The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Fascinating report here in terms of job creation and environmental policy. Over the last 8 years, the U.S. has gone from an exporter of environmental equipment and technology to an importer of it. In their data, this is heavily due to manufacturing of electrical equipment, i.e. wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels, and high-tech pollution management equipment etc. moving from being built in the U.S. to being built overseas, particularly in Europe.

I wonder what happened around year 2000 that made things change?

[southsider2k5]

Fascinating report here in terms of job creation and environmental policy. Over the last 8 years, the U.S. has gone from an exporter of environmental equipment and technology to an importer of it. In their data, this is heavily due to manufacturing of electrical equipment, i.e. wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels, and high-tech pollution management equipment etc. moving from being built in the U.S. to being built overseas, particularly in Europe.

I wonder what happened around year 2000 that made things change?

 

That is pretty interesting to me, because even with energy prices going up during that time, consumers seemingly still aren't interested. But that won't stop the government from telling us what we have to have, right?

[Balta1701]

That is pretty interesting to me, because even with energy prices going up during that time, consumers seemingly still aren't interested. But that won't stop the government from telling us what we have to have, right?

Or...that just says that the governments in places like Europe and Asia are actively supporting the development of those technologies, and their support has allowed those governments to offer those technologies at a cheaper price than American companies, where the government spent 8 years actively trying to prevent their development. Thus, the jobs that could have been created here were instead moving overseas.

 

Doesn't say anything about the total amount being spent, it's says whether there's a trade deficit or not in that industry.

[Balta1701]

In fact, now that i go to their actual data, I can actively prove you're completely wrong. Over that time period, the U.S.'s green tech exports have grown significantly, increasing in size by 5.4% annually on average. The difference is...U.S. imports of green technology have grown by 8.7% annually. Over the period of 10+ years, that difference in growth rate makes up the difference.

 

The market for green technologies, therefore, has grown at over 10% per year.

[kapkomet]

George W. Bush sucks ass. So do Republicans.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

In fact, now that i go to their actual data, I can actively prove you're completely wrong. Over that time period, the U.S.'s green tech exports have grown significantly, increasing in size by 5.4% annually on average. The difference is...U.S. imports of green technology have grown by 8.7% annually. Over the period of 10+ years, that difference in growth rate makes up the difference.

 

The market for green technologies, therefore, has grown at over 10% per year.

 

And yet American companies aren't building it. In other words, there isn't any money in it, just like I have said all along.

[Balta1701]

And yet American companies aren't building it. In other words, there isn't any money in it, just like I have said all along.

So why are the Europeans building it?

 

It's almost as if having a government totally opposed to the existence of said industries might be doing something to make it unprofitable. (I.e. classic example, the wind power subsidies that appeared one year and disappeared the next over a period of about 8 years. And before you say "Why do they need subsidies!" don't pretend Coal and Oil aren't heavily subsidized in their own way).

[southsider2k5]

So why are the Europeans building it?

 

It's almost as if having a government totally opposed to the existence of said industries might be doing something to make it unprofitable. (I.e. classic example, the wind power subsidies that appeared one year and disappeared the next over a period of about 8 years. And before you say "Why do they need subsidies!" don't pretend Coal and Oil aren't heavily subsidized in their own way).

 

So what exactly are they doing to make it unprofitable, besides not paying people to do it, which doesn't make it economically profitable?

[mr_genius]

Fascinating report here in terms of job creation and environmental policy. Over the last 8 years, the U.S. has gone from an exporter of environmental equipment and technology to an importer of it. In their data, this is heavily due to manufacturing of electrical equipment, i.e. wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels, and high-tech pollution management equipment etc. moving from being built in the U.S. to being built overseas, particularly in Europe.

I wonder what happened around year 2000 that made things change?

 

The sad thing is I believe the Green Collar jobs that are being promised to people will likely end up being outsourced. Research / Development, engineering, tech installation, back office work, book keepign, ect are all areas targeted for outsourcing. A corporation could even bring in outsourcing companies to install solar panels and windmills.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Feds Hope To Have 13 New Solar Power Plants On Public Lands By 2010

 

In a plan announced on Tuesday, federal agencies will work with western leaders to designate tracts of U.S. public lands in the West as prime zones for utility-scale solar energy development; fund environmental studies; open new solar energy permitting offices, and; speed reviews of industry proposals.

 

Under the zoning portion of the initiative, 24 tracts of Bureau of Land Management land located in six western states, known as Solar Energy Study Areas, would be evaluated for their environmental and resource suitability for commercial-scale solar energy production. Those areas selected would be available for projects capable of producing 10 or more megawatts of electricity. The Solar Energy Study Areas (maps) located in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah encompass about 670,000 acres.

 

Speaking alongside Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Secretary Salazar vowed to have 13 “commercial-scale” solar projects under construction by the end of 2010. He set a goal of producing a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seriously folks, I feel like I have to say this again as no one seems to see it, on either side of the aisle. The growth this country saw in the 80's, 90's and 00's was NOT MANUFACTURING. It was in areas where the US gets to the leading edge in technology, get it out the door in initial manufacturing, then move on to the next great thing, leaving secondary manufacturing growth to go overseas. We are not capable of competing with the costs structures that countries like India and China can output technical hardware and software at. Therefore, we have to be at the FRONT OF THE LINE.

 

That is the most important aspect to growing these "green" jobs - more important even than getting off foreign oil or reducing pollution or avoiding future resource risk, all of which are very important. The world is about to launch into a huge need for this stuff, its just starting - if we get out in front, we win BIG. If we fall behind, we're in deep doo-doo. Its that simple.

 

We need to invest in this now to get the payoff later, or we'll be the ones paying later.

 

[lostfan]

And yet American companies aren't building it. In other words, there isn't any money in it, just like I have said all along.

