Would be nice if they also showed how many jobs would be lost from the removal of other energy industries.
EDIT: Definitely a cool website though, very well-made, nice idea, I like the presentation, though I'm unsure how they calculated all of it
This raises the question about what economics are really going on behind the smokescreen of "creating jobs".
Consider....
When people want to justify something, they seek the performance metric which is most flattering.
Examples:
I want to buy a 20 year old Camry. I justify it by low capital & operating costs (including fuel, maintenance & insurance).
I want to buy a new Tesla. I justify it by low fuel cost & greener environmental effects.
Both justifications are agenda laden reasoning.
To create jobs is actually irrelevant.
There are several reasons.....
1) Any economic activity can create jobs, whether it's useful or harmful. The old economist's story of government hiring people to break windows to boost the window repair business is one example. Much money is spent, jobs are created, & by the typical economist's measure, the economy booms due to "Affirmative defenstration". Yet there is no net benefit. There is even overall loss, as people must work just to reach the condition they were in before government's brilliant make work scheme.
2) The claim of "jobs created" is never accompanied by analysis. Does it factor in jobs lost in competing industries which see job losses? What is the long term job picture?
3) These jobs require payment, & the money must come from somewhere. What would it have been spent on, or would it have been saved (& then lent to finance other ventures which create jobs)? If the money comes from taxes, then the taxpayers would spend less in other areas, costing jobs.
4) By focusing upon "jobs created", it ignores the energy cost, eg, how much $/kilowatt hour? Is it economically feasible? This is needed to determine whether something is practical, or a pipe dream awaiting technological or economic changes.
5) There are health care & mortality costs associated with replaced energy sources, eg, airborne mercury from coal burning plants. Considering these would help justify renewables.
Clearly,
@Quetzal is a shill for the hippie dippie green energy cabal !!!
