Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The state led all states in the study for the rate at which its renewable energy production sector grew, at 200 percent.
...
The report attributes the green job growth in New Mexico to proactive leadership by state officials, world-class research facilities, and successful marketing of the state as “solar valley,” putting it at the heart of the North American solar industry."
I'd always thought that as strongly as the winds blow, and with all of the sun we receive, somebody has finally come up with some brainstorms. We do need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and look to nature as the alternative for energy sources.
Who the hell cares about 'green growth"? I care about jobs.. Walmart, Haliburton, you name it..
Hmmmm. Title of the thread is "...Positive Green Job Growth..." From the first link:
"Green job growth outpaced overall job growth in the state between 1995 and 2007, with significant growth seen in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors."
But, I guess it would be better to just rely on Walmart
Dig a little deeper and I think you'll find that most of NM's growth was in the air pollution management sector. Not exactly sure what businesses that covers. Actual manufacturing (like solar panel plants, wind turbine plants, etc.) appeared to be a tiny contributor to NM's rosy numbers. I'd predict a huge and negative swing in 2008 and 2009 if they had numbers that recent.
Dig a little deeper and I think you'll find that most of NM's growth was in the air pollution management sector. Not exactly sure what businesses that covers. Actual manufacturing (like solar panel plants, wind turbine plants, etc.) appeared to be a tiny contributor to NM's rosy numbers. I'd predict a huge and negative swing in 2008 and 2009 if they had numbers that recent.
Does a job have to be in the manufacturing sector to be considered a 'job'?
Not saying that there isn't manufacturing job growth in NM, just wondering.
"In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Germany-based SCHOTT Solar has already invested $100 million of a planned $500 million and hired 300 out of an eventual work force of 1,500 to produce solar products. "
"New Mexico, with a business friendly environment and world-class solar resources, is quickly becoming an important hub in the Southwest for solar manufacturing, installation and project development with companies such as SCHOTT Solar, eSolar, First Solar and others helping to deploy solar and fuel the local economy. "
Who the hell cares about 'green growth"? I care about jobs.. Walmart, Haliburton, you name it..
I think that, in the context of the OP, anyone who would like to see the USA less dependent on sucking oil from the Middle Eastern teat would be interested in "green growth".
I'll agree that term is pretty broad, but for the most part, IMHO, it refers to getting our electricity from less polluting and more reliable sources in and around the USA, and a major part of this is also conserving the energy we drill for, erect wind turbines for, spread out solar panels for and even dig for (in the case of coal).
It's much cheaper to use less oil than it is to go find more oil. Oil is finite...no matter how hard we work to find and exploit it, it is guaranteed to run out, and cost us more and more as it gets harder to locate and recover.
When demand drops, supplies rise and prices fall. That's the American way of supply and demand, but oil companies hate and fight it because it means potentially less profit for them. So far, they're making huge, huge profits...so I'm not sure what they're worried about except losing power and influence in the future.
Along the way, New Mexicans can find good jobs as the state moves to exploit it's position in the sun.
I think that, in the context of the OP, anyone who would like to see the USA less dependent on sucking oil from the Middle Eastern teat would be interested in "green growth".
I'll agree that term is pretty broad, but for the most part, IMHO, it refers to getting our electricity from less polluting and more reliable sources in and around the USA, and a major part of this is also conserving the energy we drill for, erect wind turbines for, spread out solar panels for and even dig for (in the case of coal).
It's much cheaper to use less oil than it is to go find more oil. Oil is finite...no matter how hard we work to find and exploit it, it is guaranteed to run out, and cost us more and more as it gets harder to locate and recover.
When demand drops, supplies rise and prices fall. That's the American way of supply and demand, but oil companies hate and fight it because it means potentially less profit for them. So far, they're making huge, huge profits...so I'm not sure what they're worried about except losing power and influence in the future.
Along the way, New Mexicans can find good jobs as the state moves to exploit it's position in the sun.
