Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
ah conspiracy angle again. So easy to fall back to...and yet no other studies back it up. But that's just coincidental isn't it...or maybe more conspiracy?
OK, that angle isn't working, source the other things you're saying, show me "they've all failed pretty hard". Go.
|
Dude, your the conspiracy theorist. The studies back it up costing jobs... and both sides of government admit it to be so, and that it was a failure.
What STUDIES? ANd WHAT ADMISSION?
So uh... hwow is that a conspiracy?
Instead your backing one pro green jobs propganda study...
Propoganda? It's "peer reviewing" the study! Since when is peer review propoganda? You keep glossing over what I type out for you everytime! Their methodologies are faulty, according to the consensus of peer reviewed method. YOUR assertion is that these foundational, accepted methodologies are faulty in the first place, and that SOMEHOW, this ONE study got it right. THAT is called CONSPIRACY.
The limitations in the King Carlos study was how job losses could be BIGGER. Not smaller...
No, READ the article I provided you
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.
Spain’s Acerinox SA, the nation’s largest stainless-steel producer, blamed domestic energy costs for deciding to expand in South Africa and the U.S., according to the study.
The study limitations HURT your case, not help it.
Keep sourcing the same study over and over, that'll help your case in proving to me that THIS specific study got it right where all others failed.
Saying that domestic energy costs are too high has nothing to do with green tech. Energy could ALWAYS have been much higher in the first place, so that even half the cost would still be too much.
The very author you cited, notes only a month before that energy costs were lower than they had been. I linked you her article too!
|
