[bigbob]

These are silly comparisons. The automobile industry killed jobs in the horse-and-buggy industry too. 30 years ago no one was burdened with a monthly bill for internet service of a phone that fits in your pocket either.

I’m fine with discussing renewable energy on the basis of technology or business model sustainability. Some of it makes sense, a lot doesn’t. But the fact that Obama gets it wrong doesn’t justify using equally crappy logic.

[PDMiller]

The “crappy logic” comes from a study done by King Juan Carlos University in Spain, not a partisan hack think tank. I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the details of that publication before casting aspersions.

[TopQuark]

But the fact that Obama gets it wrong doesn’t justify using equally crappy logic. I completely agree with you. But the logic here is far from c--y:

The automobile industry killed jobs in the horse-and-buggy industry too.

This is a viable example of a natural technological progress. As in the case of cell-phone technology, governments had nothing to do with that progress. "Green" energy, in contrast, is shoved down the throats of a majority by a vocal minority by means of the coercive force of government. It is for this reason that your counter-examples do not apply.

The article, moreover, does not address the question of whether we should use green energy. It points to a lie perpetrated by some government, namely, that funding will help reinvigorate the job market. It is indeed a lie, the same lie that was used by Roosevelt: while telling the public that he works on the recovery of the economy, everything he did was directed instead at reformation of the economy (from the capitalist to a fascist model a la Mussolini). Pointing to the negative net contribution to the job market is therefore relevant and logical on the part of the author.

In your reply you appear to defend green energy on unclear grounds against a nonexistent attacker.

[WHBates]

Maybe you could define a non-silly comparison? Hey, I got one, just define a green job and tell me what is the market driver for it.

The automobile industry killed jobs because people wanted the product and the use of automobiles drove the technology not vice-versa and I would say the same is true of the Internet.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

The growth in the automobile industry was driven by private investment, and consumer choice. While it “killed jobs” in the horse-and-buggy industry; it provided a huge boost to the economy. Automobile travel was faster, more comfortable, and far cheaper than travel by horse and buggy. Increased mobility lead to huge efficiencies throughout the economy.

By contrast, the drivers for most “green jobs” are massive government subsidies, and government mandates. No investors would step forward, without “investment” by governments, using funds coerced from their citizen taxpayers. Few consumers would step forward to purchase the “green products”; if they were not either bribed (subsidies) or coerced (mandates) to do so.

When government's use their coercive powers to take resources from the productive private sector (whether through taxes, or through mandates); they destroy productive jobs. The comparisons are not silly — they are simply based on standard multipliers applied to the resources that various governments have diverted to “green” industries.