With Donald Trump in the news for pulling out of the Paris Accord, we should look at this global move to renewable energy, and be concerned. Awhile back I wrote about the uselessness of self driving auto. It was pretty easy to prove the wasted efforts there. But the Renewable Energy effort is more complex to decipher. 

There are statements that come from pro renewable energy writers that border on untruthfulness regarding job creation. Even authors use the following quote to defend the net gain in jobs. But reading the quotation carefully, we see that the authors of the study cited are talking about temporary, not permanent, jobs:

There is a reasonable degree of evidence that in general, renewable energy and energy efficiency are more labor-intensive in terms of electricity produced than either coal- or gas-fired power plant," the report said. "This implies that at least in the short-term, building new renewable generation capacity or investing in greater energy efficiency to avoid the need for new generation would create more jobs than investing in an equivalent level of fossil fuel-fired generation. ... Therefore, if investment in new power generation is needed, renewables and energy efficiency can contribute to short-term job creation so long as the economy is experiencing an output gap, such as is the case during and shortly after recession.  However, long-term impacts will depend on how these investments ripple through the economy, and in particular the impact on disposable household incomes.

Once the infrastructure is put into place, jobs will likely be far less plentiful than in the oil patch and related industry now. Yet the author at Econowatch concludes that the jobs issue is not the most important issue. But for Americans, it is the most important issue. You just have to word the polling correctly.

Keep in mind that these green industries are subsidized even more than is the oil industry. These industries are a cash cow for big companies, and for Elon Musk, the guru of renewable tech. The subsidies will surely mean higher prices for heating and cooling. The Heritage Foundation has studied the potential costs of the Paris Accords to GDP:

• An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
• An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
• A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
• An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
• Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.

The costs are large for lower and middle income Americans as well: 

 Americans feel the pain of higher energy prices directly, but also indirectly through almost all of the goods and services they buy, because energy is a necessary component of production and service. Higher energy prices will disproportionately hurt the poorest Americans, who spend the highest percentage of their budget on energy bills.

It was estimated by Steven Moore that home energy prices will double once fossil fuels are replaced and removed towards the target date of 2050. 

Jobs will be created, but they won't be created in the areas where they are needed. They will be created in the cities, mostly in tech cities or cities which want to cash in on the craze.

I wrote awhile back that Donald Trump cannot fix rural America. I still believe that is true. But he can help save what is left of rural America by keeping good paying jobs in the fossil fuel industry intact.

One wonders why there is such a  push to control the United States through climate laws? Must we be bound to the world order when it threatens our way of life and our financial well being as a nation?

We have to look more into the concept of permanent job creation and loss. The data is scarce. Here is a footnote to a pro green job agenda. It is a footnote that is negative to the argument itself!

But buried toward the end of a dense Excel sheet with over 60 tabs, located on a dedicated page within a faculty website, Jacobson quantifies the exact number of job losses by sector from transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy. In transportation, more than 2.4 million men and women would be put out of work. Over 800,000 people working to produce oil and natural gas would lose their jobs. Nearly 90,000 jobs connected to coal mining would be wiped out. All told, more than 3.8 million jobs would be lost, far more than the nearly 2.6 million long-term jobs that Jacobson has estimated would be created.

In a highlighted column entitled “Net Long Term Jobs,” Jacobson’s table shows a negative 1,284,030.The job losses, however, are not equally distributed across the country. Many states, even those with a “green” reputation, would experience tens if not hundreds of thousands of lost permanent jobs......Other states would also see huge losses. Texas, the country’s largest oil and natural gas producer, would shed more than a quarter million long-term jobs by transitioning to 100 percent renewables. In Wyoming, the largest coal producing state, the transition would destroy more than 32,000 jobs connected to the energy sector.

And these net job losses do not count oil product truck drivers (not just gasoline), possible self driving auto job losses, mechanics, and other peripheral jobs. The impact on mainstream America will be enormous. And this is just one nation where this job loss will occur.

Of course, regarding electric cars and Elon Musk's desire to power your home with batteries, it turns out extracting the necessary rare metals pollute, and where do you put the batteries when you are done? These batteries are not carbon free:

At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.

And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.

Before committing billions of dollars to something that does not work, how about making that which does work, work better. Natural gas comes from fossil fuels. There are many things that can be done to conserve that which works, conserving practical solutions.

The Paris Accord was written in such a way as to put America behind the 8 ball right away, while China and other large polluters would be given more time to implement the accord. That is not protective of American jobs. Americans had better be concerned about this usurpation of national sovereignty. We have given away too much. Now the pact cannot be renegotiated according to world leaders. 

One of the most vocal  leaders wanting US cooperation is Jean-Claude Juncker, who once said, regarding the Greece financial crisis in 2011, that "When it becomes serious, you have to lie." He also said as to sovereignty of the nations: 

Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

And this economic and environmental planning has as its goal a decrease in temperatures by a measly 1.8 degrees. Scientists say that number is essentially useless in the fight against global warming. The carbon already in the air dooms us to higher temperatures. And it is economically inefficient. If we did more the world economy would collapse.

And Goldman Sachs' claim that oil companies are dying was proven to be off base, as shale discoveries, CO2 technology, and massive deposits in Russia have proven reserves are much larger than once thought.

The reason Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord is that it was not ratified by Congress anyway, and probably could not be ratified in the United States. President Obama did not even try.

I certainly hope that Donald Trump would stick by this pragmatism while toning down certain policies that could limit free trade and continue what many consider a bigoted presidency. Then perhaps a greater number American people could fully embrace him as he fights against what is clearly a grab for a piece of our national sovereignty. That power grab will hurt an already fragile GDP. The weak jobs report in early June should give us pause when it comes to world leaders asserting authority over the United States. we still buy what they make, in large quantities.

We are often criticized for buying so much, but if we didn't, the rest of the world would suffer severe financial loss. We should at least have the respect of nations for our reserve currency and for our out sized purchasing of their goods. 

Remember, Juncker is not even ashamed to admit he wants to limit national sovereignty, yet does not want to tell Main Street. It appears, then, that Donald Trump may be watching out for the real financial interest of American workers, who have been hurt by global treaties already. This does not mean Trump can fix the free trade dilemma as easily as he can pull out of the Paris Accords.