I would love to see alternative forms of energy too, but at a competitive cost. Oil companies are making about 7% profit, which on a percentage basis is comparatively small. The reason why the companies have a huge profit is because oil remains a coveted commodity. It is still relatively cheaper to extract oil than it is to tap hydro, wind, solar, etc. When these forms of energy become more reliable and less expensive, then the free market will dictate the profitability of these resources. My problem is when government influences and mandates consumption of these alternative fuels, or meddles in the flow of energy commerce. When renewable energy becomes less expensive is the day when we rid ourselves of fossil fuels. If what you are saying is true about the oil companies finding it more difficult to locate and refine oil, and thus it becoming more expensive (and I am not disputing that) and it becomes prohibitively expensive for the consumer to purchase, then you will see the renewable energy option R&D innovation begin in earnest. Again, the way for this to occur is for government to stay out of the way as much as possible.
I would love to see alternative forms of energy too, but at a competitive cost. Oil companies are making about 7% profit, which on a percentage basis is comparatively small. The reason why the companies have a huge profit is because oil remains a coveted commodity. It is still relatively cheaper to extract oil than it is to tap hydro, wind, solar, etc. When these forms of energy become more reliable and less expensive, then the free market will dictate the profitability of these resources. My problem is when government influences and mandates consumption of these alternative fuels, or meddles in the flow of energy commerce. When renewable energy becomes less expensive is the day when we rid ourselves of fossil fuels. If what you are saying is true about the oil companies finding it more difficult to locate and refine oil, and thus it becoming more expensive (and I am not disputing that) and it becomes prohibitively expensive for the consumer to purchase, then you will see the renewable energy option R&D innovation begin in earnest. Again, the way for this to occur is for government to stay out of the way as much as possible.
Our country is set up to consume oil in vast quantities, and a significant reason for that are decisions that were made many years ago, decisions about urban planning, etc. that were influenced heavily by private enterprises that stood to gain from developments over time. Oil/Energy companies. In many ways the die is cast and we're stuck with the results and the consequences.
The government and oil are inextricably tied together. Vast quanities of oil come from publicly held lands, including bottomlands in the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The owners of these resources (US citizens) subsidize the extraction of oil. If the "government" was out of the picture in some way, perhaps oil companies would have to pay market rates for the oil they extract, as they do in many countries all over the world. We get some extraction fees, etc. for our oil, but also provide huge subsidies and tax breaks to the oil companies in return.
These companies didn't "invent" oil and manufacture it, they are exploiting and harvesting publicly owned resources and selling it back to us. I'm fine with profit, and they do a generally good job of supplying what is needed. But there are larger concerns than the price of gas today.
To wait until oil starts to dry up and prices skyrocket is to be reactive, and I'd rather see our country be more proactive and hopefully avoid some of the economic and political nightmares headed our way when oil becomes scarce and triples in price. This can and should involve encouraging research and development of alternatives. There will be failures in this...boondoggles...but the end result is still worthy and worthwhile.
To put it another way:
I'd sooner start spending less now and keep something in the bank, rather than wait until my bank account is empty before looking for a job.
Does a job have to be in the manufacturing sector to be considered a 'job'?
'job', no. But the OP and a few others have used 'production job' or similar. I'd posit that a good number of these "air pollution management" jobs are taxpayer-funded and not really production-related but more bureaucracy-related. I'd be thrilled if someone could prove me wrong with some numbers though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0421
Oil companies are making about 7% profit
That doesn't factor in 6-, 7-, and 8-figure salaries though, does it? It probably doesn't include the BIG oil companies like Saudi Aramco either, where objective numbers are not provided.
The biggest oil company in the U.S., ExxonMobil, ranks 17th worldwide in oil reserves.
If you combine all the big U.S. oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, Devon, Anadarko, XTO, Chesapeake, Apache, EOG, Hess, and Marathon), the combined behemoth is still only 9th, on par with Libya's national oil company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecpatl
It's much cheaper to use less oil than it is to go find more oil.
Got any numbers? Even if cheaper was important (it's not; look how insistent car buyers were about getting good gas mileage before the recent CAFE bump), we'd be seeing real price changes at the pump to reflect that economic reality. Gasoline costs (adjusted for inflation) are the same today as they were in 2008, 2005, 1984, 1979, and pretty much the entire period from 1946-1967.
In a strict economic sense where the opportunity cost of severance of natural resources is not included, it looks to me that conservation and additional supply cost about the same today; this is evidenced by gasoline prices staying about the same (adjusted for inflation). If conservation was indeed cheaper (as the larger market sees it), gas prices would be going down to compensate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More Good News For New Mexicans
before looking for a job.
