Our analysis also suggests that in the US, nearly ten times more people were employed in the green economy and its supply chains (9.5 million) than employed directly in the fossil fuel industry (roughly 1 million)
And I bet there's 10x the owners in the companies too, distributing the wealth a bit more. Which is why they're so against it.
I’m in favor of clean energy, but all this language is misleading.
The correct way to view it that it costs nearly ten times as much manpower to generate our clean energy as our traditional energy requires.
This language of referring to the $1.3 trillion as a benefit and not a cost is straight out of pork barrel politics. “My projects (diversions of resources) generated thousands of jobs (unnecessary politically appointed work)”
We need clean energy, but let’s not fool ourselves about the costs by using misleading language. The costs are worth because they slow glisbal warming and provide a clean environment.
Why does it cost 10 times more? Citation please.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
80% of US energy is generated by fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal).
Of the 11% generated by renewable energy, 23% of that is hydro power (not exactly a growth industry there).
Seems like it takes a LOT more workers to generate that 11% than it does to generate the 80%.
More jobs isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact it is even good as long as they aren't subsidized by the taxpayer (like both fossil fuel and renewable energy).
Apparently you have to be of a certain age in order to truly appreciate the impact that various environmental regulations have made to our quality of life. A trip in 1998 to the former soviet union made it very clear to me, breathing the air near a main road gave me a deja vue experience, this is what the USA smelled like in the 1960s and 1970s. It made an impression on me, since the introduction of catalytic converters made the changes in the USA slow, and hard to notice.
That said, renewable energy sources are also limited in their impact and application due to problems with storing the energy for use WHEN it is needed. Solar power is cost effective currently due to government investment in the past. The problem is, it doesn't work at night. Before investing trillions of dollars in what is currently 11% of our energy supply, we might want to invest in technologies that allow us to use that energy when we need it. We need realistic investment, not knee jerk "it's green, must be good".
This entire discussion boils down to "lets use statistics to bash Trump". Guess what, some of know all about statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics). Some of us would rather invest wisely, and not use politics as a deciding factor.
