Comments on: Heritage Foundation pushes ‘completely untrue’ attack on clean-energy jobs with a panel bought and paid for by dirty energy

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:59:55 +0000

Where are the spanish unemployment stats from 2008 and 2009? It’s like the present was selectively left out of the information here.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:57:33 +0000

One question for anybody – Why did Spain reduce corporate tax rates recently? To encourage industrial growth? Because of soaring unemployment? I find it interesting how Studies funded by Exxon Mobil are considered to be skewed, but those funded by Media matters are supposed to be neutral? To say that Media Matters is neutral on this issue is ridiculous.

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:54:38 +0000

I am a scientist and know that conflict-of-interest is a big concern for many. However, the potential for conflict-of-interest does not in and of itself discredit someone. Just as someone who receives money from Exxon may be biased against alternative energy, someone who does not receive money from Exxon may be biased against fossil fuel energy. Furthermore, it is often ignored that people who receive money from government grants tend to favor more government intrusion… but this is not called conflict of interest.

One final point – I seriously doubt that Exxon is not benefiting from clean energy if that’s where they think the money is. These companies are not ideologically tied to oil; they are tied to making money and pleasing stock holders. If oil looks like it will not keep paying bills, I guarantee that they will (and already have) switched at least part of their efforts away from oil.

By: Tracey de Morsella

Tracey de Morsella — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:34:17 +0000

I am so glad that someone from Spain is speaking up. A few weeks ago, I wrote an article debunking Calzada’s extremely flawed study and a “climate denier/ green jobs denier” pointed out to me that Spain’s unemployment rate was 14.2%. I knew that unemployment has been extremely high in Spain, since the restoration of democracy thirty years ago, but I did not know what the numbers were. My research revealed that even now, unemployment is lower then it was before the green jobs program was launched. Before the green jobs program was put in place, going back to 1980, there are eighteen years when unemployment was higher in Spain than it is now, with unemployment rates ranging between (24% and 15%). The highest years were between 1993 and 1997 with employment ranging between 24% and 20%. However between 2001 and 2007, unemployment has ranged between 10.5 and 8.5%) still pretty high, but historically low for Spain.

José María Roig Aldasoro’s letter lends credence to my view that the renewable energy programs in Spain likely prevented the unemployment rate from climbing even higher.

Another extremely relevant point not addressed in the study is the bursting of Spain’s humongous real estate boom and its impact on employment. During the height of the bubble, Spain accounted for 1/3 of all Europe’s employment, when interest rates rose and the real estate bubble burst, unemployment soared. Similar bubbles had similar results to some degree in Canada, the UK, the US and a few other places. Economists predicted this outcome a few years ago and did not include in green jobs programs as a major factor. What is interesting is that Calzada does not even mention the real estate boom and bust as even being a factor in the rise in unemployment

There are other issues not taken into consideration. This is a seriously flawed “study”.

By: Leland Palmer

Leland Palmer — Tue, 05 May 2009 05:41:10 +0000

The money that ExxonMobil gives directly seems to be a small fraction of the total money given to causes that ExxonMobil favors.

From mediatransparency:

Total Grants to Heritage Foundation, The
Total $ Granted: $ 66,376,537

The creation of the influential Heritage Foundation was probably the single most important event in the development of a national network of conservative policy- oriented institutions. Heritage was founded in 1973 by the anti-labor, racist, homophobic brewery magnate Joseph Coors together with prominent right-wing activist Paul Weyrich and wealthy right- wingers Richard Scaife and Edward Noble. The initial funding came from Coors ($250,000), Scaife ($900,000), and “significant sums” from Noble. Large corporations, including Gulf Oil, also made early contributions. In the early 1980s, Heritage reported that “87 top corporations” were supporters. By 1995, it had an annual budget of $25 million.

Looking at the mediatransparency database, the funding looks coordinated, almost as if it were dictated by one central agency.

By: Pangolin

Pangolin — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:32:44 +0000

Green jobs offend two of the most sacred cows of corporate conservatives; captive energy consumers and captive labor market. A house with solar panels on it’s roof and a paid mortgage can practically thumb it’s nose at the market economy with a good garden and a bicycle. Likewise, skilled solar installers and wind energy technicians can command good wages that cannot be easily diminished as they will both be fields where training and experience will overwhelm the ability to easily replace labor.

Once installed individual homeowners could hire individual solar panel technicians to maintain their systems directly. Throw in an electric bicycle or neighborhood electric vehicle and Exxon wouldn’t have so much as a single thread to pull on.

Conservatism in the US is about nothing if it isn’t about maintaining authority/dependency relationships. Green jobs go a long way towards freeing people from dependency upon corporations for services and employment.

By: Reply

Reply — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:26:59 +0000

Wonderful rapid response Joe.

By: Palin

Palin — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:03:36 +0000

At least, all the money is not for their executives.