Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.
Arguments in favor of conserving energy have tended to focus on the environmental effects of reducing the use of fossil fuels. The benefits are widely believed to include the reduction of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.
But there are also compelling economic arguments in favor of going green. An economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, calculated that the nation’s most populous state greatly expanded its economy over a 35-year period by adopting energy-efficiency measures.
A study released Monday by David Roland-Holst found that California created 1.5 million jobs with a total payroll of $45 billion from 1972 through 2006 because residents of that state took money they saved on energy bills and spread it to other parts of the economy. He found that California reduced its per capita use of electricity to 40 percent below the national average, amounting to $56 billion in savings that were realized by requiring that appliances and buildings adhere to stringent energy-efficiency standards.
This allowed Californians to spend more money on “in-state, employment-intensive goods and services, whose supply chains also largely reside within the state, creating a ‘multiplier’ effect of job generation,” Roland-Holst wrote. His study was financed in part by Next 10, a nonprofit California organization that advocates increased use of green technologies.
These findings could be good news for Nevada, as this state becomes more aggressive in pursuit of wind, solar and geothermal energy production. The development of renewable energy resources will not only produce jobs directly, but should also help Nevadans save money by relying less on energy from other states, particularly during peak summer use.
If Nevadans reduce their energy use, that will translate to additional savings that could be plowed back into the local economy, as in California.
Those who continue to insist that we cannot absorb job losses in fossil fuel industries are simply living in the past because such losses will be matched by the economic engine that Californians have proven can work by going green.
The above editorial fails to mention the cost.
The brand new state-of-art Solar One plant southeast of Las Vegas generates energy at 2.5x's the cost of current energy.
Yes, the plant generates jobs but so would a coal plant.
Double our power bill would not be a great thing.
It would increase the cost of all goods and services.
It would reduce our quality of life.
Some people would lose jobs because there would be a shift in the economy in money from other goods and services to support the higher energy cost.
Would it not be better to have a broad mix of energy sources?
Would it not be wise to wait until solar and wind improve their technology and bring down their cost before going hog wild on building them?
We once experiment in expanding the sub-primes loan market so that more minorities can get into homes. That burned us really bad.
Will this grand experiment be the next government sponsored event to burn us?
hmmm,
either one or more of these things is possible:
1) The study doesn't take into account compliance costs
2) The study ignores direct subsidies as a cost
3) The study only looks at green market innovations such as energy efficient washers and light bulbs, not wind turbines and solar panels
4) Any one or more of the above, plus the SUN editors missed important caveats that explained what the study was actually about.
Udeboda,
The European policies of allowing people to create green energy and sell it to the grid at above market rates distorts the economy and creates waste.
In effect it destroys wealth and very likely harms growth and innovation.
Hey KDR81 and JFNance32:
This is a story about efficiency, which is something I would think you would appreciate. Do you demand efficiencies in government and support free markets and the accumulation of wealth? Then making our grid more efficient and looking for ways to cut energy use in our homes, businesses, and government buildings should be championed by both of you.
I just don't understand how either of you can take a nice op-ed from the LV Sun and knock the paper for things that have nothing to do with the piece. This is not a report about renewable energy or government subsidies. This is about a better way of doing things.
California's utilities are de-coupled, meaning that basically, they make money by providing reliable service, not producing and selling energy. Apply this same thinking to government, that it should provide efficient and reliable service, not just come up with ways to always expand for the sake of expanding. Makes sense right?
Also, I wouldn't try the "shareholder and profits argument" that distinguishes the utilities from government. I only draw comaparisons so as to create an argument that I would hope you would see fit to agree with.
There are public and private utilities across the country that are both run well and run poorly. By guaranteeing a rate of return to the utility (de-coupling profits from sales), you protect their value and allow them to grow, albeit, at a pace that ensures reliability and fewer price spikes.
You two probably sit around a table at Denny's drinking coffee, trying to come up with these brilliant arguments. Your opposition to using fewer resources and protecting the public's health seems dim. You basically oppose the creation of 1000s of jobs and the creation of new inventions that will in turn create even more wealth for our community. All in the name of "anti-environmentalism", which is such a weak and narrow position to take anyways.
Or do you just sit around and say "meh" to each other, then like automatrons, go back to your keyboards and just spew out nonsense.
Either scenario seems likely.