Cultivating green jobs
By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 12:05 a.m., March 8, 2008
Updated 01:23 p.m., March 9, 2008
Barry Gutierrez / The Rocky
An employee touches a model of a wind turbine during the grand opening of the Vestas production facility in Windsor on Wednesday.
Barry Gutierrez / The Rocky
The Peetz Wind Energy Center in northeast Colorado has 267 wind generators and plans to produce 400 megawatts of electricity.
Ken Papaleo / The Rocky
Mark Mathis sits in a drum used to dry out wood.
George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky
John Rizzo stands in front of a ProLogis expansion site.
Barry Gutierrez / The Rocky
Mike Fryrear stretches before climbing a wind turbine.
Forget blue collar or white collar. Today, the nation is under the spell of the green collar.
Presidential candidates, on their stumps from Ohio to Texas, from Colorado to the Carolinas, promise daily to create thousands of green-collar jobs in the solar, wind energy, hydrogen and biofuels sectors.
It's nothing particularly novel in Colorado, where these types of jobs have been commonplace since the 1970s. But with the growth of the green industry in the state, it is taking on an elevated role.
Candidates agree on the homegrown virtues of these jobs, pointing out that they cannot be outsourced, as have blue-collar jobs in the manufacturing industry. After all, solar panels on a rooftop in Denver cannot be installed by a worker in China, and utility employees at a wind-energy farm in India cannot supply electricity to suburbs like Aurora.
It helps that green-collar jobs bolster America's energy security by lowering its dependence on foreign oil, often imported from unstable countries.
And the nation benefits because these jobs promote the alternative-energy sector, reducing the emission of heat-trapping pollutants in the air that's often blamed for global warming and climate change.
But communities don't know what these jobs will be in the future or what skills will be required to fill the positions.
Economic development officials in Colorado and across the nation are scrambling to figure out curricula for schools and colleges to train young people for green-collar jobs.
More troubling, many of these jobs could peter out much like the new-collar jobs - spawned by the Internet boom - did after that industry went bust in the early 2000s.
To Tom Clark, green-collar job is just shorthand for work related to the environmental field, but the term has yet to connote its full implications.
"Green collar does not encompass the magnitude of what will happen to this world in the next 15 to 20 years," said Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp. "It will touch every part of our lives, whether it be thermostats in our homes or mini-windmills to run our hot-water tanks.
"It will be omnipresent in our lives, and we all will become involved in green collar, one way or another."
It is not a new term.
And many of those jobs don't require new skills.
Patrick Heffernan referred to the "green-collar revolution" in 1976, and more recently Geoff Mulgan in The British Spring: A Manifesto for the Election after Next wrote about it in 1997. Green-collar jobs, such as process technicians in biodiesel or ethanol companies and their skills using a computer to move liquids through pipes, are the same as in a beer brewery or a crude oil company, Clark said.
Today, green-collar jobs are growing by leaps and bounds, not only in the Denver area but also across the state and nation.
On Wednesday, Danish company Vestas Wind Systems opened a wind-turbine factory in Windsor that will employ 650 workers. Colorado State University spinoff AVA Solar is looking to employ 500 as it ramps up production of panels.
Meanwhile, solar companies Abengoa and Ascent Solar Technologies plan to hire scores of workers in the coming years.
Direct employment in the renewable-energy sector in the metro area more than doubled to 13,940 in 2007 from 5,760 in 2004, according to metro Denver EDC.
There were about 104 renewable-energy companies in the seven-county metro area in 2004. Last year, that number jumped to 1,010, although the geographical area increased to include Weld and Larimer counties.
Colorado ranked 10th among the 50 states in renewable-energy employment with 15,400 workers in 2007 - up 2.6 percent from the previous year, surpassing the nationwide growth of 2.1 percent.
Gov. Bill Ritter said he recently spoke with members of a delegation from Spain to promote Colorado as a cost-competitive manufacturing base for wind and solar equipment.
"We don't have a target for new green-collar jobs," Ritter said. "We are just being as aggressive as we can to market Colorado as a production and manufacturing destination for renewable-energy companies."
Nationwide, there were 8.5 million green-collar jobs last year, and that's expected to grow to 40 million by 2030, according to a report commissioned by the American Solar Energy Society in November.
But state officials worry about the availability of workers to keep up the momentum.
Executives at Vestas have met with state officials to discuss the issue, and the company spent its own resources to train workers, said Tom Plant, director of the Governor's Energy Office.
