Dalton’s ‘green’ jobs a myth

Toronto Sun Editorial
Premier Dalton McGuinty recently challenged PC Leader Tim Hudak to look green energy workers “in the eyes” and tell them “I’m killing your future.” We, challenge McGuinty to do this: Look all Ontario workers in the eyes and tell them why you’re killing three times as many of their jobs through your reckless public subsidy of green energy.

Consider these examples from across Europe, much further down the road on this issue than Ontario.

In April, 2009 economists at Spain’s Juan Carlos University concluded Spain — touted as a global leader in green energy — lost 2.2 jobs in its economy for every green job it created. Only 10% of the green jobs turned out to be permanent.

The estimated cost to taxpayers for every green job Spain created was 571,138 euros ($770,781 Cdn). For every wind industry job, over one million euros ($1,349,554 Cdn).

In May, 2010, researchers at Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found, “the same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector, would create 6.9 or 4.8 if invested in industry, or the economy in general, respectively … green investments are an ineffective policy for job creation … to the extent (they are) aimed at creating employment … it is a wrong policy choice.”

In March, 2011, Verso Economics, studying green energy investments in the U.K. concluded, “the report’s key finding is that for every job created in the U.K. in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost” and that “employment figures cited by those promoting renewable energy are often greatly exaggerated, exceeding official employment figures covering the whole of the energy sector.”

Finally as Canada’s Fraser Institute noted in May, in the face of McGuinty’s claims his green energy policies will create 50,000 jobs by the end of 2012: “The job counts trumpeted by the Ontario government in support of the program are vacuous. Counting the jobs created … is meaningless unless the jobs destroyed … are also considered … the government has failed to take into account the jobs destroyed through higher electricity prices to small businesses and consumers.”

In other words, McGuinty’s election promises on green energy job creation are as reliable as his promises in 2003, 2007 and 2011 not to raise your taxes.

12 thoughts on “Dalton’s ‘green’ jobs a myth

  1. More ‘CRAPitalism’ from McGuinty…The HST Tax was support to result in job creation to….In McGuintySPEAK it means that you will have to get a part-time job to pay for these new taxes….That’s what Mcguinty means by job creation….

  2. Are you up for a head ache?

    McGuinty’s ‘Green Jobs’ – Myth – Advisor:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFjhhEaj11U

    A first for Van – June 24 – 2009
    He gives me a mind cramp! blah – blah – blah

    p.s. Van has disappeared – good.
    p.p.s. did he just say – our sisters and brothers in China?

    • Van Jones is a proud communist….his own words, not speculation.
      and he’s very much active. Hasn’t disappeared, simply relocated

  3. Update!
    Jobs speech………
    Whitehouse – Sept 9 – 2011
    http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse

    Students @ the Whitehouse
    ….still looking for green jobs……….or, any job!
    but, impressed – to be @ the Whitehouse.

    p.s. in the previous video – did he say – top down – bottom up? Cheers!

    • from your link Barb:
      Re: government masterminds!
      It turns out that the entire project is not financially feasible and naive calculations had been made. Such a plant requires huge quantities of wood and biomass to operate. All the handling, power, equipment and effort needed to process the raw material ended up consuming much of the energy that was produced. The result: an economic fiasco. Your government masterminds at work.

      Too funny!
      McGuinty Liberals still forging ahead – towards the cliff!

    • What if there is a poor corn crop year? Would not a year’s supply of corn on hand be a better situation? It’s an unwise policy to use this much of the food supply to make fuel.
      Killing frosts are predicted this week for North American crop areas where much of the grain is grown.

  4. With regards to the hype of IWT the words “naive calculations” sums why they exist. When factual numbers are used no net benefit to provide power to the grid can be recognized to be worth either the financial or environmental costs.

  5. As Christina Blizzard so eloquently stated in a column this week regarding Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals:

    “What you really have to worry about with the Liberals is what’s NOT in their platform.
    Does anyone remember them saying they were planning to bring in another massive tax hike in the shape of the HST?
    Anyone?
    That’s the thing with Lib. You don’t need to worry about what’s in their platform — their failure-to-deliver rate is high.
    No, be fearful — very fearful — gentle voters, about what they DON’T promise.”

  6. McGuinty assumes via the Samsung deal that Ontario will
    become North America’s green manufacturing hub. Fails to
    realize that most jurisdictions that promote green energy also
    follow the same economic protectionist plan of promoting
    localized component content. By the time Samsung builds
    these manufacturing facilities, the green energy boom in Ontario
    will hopefully be over. Any of McGuinty’s so called green energy
    jobs will be very shortlived.

  7. Re: Lost Green Jobs, below is the text of a letter to Toronto Star editor, sent yesterday but not published; among other things, they may not have appreciated the criticism.

    There’s no such thing as a free (renewables) lunch.

    In writing about the Samsung deal, the Star does the public a disservice by referring only to the $ 110 million amount and describing it as the “taxpayer (subsidy) over 25 years”. This number is in fact only the economic adder for the deal, which represents less than 2% of the total cost to Ontario electricity customers. To paint an accurate picture of the financial impact on the province, the discussion should go well beyond the economic adder. Aegent Energy Advisors’ analysis of the deal indicates the likely total near–term additional cost is about $ 800 million PER YEAR. Included in this number is the estimated annual impact of the economic adder – about $ 15 million.

    The annual cost of the Samsung deal for a typical household will be about $ 65 per year. Considering all renewables planned over the next few years, the total annual impact per household will be about $ 200. With about 4.5 million households in the province, the total annual residential impact will be about $ 900 million, meaning households will have this amount less to spend on other things. Businesses will also be impacted and will have a minimum of $ 1.6 billion less per year to spend on new hires, more efficient equipment, etc.

Comments are closed.