By Robert Bryce
Sunday, April 25, 2010

Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative
energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil
fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our
economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But
before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard
look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.

In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same
problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S.
companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which
not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine
magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.

The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar
panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar
module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent
in 2009.

Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job
still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate?
Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol
industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the
percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create
136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that
no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers
as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green
jobs. But at what cost?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...poref=obinsite

Best Regards

Tom.