Plant said his office has commissioned a study to figure out what skills renewable-energy companies would need in the work force and what's the best way to address those needs in collaboration with research institutes, state and community colleges.
Many skills could be specific to a region with a given renewable resource. For instance, Logan County is looking into a training center for wind-energy related jobs, and Adams State College could pursue a curriculum in solar energy.
"It is a real challenge everywhere with any new emerging industry," Plant said.
"The work force is still developing with the industry, so whatever we can do to get ahead of the curve and deliver a well-trained work force will make us more competitive with other states and even for businesses already located here."
Mark Mathis
Age: 44
Green-collar job: The owner of Confluence Energy is building up a wood-pellet plant using beetle-infested trees.
Mark Mathis is in the business of creating green-collar jobs - starting with about two dozen at his wood-pellet plant.
The plant, situated on a 20-acre plot in Kremmling, has yet to open its doors, but it is creating excitement around its choice of feedstock.
It will use lodgepole pines rotting from beetle infestation, an epidemic spread over a million acres on Colorado's Western Slope.
Once up and running early next month, Mathis said, the plant will pay on average $34,000 a year per worker - about 25 percent higher than the average salary in Grand County.
It will spawn 75 indirect jobs, creating job opportunities to log the dying trees and truck the wood to the plant. The plant also will generate as much as $10 million of commerce for the local community.
He said the idea for the project dawned on him about 18 months ago, when he mulled the danger of the rotting beetle-kill as fodder for forest fires. At that time, there was a local shortage of wood-stove pellets.
He researched the idea, trying to find out whether mixing the two issues would work as a viable business model.
The back-end of the operation seemed simple enough: cull the dead trees, transport them to the factory, chop the wood into dime-sized pieces, dry out and pulverize the pieces into sawdust, and compress the powder into pellets.
The front end, however, was a challenge: Which retailers would stock the pellets and sell them to customers?
Mathis, who owns Confluence Energy, which includes about a half-dozen investors, worked to make the idea reality. The plant broke ground last year and is in the final stages of completion. Home improvement store Lowe's will stock the beetle-kill pellets, as will King Soopers.
Mathis, who grew up in St. Paul, Minn., has been living in Colorado for the past 25 years. He has held various jobs, including event promotions and financial investment, and has started other companies.
"But the pellet plant is larger," he said. "It's about fighting the good fight. It's about trying to go out there to make a difference."
John Rizzo
Age: 59
Green-collar job: ProLogis' managing director of global construction aims to save energy and reduce waste.
John Rizzo's job is to splash green onto stories of red bricks, brown pipes and gray concrete and steel.
Green, to him, is more than a politically correct color.
It is harvesting rainwater off building roofs, irrigating front lawns with water from kitchen and bathroom sinks, building huge windows to stream in sunlight and using locally made materials for offices and warehouses.
Be it Tokyo or Toronto, Beijing or Barcelona, Dallas or Denver.
"Last year, we built more than 50 million square feet worldwide," said the 59-year-old managing director of global construction at ProLogis, sitting in his neat office at the company headquarters off Airport Way in east Denver.
"During the planning process of new construction, we address sustainability issues in the design parameters."
Rizzo is verbose in the description of his responsibilities. That's understandable, since he deals with LEED, BREEAM and CASBEE.
Those acronyms used in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan stand for green building standards. An office or a warehouse with one of those certifications means it is energy-efficient and has a smaller carbon footprint than comparable buildings.
Rizzo is a native Bostonian with a civil engineering degree from Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. He knows how to handle the growing demand for environmental sustainability in different nations. He's equally comfortable with the increasing demand for greener buildings from customers such as Pepsi, Kraft, Adidas and Nike.
ProLogis is the world's biggest industrial real estate investment trust based in Denver, with a total of 510.2 million square feet and a market cap of $13.5 billion.
Its footprints are spread over North America, Europe and Asia in 2,773 properties. To Rizzo, that means he's in the airplane half the time, visiting one country after another.
Last week, he left for China - a country ProLogis entered in 2003. Today, ProLogis owns and manages properties in 19 cities, including Beijing, Nanjing, Suzhou, Shanghai and Guangzhou.
"I think in the future, the standard will be to build carbon-neutral facilities," Rizzo summed up.
Mike Fryrear
Age: 42
Green-collar job: The wind technician at FPL Energy takes care of 267 turbines at a wind farm near Peetz.
For seven years, Mike Fryrear worked as a court investigator, making sure police reports were in order and that people involved had responded to law officials.
