What can green power do for productivity?

Taking up the theme of productivity from Alan’s post, consider the contribution of green power in Britain. To demonstrate the folly of subsidies Jo Nova has flagged a 94% drop in the monthly rooftop solar build since the subsidies were dropped in April. That tells you something about the sustainability of “cheap” solar.

Turning to the creation and destruction of jobs.

Studies show every green job created caused two useful jobs to go away, or possibly even four. In Scotland the VERSO study showed for each Green Job created, 3.7 were lost. When electricity costs more, every other business in the country makes less, does less or has less money to pay workers.

Fancy that! Doubling the price of power is bad for business! Who would have guessed?

We have been warned by the Fisher report, the Coalition plan is bad and the ALP plan was catastrophic. But what did Electricity Bill say about the cost? Serious question, I want the precise quote for future use.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to What can green power do for productivity?

  1. a happy little debunker

    But what did Electricity Bill say about the cost?

    Mr Shorten said it was a “dumb question” when compared to the cost of inaction on climate change.

    Notably – he was not asked for a costing for inaction on climate change.

    He went on to claim “You can’t have a debate about climate change without talking about the cost of inaction,”

    Considering the ALP consider that the ‘science is settled’ & fought tooth and nail against Bjorn Lomborg’s consensus centre – what debate do you suppose was he talking about?

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Solar panels in a country at 53 degrees of latitude is inherently stupid.
    Subsidizing their installation is stupidly stupid.
    That it was the Tories doing it is insanely stupidly nuts.

  3. John Dee

    Subsidizing solar is most definitely not stupid – for some people it is very very “woke”.
    You propose and build a solar – or wind – facility.
    You get a subsidy – from the Government.
    You get a Government mandated sale of your product to the public – no market forces to worry about.
    You get around 10% profit in a 1.25% interest rate market place.
    Renewable is a wonderfully descriptive name – as close as you can get to the term perpetual motion which can not be used as it only confuses the proles, and could possibly (gulp) encourage questions.
    No need to rinse – just repeat.
    As usual simply “follow the money” and all will be revealed.
    In little more than decade it is already a multi-trillion dollar industry.

  4. Faye

    Look, I am sick of reading/hearing/repeating the empirical knowledge that renewables are cactus.
    When the hell do Australia’s politicians DO THE RIGHT THING and stop the subsidies?
    It’s getting beyond a joke.

  5. Justinian the Great

    Rafe, winning debating points off Bill Shorten who is now irrelevant, is well . . . . irrelevant.

    The problem is that the Coalition government are barely better than Bill and they are in charge. Allegedly.

    I still say it is Martin Parkinson and his fellow left travellers that are in charge.

    If you want to be relevant you need to direct your cynicism to the COALITION Government.

    Bill is gone. Dead, buried and cremated I believe is the phrase these days.

    Its ScoMo and Josh you need to worry about.

    Given the two of them haven’t delivered a budget with expenditure as a % of GDP lower that Whitlam that is the real worry.

    And it was Josh who was the genius Energy Minister that came up with the failed NEG REG scrambled EGG.

    These are the guys that have failed to have delivered centre-right reform. They won’t even argue for it.

  6. I can give you an example of the hypocritical Green movement. I live in a township that is increasingly being overtaken by the Green Blob as people sell their Mornington Peninsular homes and move our way. There has been a huge upsurge in ‘environmentally concerned’ people as protest over fracking, logging, chicken farms, a distillery and what have you have run riot. There’s also been a big push for a local ‘energy hub’ based on putting solar panels all over the place.

    But recently the Green Blob became very, very, upset. Why? Because a plan has been put forward to install a large number of windmills in the area, near to Hazelwood, where the power company can take advantage of existing high voltage power infrastructure that goes to Melbourne. The location is within the HVP plantations, which means that HVP will be getting money from the power company.

    Strangely (or not so), all the arguments put forward as to why this proposal cannot go forward are the same as for why fracking etc cannot go forward. Here we have a power company out to save our planet and the planet savers in the community are protesting this gallant move. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

  7. Mark M

    The cost of inaction versus action?

    Green New Deal Architect Says Climate Change Like ’25 Holocausts’”


    “So the cost of fossil fuels, of oil, the fuels that we use to power our cars are lower than they actually are because we don’t count the effect that they have on the environment, the effect that they have on public health, the fact that it’s causing people to get asthma and cancer and all of these other things.

    But the fact is that we have to start thinking about the cost of inaction because they are mounting and they are mounting quickly,”she continued. “
    And everyone agrees that they are higher than what we can even estimate right now.
    And so you cannot talk about the cost of dealing with a problem if you don’t talk about the cost of not dealing with that same problem.

    “We know that people, especially people of color, are dying daily from fossil fuel pollution,” she said, not citing anything nor being asked for the data.

    “We know that we are losing a million species right now because of climate change,” she said, not being asked whether that was hyperbole.”


    The cost of action? Trillion$ into perpetuity, and no evidence it can stop any of the cost of inaction.

  8. John Bayley

    John Dee @10:26 PM:

    A great summary.

    The older I get, the more obvious it has become to me that ultimately all governments can best be compared to cancer:
    Their overriding interest is to grow ever bigger and interfere in more and more of the essential functions of the body / the economy.
    Ultimately, this must always lead to less than optimal outcomes from the very beginning (‘malinvestments’ to use the Austrian term) and ultimately to death / total collapse (Venezuela).
    ‘Global warming’ / ‘climate change’ / ‘climate disruption’ is but one manifestation of this multi-faceted slow death of our society.
    The major actors enacting this play know all that, but just like Chuck Prince, the past CEO of Citigroup in the USA, they believe that ‘while the music is playing, one needs to keep dancing’.
    After all, being part of the disease, they are doing very well indeed right now, thank you very much.
    They also think that they will be fast enough to get through the exit when the music does eventually stop, as it must.
    The rest of us are part of this only for the purposes of funding the entire goat rodeo. Nobody at the top really cares about what we see as ‘logic’, ‘science’ or whatever, nor do they give a stuff about how many grannies will freeze in the dark thanks to the policies they push.
    ‘Whatever it takes, comrades; what’s the death of a few, if the entire planet is at stake!’

  9. The older I get, the more obvious it has become to me that ultimately all governments can best be compared to cancer

    Governments are just the symptom. The cause is ultimately due to the voters, significantly affected by the media, schools etc who influence those voters.

  10. John Bayley

    Governments are just the symptom. The cause is ultimately due to the voters, significantly affected by the media, schools etc who influence those voters.

    Well yes; at least while elections continue to be permitted.
    After all, it was ‘the voters’ who elected the NSDAP into government in Germany, just like it was also ‘the voters’ who freely elected the Communists in numerous countries including Venezuela.
    That does not, however, change the equation. We may well vote to give ourselves cancer, but of course not all of us will do so. Yet all of us will be affected by the ever-growing statism this entails.
    I do not know what the answer to that is, but fear that it will require we experience a collapse akin to the Great Depression before we learn; at least for a generation or two.
    Then history will need to rhyme again, somehow.

  11. Lee

    “We know that people, especially people of color, are dying daily from fossil fuel pollution,” she said, not citing anything nor being asked for the data.

    Au contraire, millions are dying or suffering in the Third World (mainly “coloured people”), because they can’t afford or even access electricity.

  12. egg_

    “You can’t have a debate about climate change without talking about the cost of inaction,”

    Yes you can, because it’s zero, numpty.

  13. Faye

    Without doubt President Trump is the miracle cancerous countries need. He has saved America in quick time and he is changing the world for the good in ways never seen before. The American voters put their trust in him recognizing that he is the miracle to save their families and their communities.

    No such luck here. No bold, clear minded, time is of the essence, big picture, transparent, information feeder, action politician here. If we did have, we would vote for them. President Trump proves that it is the quality of the leader that overrides everything. And he has set the bench mark very high.

  14. Dr Fred Lenin

    Trump and Farage proves beyond dispute that career politics is the cancer destroying our society,thse entitled cance cells are everywhere federal ,state and local govrnments and their highly paid henhmen in the public “service” .
    He answer may be limit them to one term with no super or pensions for elected plitcians .Also oe year contracts for all public employees including judiciary,with performance basd salaries and ssuper at commercial rates .
    This would be incorporated with rule by referenda ,give the real power to the People .

  15. Rayvic

    Is the following Bill Shorten quote referred to by Simon Benson in the Weekend Australian article (Price Labor’s carbon cuts? Yes you can) of 2 May 2019 what you are after, Rafe?
    “Mr Shorten last night defended Labor’s lack of policy costings.
    “The cost of not acting on ¬climate change is far worse than acting on climate change,” he said on ABC’s 7.30.
    “And, again, when you talk about cost, what’s the cost to the environment, the cost in not acting.? When you talk about the cost to business, the reality is lots of businesses are so far ahead of ¬government they’re already ¬investing.” “

  16. Mark M

    Green economic wizz kid explains planet saving costs for Bill Shorten:

    7 June: Associate of the Climate and Energy College @timinmitcham didn’t have time to answer Michael Kirby’s question on #TheDrum about whether Australia’s power to reduce emissions is through convincing high polluters like India & China to do so. So he kindly sent us a video response!

    @1.48: “There was a lot of talk in the lead up to the election about the ALP’s 45% reduction target and whether they had modelling on it and what the total cost to the economy would be.

    Well, the LaboUr party didn’t produce that modelling, but RepuTex, a commercial consultancy did in 2016.

    And they showed that not only a 45% target, but a 63% target, which is something more in line with what a safe climate looks like.

    It actually comes as a net economic benefit.
    That is the total savings we have from reducing our emissions that far outweigh the total costs.”

    via twitter:


    Possibly this is the 2016 paper the fossil-fuelled-fop refers to:

    White Paper: Framing Australia’s Energy & Climate Policy to 2030

    September 20th, 2016


Comments are closed.