Of course there's money in it. Or rather there will be.

[NorthSideSox72]

The sad thing is I believe the Green Collar jobs that are being promised to people will likely end up being outsourced. Research / Development, engineering, tech installation, back office work, book keepign, ect are all areas targeted for outsourcing. A corporation could even bring in outsourcing companies to install solar panels and windmills.

They will eventually, yes. But not at first. And being there first is big money, all up front, then residual on the back end from patents and management - high level design and engineering jobs, managing the outsourced work.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course there's money in it. Or rather there will be.

Of course there is, there is a ton of demand out there for this stuff. Its just a matter of deciding if you want to be leading edge - higher investment risk but higher return - or wait until the market grows. If you want, you can't keep up on cost, so you just became a buyer, which is a mistake.

 

[kapkomet]

Of course there is, there is a ton of demand out there for this stuff. Its just a matter of deciding if you want to be leading edge - higher investment risk but higher return - or wait until the market grows. If you want, you can't keep up on cost, so you just became a buyer, which is a mistake.

There's a ton of demand? If there were, then people would pay the price, no matter what it is, right? I mean, basic econ here. There's not as much demand as the green president would like you to think. He's trying to create demand.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Seriously folks, I feel like I have to say this again as no one seems to see it, on either side of the aisle. The growth this country saw in the 80's, 90's and 00's was NOT MANUFACTURING. It was in areas where the US gets to the leading edge in technology, get it out the door in initial manufacturing, then move on to the next great thing, leaving secondary manufacturing growth to go overseas. We are not capable of competing with the costs structures that countries like India and China can output technical hardware and software at. Therefore, we have to be at the FRONT OF THE LINE.

 

That is the most important aspect to growing these "green" jobs - more important even than getting off foreign oil or reducing pollution or avoiding future resource risk, all of which are very important. The world is about to launch into a huge need for this stuff, its just starting - if we get out in front, we win BIG. If we fall behind, we're in deep doo-doo. Its that simple.

 

We need to invest in this now to get the payoff later, or we'll be the ones paying later.

This right here is why our economy will NEVER be what it was ever again. You cannot experience real growth in the private sector without taking some of the money away from the government side. You have to produce stuff to make that happen. I know that our green president is trying to make a demand for this stuff, but if people think this is our ticket to economic growth, good luck with all that.

 

 

[lostfan]

There's a ton of demand? If there were, then people would pay the price, no matter what it is, right? I mean, basic econ here. There's not as much demand as the green president would like you to think. He's trying to create demand.

Yet

[kapkomet]

Yet

Like I said... and like SS keeps trying to say - we're being forced into an artificial demand. That doesn't work well.

[StrangeSox]

Like I said... and like SS keeps trying to say - we're being forced into an artificial demand. That doesn't work well.

 

On the other side of the argument, you can say that the cost of any sort of carbon energy and the amount of disposable, throw-away goods we consume are artificially priced low because their true environmental impact isn't captured in the price.

[lostfan]

Like I said... and like SS keeps trying to say - we're being forced into an artificial demand. That doesn't work well.

Depends on what you're talking about. It's not the same thing as the government getting involved in the auto industry, etc. There's GOING to be a renewable energy market. The question is when.

[BearSox]

lol, I love how we are now having those compact florescent light bulbs shoved down our throats as well. Those light bulbs cause a greater risk to the environment because of how much mercury they have inside them. Did you know if you break one of those in your homes, you'd have to spend between 3-4 thousand in clean up costs because of how dangerous a level of mercury was released.

[StrangeSox]

There's not that much mercury in a CFL. It's something on the order of a few mg. Less than an older thermometer.

 

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

[BearSox]

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57426

 

For the Maine study, researchers shattered 65 compact fluorescents to test air quality and cleanup methods. They found that, in many cases, immediately after the bulb was broken – and sometimes even after a cleanup was attempted – levels of mercury vapor exceeded federal guidelines for chronic exposure by as much as 100 times.

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213

 

So, last month, the Prospect, Maine, resident went out and bought two dozen CFLs and began installing them in her home. One broke. A month later, her daughter's bedroom remains sealed off with plastic like the site of a hazardous materials accident, while Bridges works on a way to pay off a $2,000 estimate by a company specializing in environmentally sound cleanups of the mercury inside the bulb.

 

There's more and more stories just like these.... My favorite is the cleanup steps you must take if you break one. Here's a clip on what you are recommended to do if you break the bulb (it is Glenn Beck and it's a huge joke, but that's what you're suppossed to do):

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'll prefer to stick with the good old lightbulbs, even if I don't save money. This way, I avoid any dangers with mercury, and avoid the incredible task of cleaning one up if you break it... And I'd prefer it if the government didn't force me to use something I don't want to use.

Edited July 1, 2009 by BearSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Like I said... and like SS keeps trying to say - we're being forced into an artificial demand. That doesn't work well.

Did you just ignore what Balta and others have posted, that the amount of purchasing of this sort of equipment is skyrocketing? The facts are quite clear, demand is increasing at a very large pace, and there is zero question that this is where things will continue to go. The only questions are about which methods work best, what the pace will be like, what countries do which first, etc.

 

There is absolutely nothing artificial about that. Its real demand. It just doesn't fit in the nice little nothing-changes box that some people want to stay in.

 

[StrangeSox]

Please stop relying on anything printed by WND for pretty much any information, but especially anything environmental.

 

The "Maine study" isn't cited or even really named. There's not that much involved in cleaning it up. There's no reason to seal off a bedroom permanently because of one broken bulb. Perhaps she was given bad advice and an exaggerated quote. The rest of the article just reads like polemics against CFL's, which is no surprise because WND prints nothing but polemics.