Today, as a wind technician, he makes sure that the 267 turbines at a wind farm near Peetz are in working order and that the rotating blades respond to gusts.
He climbs one or more of the 262-foot towers each day, checks on the massive, rotating blades that generate electricity and fixes loose wires or tripped switches. Along the way, he enjoys the aerial view of the wide expanses of northeast Colorado, the spectacular bluffs and wildlife, the stunning sunsets and azure skies.
"The view from up there is fabulous," Fryrear said this week, emphasizing why he isn't bored in the isolated location far from any town.
Fryrear doesn't have an engineering degree that one would assume is typical for such jobs. But what he has is loads of confidence and a can-do attitude that impressed his boss during a job interview five months ago. He has an associate degree in business administration from Waubonsee Community College in Illinois and in political science from Northeastern Junior College in Sterling.
He grew up in the suburbs of Chicago but each summer visited his maternal grandparents - homesteaders in northeast Colorado - and helped them with the wheat harvest. Those trips fostered a love for the environment and open spaces, which he acted on 12 years ago by relocating to the area.
He worked at the family farm and later as an investigator for the 13th Judicial District, which spans seven counties in northeast Colorado.
Last year, it dawned on him he'd hit a ceiling in his profession. Fortunately, FPL Energy was looking to hire a wind technician for its 400-megawatt wind farm near Peetz.
The FPL plant is Colorado's biggest wind project, employing 21 workers. Since joining the company, Fryrear has undergone rigorous training within FPL and outside at a three-week stint at General Electric's wind energy training quarters in Schenectady, N.Y.
"If my grandfather was alive, he'd be amazed at how we harvest energy from the wind without any detriment to this place - a place he loved," Fryrear said.
Jesse Courtemanche
Age: 33 Green-collar job: Lead solar-panel installer at SolSource
Jesse Courtemanche's wife says he has a cool job. Friends often prod him about his work - a sign, he thinks, that they're envious.
Not many people blend beliefs and brawn as he does.
As a solar-panel installer at SolSource, a Denver company, Courtemanche gets to haul 40-pound modules onto rooftops, fix them in neat rows so as to best reflect sunlight and make sure those panels produce the desired amount of green electricity to run household lights and appliances.
"This is a rewarding job," Courtemanche said, on his way to a Broomfield home to install solar panels. "I feel great about myself when I do my job. It's about fresh air and sunshine, and I believe it's helping reduce our carbon footprint."
Courtemanche, born and raised in Lowell, Mass., first developed a curiosity about clean-energy technologies nine years ago during a brief stay in Europe.
"It's a great way to work, to spend time doing greater good," he said.
He came to Colorado five years ago after accepting an offer to visit his brother-in-law in Vail and never left. In the past four years, he has held a variety of jobs, including renovating homes and producing catalogs for green products.
A year ago, a friend working at SolSource clued him in to his current job, explaining the bright prospects of the solar industry and the in-house training that would hone his skills for future opportunities.
Today, he is adept at solar- panel installations and is working on a business degree at Front Range Community College.
Courtemanche believes the world will embrace all sorts of energy from renewable resources. He even has a cool name for his company, if and when he owns one: Factotum Solar.
The noun factotum, in Latin, stands for a servant or person having many different responsibilities.
"I am that kind of a person," Courtemanche said.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
March 8, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
ditter at work with his head of the energy office said this
Plant said his office has commissioned a study to figure out what skills renewable-energy companies would need in the work force and what's the best way to address those needs in collaboration with research institutes, state and community colleges.
why commission anything when you can go to the companies and ask them directly? I know it wouldnt keep ditters buddies in work but sure would save a lot of my tax money for health insurance for kids.
March 8, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SASQUATCH,
Cultivating Green technology offers Colorado the opportunity to create a more sustainable economy. Unlike the earlier booms that busted, such as oil and high technology, this "boom" is Colorado based. We have the research facilities, workforce and infrastructure to develop green industry.
The wind blows and the sun shines more here than almost anywhere else in the country. For better or worse we have millions of beetle killed trees that can be turned into low polluting, highly efficient wood pellets for stoves.
The energy generated stays here, the jobs stay here, and the research performed in Colorado can be marketed to the rest of the world for the benefit of the world. I would say that is a very good thing!
March 8, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
sasquatch
I'm working on converting a school bus into a camper/horse trailer run on bio-deisel and veg-oil. My motivation is that I'm just too cheap to pay 3-4 or more bucks a gallon to cruise around the country.
March 8, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
nowhearthis writes:
Green industry is all about efficiency. Using current technology to get the most out of resources. Why would you just throw energy out the window? Most coal fired electrical plants are running on equipment from the 40's.
I assure you, that the oil and gas industry receives a far greater amount of subsidies than the sustainable energy sources ever will.
Why does Colorado's economy suck? Because of the boom and bust of the oil and gas and the federal government stealing all of it.
Sasquatch, I bet you were railing against oil and gas in the early 1900's because they weren't as proven as traditional energy sources like firewood!
March 8, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Indeed, let markets work! End tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and extraction industries. Let THEM stand on their own and successfully compete in the market place. Make THEM clean up their spills and messes, not the taxpayers. Make the oil and extraction industries pay their part in repairing acid rain damage to American forests. While they're at it, they can pay their share of the health costs caused by polluted air and water.
We need to disperse our power sources, making them less vulnerable to terrorists and middle eastern politics. We need to stop tearing up our most pristine western lands for the sake of the polluting technologies of the past.
It is time to move into the future and stop wallowing in the dirty politics of oil.
March 8, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Sasquatch,
I find it interesting you should invoke ",,,uneconomic scams from Jurassic Park...". That was the time that oil and coal were forming in the earth wasn't it? I know that you were meaning to apply it to the very modern concepts of solar energy and biodiesel but it's not a reference that works buddy! It doesn't even work for wind, which has been used successfully as a power source for thousands of years but again not back to the Jurassic days.
You are right, this is the 21st century! I have to agree with that!
We are in a global economy,so you are right again. Guess what sas? that economy is sick of the downsides of fossil fuel power and is looking for a better way to power the world. It wants cleaner, safer, less politically charged and home grown ways to produce energy. You, obviously are a believer in the old ways of getting from point a to b, the ways that tear up the earth, pollute the air and streams and reward the politically well connected.
I say it's time for new ideas.
The world is waiting!
March 8, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
nowhearthis writes:
Sasquatch, what part of the oil and gas industry receiving HUMONGOUS tax subsidies do you not understand? They receive tax cuts after tax cuts. Why do you just choose to ignore that? The price of oil is what is currently ruining the worlds economies. High energy costs drive up the cost of goods and food. This isn't putting money in my pocket.
Alternative energy sources have not failed over and over and are not too expensive for people as you would suggest. They have progressed slowly because they haven't received real economic support, making research and progress slow. The technologies have finally progressed to where they are economically realistic, and that is why they receive attention now.
March 8, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
nowhearthis,
I am going to take up where you left off, if you don't mind. Development of any new technology requires venture capital. Venture capitalists follow opportunity and if they don't see it, they don't invest.
During the brief time of the arab oil embargo, oil became expensive enough to jump start the renewable energy industry ( admittedly with help from Carter ) but it wasn't long enough to be a good incubator. Now oil has been expensive for twice as long and there is no end in sight . We can't drill our way out of this. Population increases and the growth of the Chinese and Indian economies as well as the difficulty and expense of accessing oil reserves guarantees that cheap oil is a thing of the past.
Then there is the small matter of unrest in the middle east that continually upsets the oil markets.
The part that condemns Sasquatch's argument about oil and the market is the fact that venture capital is pouring into research, product development and goods and services related to renewable energy. It's time has come Sasquatch and you and your arguments should be laid to rest where, if you're lucky, it will all become oil someday. That would be fitting don't you think?
March 8, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
wind turbines get to turn at a max of 20% and who is going to clean up the dead birds under these big blades? who gets to have a wind farm in their back yard? I know ted kennedy sure shut down the one for his area as it would ruin his favorite area to sail in. where are all the solar farms going to be located? once again not any where close to the people who demand that they be used. I missed seeing boulder say they wanted a wind farm downtown or solar pannels put up there either.
I am fine with no tax breaks or federal aid for these industries and lets see who will provide the consumer with the least expensive product, one that is reliable and useful.
March 8, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hi Earl,
Good point about the birds and I might add, bats! The first major U.S. wind farm in California couldn't have been situated in a better place if they had intended them to be bird processors! We have the benefit of 25 years experience at that wind farm and others. More thought is given to putting wind farms away from rather than in migratory bird pathways today. Also engineers have learned to eliminate nesting/resting spots for migratory as well as local birds. It's still a problem that's being worked on. Bats are even a greater challenge. I understand that experiments with high pitched bird warning sounds ( that humans can't hear are also being tried).
