With Donald Trump in the news for pulling out of the Paris Accord, we should look at this global move to renewable energy, and be concerned. Awhile back I wrote about the uselessness of self driving auto. It was pretty easy to prove the wasted efforts there. But the Renewable Energy effort is more complex to decipher. 

There are statements that come from pro renewable energy writers that border on untruthfulness regarding job creation. Even authors use the following quote to defend the net gain in jobs. But reading the quotation carefully, we see that the authors of the study cited are talking about temporary, not permanent, jobs:

There is a reasonable degree of evidence that in general, renewable energy and energy efficiency are more labor-intensive in terms of electricity produced than either coal- or gas-fired power plant,” the report said. “This implies that at least in the short-term, building new renewable generation capacity or investing in greater energy efficiency to avoid the need for new generation would create more jobs than investing in an equivalent level of fossil fuel-fired generation. … Therefore, if investment in new power generation is needed, renewables and energy efficiency can contribute to short-term job creation so long as the economy is experiencing an output gap, such as is the case during and shortly after recession.  However, long-term impacts will depend on how these investments ripple through the economy, and in particular the impact on disposable household incomes.

Once the infrastructure is put into place, jobs will likely be far less plentiful than in the oil patch and related industry now. Yet the author at Econowatch concludes that the jobs issue is not the most important issue. But for Americans, it is the most important issue. You just have to word the polling correctly.

Keep in mind that these green industries are subsidized even more than is the oil industry. These industries are a cash cow for big companies, and for Elon Musk, the guru of renewable tech. The subsidies will surely mean higher prices for heating and cooling. The Heritage Foundation has studied the potential costs of the Paris Accords to GDP: