this problem and make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.