As for solar farms Earl, new flexible panel solar technology will allow solar panels to be lightweight energy producing roofing material.(I'm not sure of this in Denver with our infamous hail) or to be affixed to the south west sides of buildings or fences. More traditional pv farms could be placed upon the roofs of warehouses where snow load isn't too serious a consideration and in the same position in snowy areas where roofs have been reinforced for that purpose.
Yet another exciting idea is concentrated solar, where solar mirrors concentrate solar energy upon a fixed point through which water is superheated and used to run generators. The excess would be stored below ground for evening operations. These would occupy no more space than a conventional plant and would have a lower profile without the need for exhaust stacks.
As for the NIMBY or "not in my backyard " problem. Solar farms can be put at the base of wind farms and flexible solar panels can be placed on the South west sides of the wind towers. One permit/two facilities!
Technology and imagination go a long ways together, don't you think?
March 8, 2008
11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Greenleaf you live in an imaginary world. We have covered this nation with hunderds of square miles of giant wind farms and wind doesn't produce 2% of our power. We will continue to cover this land in wind farms and at the end of the day we still have ot build coal or natural gas plant to provide reliable energy.
Building material which captures heat and generates power might be great for the next set of housing of 300million but what are the current 300million people going to do? Wait for the goverment subside check to come in the mail so they can tear down their house and build a new one?
And subsides to oil companies? I have looked through alot of state and federal budgets and there is no checks being written to oil companies. You make it sound like they get food stamps. If a company pays 10% tax instead of 30%, the goverment gets 10% instead of nothing. Renewable energy companies on the other hand actually get a check of tax payer money. Similar to food stamps.
March 9, 2008
12:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
robktherev writes:
SASQUATCH:
Junk science? Please give us at least one source for this statement. Just ONE. Something to give us a clue as to what you're talking about.
I can point you to any number of sources stating the science behind global warming. See, e.g., http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg.... I can point out that even the Bush administration administration admits that global warming is real and that we're causing it. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scie....
ATTENTION GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS: No more blanket, unsupported statements denying the science. The burden has shifted to YOU to "PUT-UP OR SHUT-UP."
March 9, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hi Justright,
No I don't live in an imaginary world. The technology of which I speak does exist and is well along in the R+D process.
As to your assumption that I believe Wind power and solar will replace coal and oil in the short term: I was attempting to answer Earl's question which only addressed those two power sources.
Personally, I believe that we will be dependent upon coal, oil and natural gas to supply the majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. Conservation through efficient use of energy is the necessary first step to reducing our dependency. Wind and solar power, as I mentioned above will be augmented by geothermal energy, hydroelectric and possibly coastal wave- action power ( already in R+D). Nuclear energy will continue to be a component as well and will likely expand to meet demand.
I recommend that you check out the Rocky Mountain Institute web site for more information. They have consulted large corporations, including Walmart on market based solutions to energy problems.
As for oil company subsidies: The kind I am referring to are not so direct as a check TO the oil industry. It's more what they have been given a free ride to do at the expense of the American taxpayer. For over 2 years they have been making obscene profits without having to pay windfall profit taxes. They also run wild all over our most pristine lands, disrupting wildlife and polluting the air and water. Some of this must be expected from such a dirty energy source. The problem is that the administration has loosened the company's clean up responsibilities under the clean water act.I can personally testify that after more than 50 years of hiking all over the West, that this is an industry that often leaves it's messes for others to clean up. Then there are the oil spills from pipelines and tankers. The Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska still hasn't been put totally right more than 20 years later. We spend taxpayer money by the trillion protecting middle eastern shipping lanes and protecting oil fields from the many feuding factions in the region. Lest I forget, there is the matter of health impacts, acid rain damage to forests,and the 500 pound gorilla; Global Warming! I haven't seen the industry being expected to adequately compensate the American taxpayer by paying anywhere near it's share of the tax load.
March 9, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
prk166 writes:
"I assure you, that the oil and gas industry receives a far greater amount of subsidies than the sustainable energy sources ever will."--nowherethis
To be blunt, I'm tired of being assured this people. Show me the numbers.
March 10, 2008
7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
rustonia writes:
For crying out loud, do any of you ever think about the fact that we don't have to replace all fossil generated electricity with renewable electricity? Every single study that has been done on the the best way to reduce GHG emissions (see "put up or shut up comment above) states uncategorically that WE USE WAY TOO MUCH ENERGY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Someone please tell me how using less energy is somehow wasteful or cheats the taxpayer. If there were a requirement for businesses to impliment all energy efficiency measures that have a payback period of less than 5 years (ie. the business saves money anyway) we could reduce electricity demand by a huge proportion (I don't have a number to quote, but it is somewhere in the 15-20% range).
