Coming out of The New York Times of all places, “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.” Unsurprisingly, it has the green groups riled up.

A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.

The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry. Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on as homeowners balked at the upfront costs.

(Note that it took seven months, as in 210 days or almost 60% of a year, to figure out wage standards for an industry. Good enough for government work.)

This isn’t the first report on the green jobs fiasco. There are numerous reports of outrageous amounts of money spent “creating” very few jobs. There are reports of stimulus-receiving green-tech factories closing (or moving abroad), some after receiving praise from Obama himself.  Could the failure of promoting ‘green’-jobs have been predicted? Well, you could have looked at Spain, or Germany.

Finally, does the Times seem pessimistic on the results of the Brookings Institute study? Because that’s not the impression I got from reading certain other blogs, which loudly cheered the alleged 2.7 million green jobs. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that a large portion of those jobs are in fields not traditionally seen as representing the future of green-technology, such as waste management or mass transit services. It’s also worth noting that the ‘number of jobs saved or created’ should be secondary to the amount of wealth produced. The fewer workers necessary to produce this (again, contra the green blogs who snub the oil industry for its efficiency), the more workers freed up to focus on other parts of the economy.

It is rumored that President Obama is set to announce another attempt at job creation later this fall. Let us hope that he avoids the ‘not actually shovel ready’ green jobs approach and instead focuses on liberating the economy.

This is the new claim being thrown around by renewable energy proponents with supporting data by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Check the link here:

During the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy sources (biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) provided 2.245 quadrillion Btus of energy or 11.73 percent of U.S. energy production. More significantly, energy production from renewable energy sources in 2011 was 5.65 percent more than that from nuclear power, which provided 2.125 quadrillion Btus and has remained largely unchanged in recent years. Energy from renewable sources is now 77.15 percent of that from domestic crude oil production, with the gap closing rapidly.

Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), production of renewable energy, including hydropower, has increased by 15.07 percent compared to the first quarter of 2010, and by 25.07 percent when compared to the first quarter of 2009. Among the renewable energy sources, biomass/biofuels accounted for 48.06 percent, hydropower for 35.41 percent, wind for 12.87 percent, geothermal for 2.45 percent, and solar for 1.16 percent.

It’s questionable how well nuclear energy would survive without federal subsidies, but its worth pointing out the banality of what is being claimed above, as its clearly being used to continue the green assault against nuclear energy in favor of other sources that rely on even more federal subsidies. From the EIA report, nuclear energy produced 2.125 quadrillion Btus in the first 3 quarters of 2011. A combination of hydro-electric power, geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind produced 2.245 quadrillion Btus.

Breaking total ‘renewable energy’ production down percentage wise, we have (roughly):

• Hydro-electric: .795/2.245 =  ~35%
• Geothermal: .055/2.245 = 2.5%
• Solar/PV: .026/2.245 = 1.16%
• Wind: .289/2.245 = 12.9%
• Biomass: 1.079/2.245 = 48%

Roughly 83% (biomass and hydro) of the ‘renewable’ energy touted above isn’t favored by many present day environmentalists. Hydro-electric power production, while having low carbon dioxide emissions, upsets environmentalists for other reasons — so throw that out, noting that hydro was not included in California’s renewable energy targets. Wood-biomass is hated by many environmentalists as well, and ethanol (included by the EIA as a subset of biomass) is hated by almost everyone. Roughly 90% of the energy included in biomass came from those sources.

So if you add the remaining energy options, the ones that are favored by the Obama Administration showered with subsidies, you get 0.37 quadrillion Btus (from wind, solar, geothermal — which doesn’t receive the same attention as wind/solar), representing roughly 17% of the energy produced by nuclear power in the United States, and a much smaller fraction of total energy production.

Today The New York Times ran two dueling opinion pieces featuring Robert Bryce, author of a number of books, and Tom Friedman, who chose this column to unleash his inner Paul Ehrlich. The latter column will make regular NYT readers anxious and depressed, the former will make them angry.

