Shouldn’t our President reinstall solar panels on the White House?

President Carter tried to help lead our country toward alternative energy by installing solar panels in the roof of the White House. Soon after arriving in DC, Reagan promptly removed them. I believe our President should lead by example and that our first family should be more "green" than most of the rest of us. Overhaul the executive fleet and only use fuel efficient vehicles, add solar panels to the grandeur of the White House, and recycle. Agreed?

Spain’s Green Jobs have FAILED so why is Obama Praising them and Copying them?

Going Green/Alternative Energy has failed in SPAIN and yet the Democrats in the Congress, Senate and even the Democrat President are copying this failed plan.

Spain has over an 18% Un Employment Rate and the Green Jobs didn’t create JOBS they added to the UN EMPLOYMENT RATE.

WHY?

Why can’t the Democrats in our Government use our Natural Resourse and stop going with a FAILED PLAN?

Below is the LINK:

_____________________________________________________

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/06/24/will24.ART_ART_06-24-09_A11_MLE94UP.html?sid=101

Let’s not envy Spain’s green jobs

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:00 AM

By George F. Will

Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration’s green agenda.

Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received 2,000 to 0,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, .4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation of capital. Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain’s economy.

The president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report’s contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we’re importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven’t read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain’s experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government’s promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain was praised by Obama and others.

You can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy.

What matters most is not that reports such as Calzada’s and the Republicans’ are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant.

For fervent believers in governments’ abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments’ green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those conservatives who believe tax cuts always pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain’s new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate.

I’m all for renewal energy, but man-caused global warming?

I’m pro looking for alternative energy to fossil fuels, they are a limited resource meaning they will eventually run out, they are also one of the strongest sources of energy and are thus valuable for many reasons, which is another reason why I’m pro-conserving them.

As for global warming and carbon emissions blah-blah? I haven’t studied the facts nor kept up-to-date on current scientific studies on it, so this may be just ignorance on my part, but I don’t think I’m buying it. I understand the green house effect and carbons role in it.. Not so sure though whether the practicality is as simple as the theory.

Anyways from what I last understood, scientists are divided on whether they think global warming is man-made.
Sean Hannity is a f**king amateur, I can’t believe whatever comes outta his mouth because he is simply anti-anything not conservative.

I’d rather get my info from a neutral and respectable source

which alternative energy stocks should I invest in?

I am assuming that green companies will explode over the coming years. However, with the numerous proposals for alternative energy such as wind, solar, hydro, etc., which proposal is the most promising? Furthermore, which companies should I look into?

Green chip review? Alternative energy stocks?

Has anyone suscribed to the green chip review and found it usefull?

Recently loaded up on some alternative energy and solar stocks (wfr, solf, csun, tsl) since congress has the energy bill vote in a couple weeks

comments?

How would Obama employ 5 million employees with green energy, when only 1.75 million people now work in energy?

What will all these alternative energy people do? Will it cost more than 150 billion dollars?

What will happen to the people already working in energy? How much more expensive will this be than nuclear, which the democrats are still against?