I just really wish people could move beyond the "wind is only 2%" argument and start to think about why that is. It's not because there are no wind farms, it is because there are way too many people and businesses who, through ignorance or sloth, are just throwing electricity, $$ and GHG out the window.
PS. Reading the comments above I think that Sasquach is having a great time just trying to tick people off. The arguments sound rehearsed and I don't think your heart is in it, you're just trying to see how long you can string your adversaries along and when their patience will give way. I'll bet it is actually kind of fun.
March 10, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
An_Engineer writes:
In reference to “robktherev” comment,
“robktherev” is simply wrong with his statements concerning the human role in climate change. There have been numerous challenges to the theory that human generated carbon dioxide is the sole driving force behind the fluctuations in temperature that have occurred since humans developed the capability to measure temperature. These challenges are backed by empirical data derived by valid scientific methods. The only proof offered to support the role of human generated carbon dioxide causing temperature changes is that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased while temperatures periodically show an increase in averages. Oddly though, there are periods of time (from the 1940's to the 1970's for example) when average temperatures were decreasing while carbon dioxide levels increased. So, there is reasonable scientific doubt that temperatures are driven by carbon dioxide levels. Additionally, correlation of two data sets does not prove a causal relationship.
There are a number of resources available that demonstrate that the connection between human-generated carbon dioxide and temperature variations have not been proved by any valid scientific method.
To aid the research into the subject, here are three samples of the overall reviews on the subject that are available:
“Climate Issues & Questions”, Third Edition, George C. Marshall Institute,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials...
and,
“A N.C. Citizens Guide to Global Warming”, J. Schwartz,
http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/poli...
and,
“Is Global Warming Real?”,
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/glo...
Until the role of natural influences on average temperatures (such as the main temperature driver, the sun) are completely understood and proved to be not the reason for temperature changes, and at the same time human generated carbon dioxide is proved to be the sole source of variations in temperatures, there is no need to consider limiting output of carbon dioxide by limiting our access to energy.
More to the point, in the vein of “put up or shut up” that “robktherev” fervently states, please provide the empirical data that proves the causal relationship between carbon dioxide levels and variations in temperatures. And, just to be clear, the output from climate models is not valid empirical data derived by the scientific method.
I’ll be waiting...
March 10, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ike writes:
Look out Greenleaf! Exxon has the Ring! No where do you mention that the reason energy prices are so high is the US is now bidding against the emerging economies of China and India for the energy we are addicted to. They are willing to pay more and quid pro quo, so will our Nation's consumers. Higher prices for a commodity on the world market equal higher profits.
Spend some time with a map. Look at the oil producing companies in the Middle East and think about where it makes the most business sense to ship oil. Ship around the Cape of Good Hope to the Gulf of Mexico and the long deadhead back; or a short hop to the Bay of Bengal to a pipeline terminus in a deep water port to service both emerging economic giants?
Explain to me why monies made in the foreign investment arena by a multinational corporation should be subject to US windfall taxes? Evil Halliburton has already showed the good business sense to move their world headquarters to a more business friendly country and it will not be long before our other major multinationals follow suit. So lets tax away to the demise of free enterprise in our economic base and to the detriment of our Nation.
March 10, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Ike,
Of course you have a point regarding money made offshore. The major emphasis of my last posting was as to what they get away with in this country at taxpayer expense. Also don't forget who refines the oil coming to this country from foreign sources. That is a profit source for the oil companies. It also represents a choke point controlled by those same companies. They can shut them down for any number of reasons to manipulate supplies at the pump (admittedly some of these are legitimate). As both source and middlemen they have considerable control over supply and price.
March 10, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
An_Engineer,
I don't usually get too wrapped up in "dueling link" arguments. They usually involve one person hand-picking sites that support their particular bias and the other person doing the same to support their own. It isn't usually a very scientific process. You are, apparently, an applied scientist. I am both an applied and theoretical scientist (botanist/ horticulturist). We both examine scientific journals and apply a methodology to examining a question. Otherwise we wouldn't be scientists.
I am intrigued by your first link to "the George C. Marshall Institute" It looks well organized and referenced. It is also a little long and will require a good sit down opportunity to read. This posting will likely disappear before I have time to give it a fair reading and comment' I will definitely read it however.
Your second link : The North Carolina Citizens Guide to Global warming also will require time and opportunity to read. I do find it interesting that a state is preparing such papers, I'll have to see if any others are doing this. I don't know what to make of this site yet.
Your third link really puzzles me. It is a sublink from a site entitled: "Plant Fossils Of West Virginia". It has a decidedly layman slant and even offers a personal Global Warming "test" of knowledge. I think that I examined this site enough to see that it has a bias and uses some hand picked information.
Just out of curiosity, why would you choose to add that site to your mix?
March 10, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SASQUATCH,
I am beginning to think you are afraid of change. We are going to be using oil and coal and natural gas for the foreseeable future. I see a lot of sense in a strategy to diversify and decentralize our energy sources. Coal and Oil have been dominant for a long time. Wars have been fought and continue to be fought over oil. Our coal powered and nuclear power plants are more vulnerable to attack than a dispersed, diversified portfolio of energy sources. Coal and oil are also very dirty. Oil spills are common and both coal and oil pollute the air with unhealthy emissions when combusted. Coal involves strip-mining entire mountains and dumping over-burden into stream valleys below. Oil and natural gas require roads, pads and drilling in some of our last, best places, with all the damage to wildlife and recreation that process involves.
An open minded approach is required today. We need to start with conservation and consider all alternatives to our current oil and coal dependent situation. Don't be so afraid of new ideas Squatch!
March 10, 2008
11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Hi Greenleaf,
I too support oil, gas, and coal as our futures main energy sources. I also support any entrepreneur pushing any renewable energy as long as they go to the market place and get their capital. I even hope they get filthy rich. I am not talking about the measely 8-12% profits the major oil companies like Exxon are making. I want these entrepreneurs to make obscene profits of 20 or 30 or 130%. What I don't want is a bunch of goverments increasing the cost of our future energy.
My issue is when one group of people decide to take from another group and give it to a third group. It's not their money to take and give. Further more the middle man keeps most of the money and very little every makes it to the 3rd party.
There is one false theroy I see in your postings that you and many activist state over and over. That is conservation leads to energy independence. Conservation is good for that business/person. Energy then finds a new place to go, say a new business or person. Under this idea that conservation leads to energy reduction, you would have to cap the number of businesses that exist and the number of people living in the world.
Take Russia has an example, they have 10 million fewer people today then 15 years ago and their industrial complex colapsed. They use less energy today then they did before 1990. Which explains why they are for the Kyoto agreement. It would mean your money gets shipped to Russia all because they quit having babies and their economy disappeared.
China on the other hand, adds 100,000 to 120,000 more cars every month. They open a new coal fired power plant every 2 to 3 weeks. Businesses are booming is an understatement.
I am sure as a scientist your are familar with "googling"? An_engineer gave you 3 sites, googling can give you 300 sites with the pros and cons about "humans are not the cause of global warming". Even the bible IPCC report gives hundreds of questionable results.
PS: Go an_engineer go!
March 11, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hello justright,
I like your pseudonym, by the way, it implies a positive satisfaction. Mine is more literal, but appropriate for a botanist.
I thought I would check this forum one last time to see if An_Engineer posted again, but it was a pleasant surprise to find your post as well!
From all of my postings you know that I am a scientist, but did you also know that I am a businessman and a fiscal conservative? This is why I don't fundamentally disagree with very much that you have said.
Conservation has always appealed to me in business and my personal life because it keeps money in my pocket and that of my customers. Any thinking person realizes that population growth and lifestyle improvements overwhelm conservation. When it comes to a world economy, conservation merely buys time . It's a little like a pump on a ship that's doomed to sink; it gives you more time to load the lifeboats. In this case the lifeboat is the development of alternative energy sources.
I am not an economist, maybe you are, so I don't claim to understand certain aspects of the ebbs and flows of money around the world based upon energy and population growth or contraction. I simply know that based upon what I have seen in my nearly 60 years of life and 30 years in the business world that conservation is a good thing. Technology is also bringing us other good things in the form of greater efficiencies in cars, appliances, lighting, etc. It's also bringing us new options for energy production that don't tear up the land, pollute the air and waterways (we all have to breath this air and drink the water right?). Which brings me back to the hidden costs we as taxpayers have to pay to clean up after the oil industry! So, in that sense, the oil and coal industries are raiding your pocketbook in more ways than one.
I believe what is happening now in the world is the realization that we need to diversify our energy sources and to take advantage of what we are currently wasting. Ultimately, economies of scale and rapid advances in technology will drive down the price of all renewable technologies. Also. in decreasing demand for oil and coal, it should drive down the prices of that energy source as well!
As a taxpayer, I don't mind giving a new industry a hand up if it's for the common good. Once it's been given a jump start, I believe, as do you that market forces need to prevail.
As for dueling websites: yours mine and theirs, I have read literally hundreds of sites in recent years on both sides of this controversy. At some point even an open mind has to develop a hard to shake opinion. I don't fault An-Engineer for being the latest to set links before me. I will read them as time permits, but it is a bit of an uphill sale for me based upon what I have already read in scores of scientific journals.
Thanks for your part in this discussion my friend. You make very good and understandable points
March 11, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Nice posting Greenleaf,
I applaud you for being a businessman, I assume you own your own business. I think business owners are the hardest working people in our society. I myself are just an employee. No I am not an ecomimist but I love playing one. Glad to here you are a conservationist, me too. We also agree on the future will be saved by technolgy.
Thanks for making my point that we are more efficient today then we were 10, 20 or 60 years ago. We also use double the energy of 30 years ago.
Where we part company is "giving a hand up". Too me the goverment is very important for some things. Taking money from one industry and giving it to another is flat out wrong! And I don't care if it is from the tobacco industry to the health care industry OR the carbon industry to the carbon FREE industry, it is just wrong.
As far as the carbon companies causing us all this taxpayer clean-up cost, CO2, air pollution, water pollution, etc., it is not the carbon industry who created these things. Peolpe of free will created those problems. It is you and me and our childern who pollute. Energy companies just supply what we want. With the exception of oil spills and coal mining issues and things that happen when getting the energy to market, the carbon companies are not the big problem.
Great posting though!
PS: I don't smoke, I hate the smell of cigarete smoke but I don't think sticking it to smokers is right. If the goverment cared about our health they would ban smoking not make money on it!
March 11, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
justright, I only have a minute, but I want to respond.
We are actually very close on this issue. Please note that the "hand up" I mentioned would only be short term and would have to be fully accountable (hard to do in politics though). My thought is to provide a couple year incubator for technology that has been fully R+D and stands a good chance of being viable. I believe in this not because I want more taxes, but because I believe we desperately need these exciting new technologies to come on-line. I agree that in varying degrees that we are all part of the problem and that we also need to be part of the solution as well. The comic strip character Pogo once said: " We have met the enemy and he is us." I think the quotation could also work by substituting the word "solution".
What do you think my positive friend?
Thanks for your good postings and compliments!
March 11, 2008
10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Greenleaf,
I am not sure why the goverment needs to be the incubator. They can't remember to pay the bill and tend to spoil most things they touch.
The way I see it, the market place is the incubator, price is the mechanism, goverment is the pain factor and profit is the cure. Huge profit will cure most of our problems. Goverment will screw-up just about every part of that. They see money, they demonize the industry and take their money. That causes economic down turn and that's when the people suffer.
March 12, 2008
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
justright,
We have both seen the government screw things up haven't we? I just hope that we have time for purely market based solutions. Who knows when energy could reach a crisis point. All it would take is another shooting war in the middle east and our supplies could be cut off indefinitely.
I don't need to be negative at the start of a beautiful day. I do think that we will pull together to solve our problems in this area.
I have enjoyed our discussion my friend!
March 12, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
justright writes:
Great spare! Greenleaf
I know i come across a bit negative, but the truth is i believe in the american people and we get what we want eventually. usually there is pain before the gain but this country will prevail!!!!!!!!
March 12, 2008
11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
robktherev writes:
An_Engineer:
I respect you for posting actual citations to support your position. However, these sources are flawed for the following reasons:
First, the George C. Marshall Institute is hardly an independent scientific source. In fact, they are one of the partisan political groups paid millions of dollars by industry, including Exxon and Coors to keep the public confused about climate change. See http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgf...
Second, the John Locke Foundation (responsible for the “North Carolina Guide . . .” is similarly another industry lackey; namely, Phillip Morris’. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?... ; see also http://www.scribd.com/doc/201523/John....
Third, the “study” you cite by Monte Hieb looks good at first, but is also fatally flawed. Mr. Hieb is not a climate scientist but rather a mine safety engineer (associated with the coal industry, I might add). See, e.g., http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007....
Each one of your sources has a significant conflict of interest, is not peer-reviewed, and is not published in a respected scientific journal. By contrast, the IPCC reports I cited above are based primarily on peer-reviewed studies. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm. The EPA source I cite is provided by a pro-industry Republican presidential administration.