Video: A simple solution to create hundreds of thousands of jobs (not costing $4,851,904.09 per Obama “green job”)

Via Tina Korbe, so simple even a caveman can get it, but not a liberal (or perhaps they get it but won't do it anyway):

As for the cost per Obama "green job" in the headline, via Mark Steyn: ‘Pass This Jobs Bill!’

On Thursday night, the president told a Democratic fundraiser in Washington that the Pass My Jobs Bill bill would create 1.9 million new jobs. What kind of jobs are created by this kind of magical thinking? Well, they’re “green jobs” — and, if we know anything about “green jobs,” it’s that they take a lot of green. German taxpayers subsidize “green jobs” in their wind-power industry to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars per worker per year: $250,000 per “green job” would pay for a lot of real jobs, even in the European Union. Last year, it was revealed that the Spanish government paid $800,000 for every “green job” on a solar-panel assembly line. I had assumed carelessly that this must be a world record in terms of taxpayer subsidy per fraudulent “green job.” But it turns out those cheapskate Spaniards with their lousy nickel-and-dime “green jobs” subsidy just weren’t thinking big. The Obama administration’s $38.6 billion “clean technology” program was supposed to “create or save” 65,000 jobs. Half the money has been spent — $17.2 billion — and we have 3,545 jobs to show for it. That works out to an impressive $4,851,904.09 per “green job.” A world record! Take that, you loser Spaniards! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

So, based on previous form, Obama’s prediction of 1.9 million new jobs will result in the creation of 92,000 new jobs, mostly in the Federal Department of Green Jobs Grant Applications.

Ouch. Read the rest.

Shocker: Green energy and jobs will cripple the UK economy

It's not green jobs themselves, but rather government pushing them when many simply are not ready and cannot compete in the free market. It would be like trying to push personal computers onto consumers in the 60's when they were the size of refrigerators. But give technology a chance to mature in the research lab and before long it not only competes but wins out over older tech. It' a simple concept that the liberal ruling class - always obsessed with picking winners and losers - doesn't get. Or maybe gets but turns a blind eye to the truth (wouldn't be the first time). The predictable results in Britain: Green energy and jobs will cripple the UK economy

The UK's headlong rush into renewable energy – one ignored by the rest of the world – will hit British jobs and then general incomes, an economic study finds.

The report, The Myth of Green Jobs by economist Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University, examines the long-term impacts of subsidising expensive "green" renewable energy projects. It says that if the UK continues to do so, it will lose 2 to 3 per cent GDP a year for around 20 years. If reducing CO₂ emissions is your goal, says Hughes, your economy really can't afford renewable energy.

How does he get to this figure?

He explains that one reason is that labour inputs are a cost, not a benefit. This is common sense: the goal for a productive economy is to have the highest value creation at the lowest cost. If your workforce is mostly employed doing the basics, such as cultivating manglewurzels, it is going to have fewer doctors, teachers or rocket scientists. North Korea is a good example. Or, for the same cost, you can have a cleaner environment.

I'll set aside for now that that last statement isn't exactly true as you are simply trading one type of pollution for another, in addition to the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. But anyway.

(Hughes uses the example of two crops, one of which requires 50 hours of labour per hectare, and one that requires 100 hours of labour.)

"All forms of green energy tend to be substantially more expensive than conventional energy, so there is a trade-off between higher costs and lower emissions," writes Hughes. "This trade-off is not specific to green energy, since there are many ways of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Hence, the starting point of any assessment of such programmes should be the total cost per tonne of carbon dioxide saved – or its equivalent – which will be incurred by relying upon different measures or policies to reduce emissions."

Read the whole thing, but the obsession here is with CO2 is the problem here, and after that the pushing of technologies not yet ready to compete on the open market, rather than much simpler and economical technology that conserves energy. More from Right Wing News and Pirate's Cove

California Mountain Snake Arrested At White House

She's lucky she didn't lose an eye: Daryl Hannah Arrested at White House

How about we ban Hollywood moonbats instead?

Much-arrested Hollywood actress Daryl Hannah was taken away from the White House in restraints Tuesday afternoon.

Hannah was taking part in an ongoing protest against the unbuilt Keystone XL oil pipeline.

"Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your freedom for a greater freedom," Hannah said in Lafayette Park before her arrest.  "And we want to be free from the horrible death and destruction that fossil fuels cause, and have a clean energy future."

With dozens of others, Hannah sat on the sidewalk in front of the White House and refused three requests from the Park Police to move.

The group organizing the protest, Tar Sands Action, has said the Keystone pipeline -- which will stretch from Canada to the Gulf -- is among the most important environmental decisions that confront the president.

I wonder what her running carbon footprint is that includes movies with huge budgets and even bigger sets. How much fossil fuel energy went into making all of her movies? HT: memeorandum 

UPDATE: Sean Hannity Interviews Daryl Hannah After Being Arrested In DC For Civil Disobedience

UPDATE #2: Video: Ethical oil

No doubt you’ve seen coverage of environmentalist activists converging on the nation’s capital to protest a proposed oil pipeline — the Keystone XL — that would run from Canada to Texas. B-lister Mark Ruffalo even lent his considerable celebrity to the cause in this video. But a new ad asks an interesting question: Why would those enviros rather bankroll Saudi Arabia’s oppression of women than allow the pipeline to run through the United States?