Bryce argues that though wind and solar farms do not produce emissions, they require a whole lot of land, significant natural resource inputs, and new transmission lines. He believes that these shortfalls are under appreciated by renewable energy proponents, and the scaling of renewable energy might have other environmental consequences. California appears to have plenty of land, but that is to meet a 33% renewables goal, which is unlikely to satisfy environmentalists, and California has much more land than other states. The takeaway is that all energy choices have their tradeoffs:

The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.

Friedman, on the other hand, penned a bizarre column foretelling a rapture-esque doomsday if humanity does not change its cancerous, consumption heavy ways:

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?

…

We will realize, he [Paul Gilding, author of The Great Disruption] predicts, that the consumer-driven growth model is broken and we have to move to a more happiness-driven growth model, based on people working less and owning less. “How many people,” Gilding asks, “lie on their death bed and say, ‘I wish I had worked harder or built more shareholder value,’ and how many say, ‘I wish I had gone to more ballgames, read more books to my kids, taken more walks?’ To do that, you need a growth model based on giving people more time to enjoy life, but with less stuff.”

Sounds utopian? Gilding insists he is a realist.

“We are heading for a crisis-driven choice,” he says. “We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we’re not stupid.”

It’s easy to get in the news through predicting doomsday (see here), but humanity has been forced to listen to this warning time and time again:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over.  In the 1970′s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.  At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to “stretch” the carrying capacity of the earth by increasing food production.  But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control.  Population control is the conscious regulation of the numbers of human beings to meet the needs, not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.

Nothing could be more misleading to our children than our present affluent society.  They will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960′s are dead.  As the most powerful nation in the world today, and its largest consumer, the United States cannot stand isolated.  We are today involved in the events leading to famine; tomorrow we may be destroyed by its consequences.

- Paul Ehrlich, 1968

And yet humanity is still here, living longer, healthier lives than the past.

I almost choked on a complimentary pretzel during a recent flight when I read the final page of the April edition of Scientific American, this country’s premier science periodical for mainstream audiences. The page was titled “Clean Tech Rising” and the subtitle read, “China outshines the U.S. as the top investor, while Europe is a close third.” It featured bar graphs indicating what different nations are spending on so-called clean energy, like biofuel, wind, and solar power. The attendant text warned that “The U.S. has been a major player in clean energy technologies, but China is now the leader.” It recommended that, “…stepping up U.S. investment could enhance the country’s competitiveness…”

Now, it might or might not be true that China is spending more than the U.S. on “clean” energy. The ruling Communist government is not known for openness and transparency, so I take “official” investment data with a grain of salt. However, it is unequivocal that the Chinese are building coal power plants at an unprecedented rate. Estimates vary, from 4 new coal plants every week to 1 plant every week. All we know for sure is that coal, and not renewable energy, is powering the Middle Kingdom’s meteoric economic growth. This is why China, which became the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases only three years ago, now has a carbon footprint 40 percent bigger than the next largest emitter (the United States).

The task of science is to present the truth, no matter how it might offend one’s sensibilities. By highlighting only China’s clean energy investment, Scientific American’s presents an unscientific half truth. It then compounds this error by making a policy recommendation (“Stepping up U.S. investment [in renewable energy] could enhance the country’s competitiveness…”) based on this half truth. The whole truth is that China’s competitiveness is predicated on its building coal power faster than has ever been done in human history.

Using Scientific American’s logic, the inescapable conclusion is that the U.S. should embrace coal, too, in order to enhance our competitiveness on the international market.

In 2007, the Spanish government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero passed a law that guaranteed solar power producers a price for power more than 10 times the 2007 average wholesale price paid to conventional energy suppliers. The generous subsidies sparked a rush to solar, and taxpayer costs mounted. Today, the government owes $172 billion to renewable energy investors, but it doesn’t have the means to meet its obligations in the face of rising budget deficits. As a result, more than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster.