Research Briefing

As Obama Talks Jobs And The Economy At “Green Jobs” Company, His Administration Is Rolling Out New Regulations That Will Hurt Small Businesses

OBAMA TO TOUT HIS ECONOMIC PLAN AT SOLAR COMPANY. “President Barack Obama plans to visit a solar company in Fremont when he comes to the San Francisco Bay area for a fundraising trip next week… [to] speak to workers about jobs and the economy.” (“Obama To Visit Fremont Solar Firm On Calif Visit,” The Associated Press, 5/21/10)

BUT HIS GREEN JOBS SCHEMES ARE OVERSTATED AND OVERPROMISED 

When The House Passed His Cap-And-Trade Bill, Obama Said: “Make No Mistake, This Is A Jobs Bill.” (President Barack Obama: Remarks on Energy Legislation, White House, 6/25/09)

• Obama: “The Jobs Of Tomorrow Will Be Jobs In The Clean Energy Sector…” (President Barack Obama, Remarks By The President On Clean Energy Jobs,” Arlington, VA, 3/5/10)

But In Europe, “Climate-Change Legislation Means Green Unemployment.” “The Europeans once believed the ‘green jobs’ myth too. Now, as blue-collar workers take to the streets, they have learned that climate-change legislation means green unemployment.” (Editorial, “The 'Green Jobs' Myth,” The Wall Street Journal Europe, 12/10/08)

• And In Spain, Every “Green Job” Destroyed 2.2 jobs: “Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain's experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide. For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.” (Gianluca Baratti, “Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen In Spanish Study,” Bloomberg, 3/27/09)

Former GE Smart Grid Director Admits Green Jobs Fallacy. “The facts challenge the prevailing thinking among some policymakers and officials that green jobs are a principal reason for transforming the economy… Let's consider just one clean-energy sector, the smart grid, for its job-creation potential. The Obama administration allocated a little more than $4 billion in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the smart grid… Much of this is to be spent installing close to 20 million “smart meters”… [but] instead of creating jobs, smart metering will probably result in net job destruction…” (Sunil Sharan, Op-ed, “The Green Jobs Myth,” The Washington Post, 2/26/10)

As “Green Energy” Is Not Helping Unemployment. “‘Green energy’ is proving to be no miracle solution to the nation's monumental unemployment problems, and it is doing little to help the economy emerge from its deepest recession in decades, economists say.” (Patrice Hill, “Green Energy Stimulus Growing Few Jobs,” The Washington Times, 11/23/09)

And After Shedding Thousands Of Jobs, Californians Will Pay Even More For A “Green” Economy. “Seven new transmission lines costing $12 billion would likely be needed for California's utilities to meet a proposed goal to mix 33 percent of its electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2020, according to a new report by the California Public Utilities Commission.” (“California Dreaming: Achieving 33% RPS Could Cost $12B in New Transmissions,” GreentechMedia, 6/15/09)

WHILE HIS GLOBAL WARMING REGULATIONS WILL BE “A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO”

FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, KILLING REAL JOBS

Obama Will Allow EPA To Regulate 70% Of Emissions In United States. “The ‘tailoring’ rule would subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act sources emitting more than 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually. The law’s current threshold is 250 tons annually for other pollutants… EPA officials said exempting small polluters would still allow the agency to regulate about 70 percent of the U.S. economy’s greenhouse gas emissions…“ (Coral Davenport, “Prodding Lawmakers On Climate Change, EPA Issues A ‘Tailoring’ Rule,” CQ Today, 5/13/10)

• Emissions Level Would Ratchet Down To 50,000 Tons, Allowing The EPA To Regulate “Schools, Hospitals, Apartment Buildings, And Thousands Of Small Businesses.” “Applying the original Clean Air Act format to entities emitting more than 250 tons of greenhouse gases annually would suddenly put schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and thousands of small businesses under new EPA controls… Thursday’s tailoring rule keeps the 250-ton-per-year rule in place for other emissions, but scales up controls for greenhouse gases so that only major industrial polluters spewing over 100,000 tons per year or more would be hit. Eventually, however, the rule would ratchet down to 50,000 tons per year or more.” (Coral Davenport, “Prodding Lawmakers On Climate Change, EPA Issues A ‘Tailoring’ Rule,” CQ Today, 5/13/10)

And Are “A Nightmare Scenario” For Businesses. “The blunt instrument of EPA regulation is a nightmare scenario for ... major industries. Businesses that have a seat at the table in legislative negotiations would have little opportunity to influence regulations.” (Coral Davenport, “EPA Prepares To Classify Carbon Dioxide As Dangerous,” CQ Today, 12/7/09)

• Causing Job Loss And Burdening Manufacturers. “'EPA is moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy,' said Keith McCoy, Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy at the. National Association of Manufacturers.” (“EPA To Move On Emissions As Congress Stalls,” Reuters, 12/7/09)

EPA Regulations Would Impose Huge Costs On Domestic Industries. “The agency’s proposed regulations are opposed not only by coal companies and their customers but also by a wide range of American industries that fear that new rules will impose huge costs and make it difficult for American manufacturers to compete with goods from countries without carbon dioxide limits.” (John Broder, “Lawmakers From Coal States Seek To Delay Emission Limits,” The New York Times, 3/4/10)

And Small Businesses Not Hiring Due To Concerns About Obama's National Energy Tax Legislation.  “Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses' energy costs ... Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60 % of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government's Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery.”  (Gary Fields, “Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze On Small Businesses,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)

The Washington Post: EPA Regulation “Won’t Be Pretty.” “The Clean Air Act, in other words, is breathtakingly unsuited to the great task of battling global warming. It would provide no economy-wide and declining cap on carbon, no market signal to industry or clean-energy investors that could spark innovation and greater efficiencies. There would be a thicket of red tape and regulations but nowhere near the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of the Waxman-Markey bill, let alone those called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The specter of EPA regulation is supposed to scare Congress into more rational action. Yet if Congress does not act, it's likely that the EPA will. It won't be pretty.” (Editorial, “Regulating Carbon,” The Washington Post, 9/21/09)