-
Mann Acts
September 14, 2011 | 72 comments
-
Suing NASA and UVA
August 19, 2011 | 58 comments
-
Facts on Frack Attackers
August 3, 2011 | 71 comments
-
Indefensible
July 27, 2011 | 59 comments
-
Inhibiting an Oil and Gas Boom
July 22, 2011 | 81 comments
The Environmental Spectator
Green Temp Jobs, Granted
Q: Is there a “green” business that can survive without government subsidies? A: No.
Is there a business (and the jobs it “creates”) in the so-called “Green” sector that does not depend on massive government subsidies, tax breaks, or foundation generosity for its survival?
So far it has evaded my discovery.
On the other hand, finding those that do depend on taxpayer handouts is a frequent occurrence. Every time the layers are peeled on such companies, not only are significant public dollars revealed, but so also is there little or no justification for the money they receive.
The latest I’ve discovered is Scottsdale, Ariz.-based ECOtality, which is another in a litany of companies with cutesy, Green-sounding names. Its work was featured recently by the Oregonian, which reported that the company will install about 1,150 electric vehicle charging stations in homes, businesses and public spaces in four of the state’s major cities. The project — which extends to 16 cities across the country — is backed by $115 million in Department of Energy grants.
“The launch is part of the EV Project, a three-year study of how people use electric cars,” the newspaper reported. “The project will collect non-personal data from the car and the charging station, such as the amount of energy and length of charging time, to look at how to create more energy-efficient systems.”
So there you go: Government-funded intrusion to study how citizens plug new electronic gadgets into the wall. Did cell phones start this way?
Anyway, the project gives the also-very-subsidized sales of the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt some oomph. Drivers of those electric vehicles who also sign up for the ECOtality project will receive a free charging station, a $1,200 value. With the $7,500 tax credit for the vehicle, those are some big dollars to get somebody to develop a habit for the government to study.
The Oregonian reports that 600 Oregonians have already signed up for the program, which means $720,000 flowing from your pockets to the test cases’, so they can have a free gas pump lookalike in their garages that dispenses electricity. But there are more as five other states are part of the project, with ECOtality planning to give away a total of 15,085 charging systems to the guinea pigs.
You might think this largess would lift ECOtality above the profitability line. You’d be wrong. Through the third quarter of last year the company had a net loss of $12.5 million, on $9.3 million in revenues, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings. This followed losses of $29.5 million in 2009 and more than $8 million in 2008, yet somehow the government thought ECOtality was a good “investment” of your tax dollars.
Over a year ago Tucson Tea Party leader Robert Mayer identified some ECOtality political connections, after President Obama praised the company in his State of the Union address. CEO Jonathan Read, board member Slade Mead, and vice president Colin Read either gave maximum donations to, or worked on the campaign of, former U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell of Arizona, a Democrat earmarker extraordinaire until he lost his seat last year. Undoubtedly the president appreciated Mitchell’s hold on that Republican-leaning district for two straight terms. His presence on the House Committee on Science and Technology, and on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, didn’t hurt ECOtality’s cause either.
In practical terms the government is massively subsidizing an inefficient, wasteful project. It takes 7 hours on a special 240-volt charger to maximize a Nissan Leaf battery. It will go 100 miles on a charge in perfect atmospheric conditions, if you’ve stored it in climatically ideal garage. But only goes 70 miles on a hot summer day, and less if you run its heater in the winter. And you need an assessment of your home’s electrical system to determine whether it can handle the charger.
This study of Leaf users’ habits will discover one thing: When taxpayer funding runs out for this boondoggle, electric cars will fail — in ECOtality. And then Green jobholders will be off to find the next government “investment.”
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Environmental Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/08/green-temp-jobs-granted
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
TennesseeVolunteer| 3.8.11 @ 7:42AM
Paul, my company is doing the structural engineering, design and manufacture of a framing system for solar panels on a commercial building in Tennessee.
Total cost of the project $203,000
Federal Grant 61,000
3 Yr. Accelerated Depreciation 40,000
Net Cost 102,000
Annual Income 12,000
That makes almost a 9 year payback but does not account for Interest on the $102K or maintenance on the roof panels. The complete project is also being financed by a special financing that we suspect comes from the Feds also. No one would invest this kind of money for such a crappy return unless it was not using their own money.
Mike Hawk| 3.8.11 @ 8:09AM
These golf cart lookalikes better be disposable. They will have zero trade in value as by that time the battery pack replacement cost will make them worthless. They will also be worthless in cold winter weather when the charge is 1/2 what it would be in warmer climes. Worse yet is the range in mountainous terrain. Nobody in the Allegheny Highlands of PA or WV will want one. Same out in the Western states.
Louis Jenkins| 3.8.11 @ 8:09AM
Well, there you go. The Green industries don't produce a dimes worth of savings. They, instead, suck the money out of our pockets. Salizar said that we cannot drill, because we seek energy independence. He doesn't have the sense God gave a goose, and he only speaks in Obamaese. Obama has had two years, and the only thing he has done is drain resources that could have otherwise boosted drilled energy. Given time the whole boondoggle will return to bite him in the butt, provided we have teeth left.
wukong| 3.8.11 @ 12:46PM
Debtors historically have eventually used resources to guarantee their loans. The Chinese will not have any qualms with drilling on the California Coast.
JimH| 3.8.11 @ 8:17AM
The way to be truly ‘green’ is to make the most efficient use of available resources and protect property rights. And the best way to do that is to let the free market work without distortions introduced by government interference along with a sound legal system.
Stan Redmond| 3.8.11 @ 10:00AM
"Is there a business (and the jobs it "creates") in the so-called "Green" sector that does not depend on massive government subsidies, tax breaks, or foundation generosity for its survival?"
Metal scrap recycling. But that's only because it's profitable.
But more important there is no price too high to help ecotinkerbells sleep good at night.
tdiinva| 3.8.11 @ 10:06AM
Your assessment of the range of the Nissan leaf is overly optimistic. Consumer Reports testing showed the Leaf to be unusable in cold climates during the winter. It isn't just the heater that drains power, its the physics of battery chemistry. At least the you can get home in your Volt when the battery is depleted in below freezing weather.
Running the air conditioning in 100+ degree Arizona heat will run down the battery in a hurry and heat is the enemy of battery life. A place like Monterrey California is the the optimal place for owning an electric car -- not too hot, not too cold
Aquanomics| 3.8.11 @ 10:32AM
Green jobs? Sure! Obama takes *our* green and gives it to his crony pseudo-capitalist pals. They spend their green on golf and PAC donations.
Albert| 3.8.11 @ 10:40AM
Back in the day, when automobiles were becoming popular, gas stations sprung up at convenient locations to service automobiles and drivers. Truck stops, restaurants, motels, and other commerce, were built to support automobile transportation. This was done without government subsidies. Even roads are paid for out of fuel taxes and tolls, e.g user pays. If "green" made economic sense, it would need no government subsidies. That such things get subsidies is proof of their economic unfeasibility.
Jenny| 3.8.11 @ 1:26PM
They'll have to build hotel/bars/saloons next to the chargers, because the people charging thier vehicles aren't going anywhere very soon.
uncle curmudgeon| 3.8.11 @ 1:48PM
In my little town we are ruled by a corrupt Democratic machine. We just got about 1/2M$ federal grant to"study" the "feasability" of installing these stations around here. This will be used to reward those local rent seekers who are most dependable in their political support, and to hire consultants who will teach the politicians the best ways to get more. Meanwhile, in the real world, the price of fuel continues to rise.
JShizzle| 3.8.11 @ 2:08PM
Just trying to think of ONE thing on the liberal agenda that makes fiscal sense. One thing that these crooks would invest their own money into instead of someone else's.
Redstateboy| 3.8.11 @ 4:08PM
great question JShizzle.. if you've read the last few pieces on Rail and now this?? In my opinion?? These people should go straight to F'n jail..
C.K. Amos| 3.9.11 @ 12:23AM
Great question. Nothing comes to mind, though. But, wait: They seem to be partial to Ponzi schemes, don't they? Obamacare.
jolizoom| 3.8.11 @ 4:05PM
So they're powered by a commodity that is generated by a commodity that Obama is trying to make unaffordable. Good one. Nice paperweight you have there.
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it."
Pat| 3.8.11 @ 4:43PM
The ongoing problem with AmSpec essays is the dearth of useful tips for cashing in on corruption, Democratic Party style. Sure, the vast majority of AmSpec readers adamantly reject defrauding their fellow citizens in pursuit of personal wealth but why not support tax funded frauds us unconnected and “just plain folks” types can milk for fun and profit. How about bicycles as worthy targets of Federal giveaways? Everyone has a bike rusting away somewhere in their garage, the kids use them constantly and this century old technology is now at the forefront of the Green Movement’s new technology breakthroughs.
So what would be politically incorrect about a Federal Spandex subsidy for all bike owners? Those combination purple, lime green, yellow and orange jerseys aren’t cheap and, along with their eye searing colors, they cut wind resistance which saves energy.
You needn’t possess an attractive Liberal butt crack to own Spandex, although it helps. Should only the beautiful people be entitled to Going Green subsidies or should us every day soft bodies get in on this fraud? Tugging on those tight outfits lacking handy pockets ain’t easy under any circumstance, but wouldn’t a U. S. Treasury check with multiple zeroes make it easier?
And shouldn’t Conservative walkers get $1,500 a year in tax credits for investing in a $50 pair of New Balance Cross-trainers? Throw in a $2,500 one-time Federal Spandex subsidy and the morning walkers in my area would go Green in a big way. The problem isn’t necessarily with the Green philosophy, it’s that only certain “special” people can ever finagle a piece of the Green payouts.
Richard Baker| 3.8.11 @ 5:30PM
Get the government out of our lives. A monkey would have a better chance of picking winners and losers than these people who think profit a four letter word.
C.K. Amos| 3.9.11 @ 12:24AM
Just like they think "capitalism" and "free markets" are four-letter words, too.
PCC| 3.8.11 @ 6:18PM
The author is an anti-green bigot. He is attacking my religion. He is violating my civil rights. I'm going to apply for a federal grant to pay for my lawsuit against him.
CalMark| 3.8.11 @ 8:13PM
So, when do you recharge these little toy cars? At night, the Greenies/Liberals tell us. When the generating plants aren't so busy.
That doesn't really mean burning more fuel, because it's at night, when the plants aren't working as hard. So, no, it's not really more smokestack pollution. It doesn't mean less maintenance time and faster wear of power-generation components, either; increased round-the-clock operations? Pshaw. Everyone knows that power-generation stations aren't as busy at night, so that means it's like totally free and inconsequential.
That's what all the people with environmental studies degrees (and amateur experts like Al Gore, of course) all tell us. O, Ye of little faith! Heed the wise ones. Laws of nature notwithstanding. This is Saving the Planet we're talking about here!
In other words, electric cars are a "free lunch." Just like everything else liberals push for, for which ordinary citizens wind up paying--through the nose.
Dee See| 3.8.11 @ 10:16PM
"When we get through with you
you'll wish you were a tree."
-Maurice Strong
UNESCO director/Globalist/Maoist/EUGENIST
ANYONE ELSE noticing that with all the
chat about 'eco concern' not a word about
those cadmium, barrium and aluminum oxide
chem-trails, or the wilful saturation of our
entire environment with 'sterility friendly'
NON-biodegradable plastic ----or the latest,
the truly creepy mind control ops via the
coordinated flicker rates of PC's, TV and those
NOW mandatory, mercury filled, RED China
made flourescent bulbs.
NOT A PEEP about any of it. ----NOTHING!
DO CHECK OUT Alex Jones yesterday's show
segment 2.
THIS IS REAL---------------------------------
Paul Nelson| 3.9.11 @ 1:43AM
The power to run electric cars is usually just a few feet from the road, on electric wires on poles. It seems silly to carry batteries on the vehicle, if one could just get power from those wires.
Paul Oilman| 3.9.11 @ 7:46AM
Tax Breaks for Oil and the Rich, is that ok for You. Check the profits for the oil companies and tell me your position on the tax breaks they get. Why not include that in these articles so I can understand your position. I think your being paid by big oil???
JF| 3.10.11 @ 11:25PM
Paul
There is a vast difference between a tax break and a subsidy. Tax breaks offset the high costs imposed on oil companies by way of government regulations so that they can provide a product that is in demand at a reasonable price. A subsidy is the redistribution of the wealth of many to a scant few in order to create demand that otherwise wouldn't be there for a product that really isn't marketable. If there were less government intrusion in business, there would be no need for tax breaks for corporations.
Richard Baker| 3.9.11 @ 2:57PM
Paul Oilman:
Those damned, evil corporations again, that's the ticket. This country became the colossus it is because of those Eee-vil companies. and your answer is what, more government? Hopefully, you aren't allowed access to sharp instuments.
David| 3.9.11 @ 8:23PM
Well Richard, everybody else here is going on about those damned, evil environazis abusing their access to taxpayers dollars. I think it only balanced to complain how some oil companies are abusing their access to taxpayers dollars which is on a scale 10x that of the "green" subsidies. Why is it bad for one group to abuse their access to my tax dollars but OK for another?
Richard Baker| 3.9.11 @ 9:22PM
David:
The obvious answer is to get the government out of the business of advocacy and corporate welfare, both. So much of what we're considering here is a mess because of un-Constitutional meddling.
Allen Johnson| 3.10.11 @ 10:30PM
This article makes some valid points about green subsidies. However, the article is hypocritical in a sense, because fossil fuel is also subsidized. Coal, oil, natural gas is subsidized by the horrendous environmental costs that are externalized upon the health of people and the planet. And let's not forget a hefty percentage of our military budget that goes into protecting the oil supply from the Middle East. I don't see Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, etc. paying those bills.
We could also discuss the subsidies for Rural Electrification and the Interstate Highway system, and mass transit, and (way back) the railroads.
Green power will be manipulated and abused just like all the others. I agree in this sense with the writer's thesis.
What I think a true conservative should agree upon is that every business pay its full load. No externalization of pollution costs and harms to the public that are paid for in cancers, misery, and cleanup by the public. So what is the true cost of coal? Of oil? Tax these producers full costs for their pollution and then let green power compete in the market place fair and square !!!
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:14AM
Is there a business (and the jobs it "creates") in the so-called "Green" sector that does not depend on massive government subsidies, tax breaks, or foundation generosity for its survival?
Greg Fowler| 7.28.11 @ 9:02AM
Allen, as the article states and many others have pointed out, very little of the public health issues you mentioned can be correlated with the coal or natural gas industries. Both natural gas and coal make up most of our electrical production. Additionally both energy sources are profitable privately owned businesses.
The point of the article is that enormous sums of taxpayer/debt dollars are going to companies and industries that have no hope of being profitable. As an example, T. Boone Pickens spent millions on a campaign to generate interest in windfarms in which he was investing his OWN MONEY. He eventually dropped the whole project because wind power is economically a boondoggle.
There are numerous examples here and esspecially Europe of goverments spending public money on massively expensive Green projects that do not produce one dime of return. Spain is on the brink of default following the Green Path to prosperity, why do you and other Green supports think we can do any better?
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 2:16AM
is good