The 'Ville Voice header image 1

Jackie Green on Green Energy Jobs

August 31st, 2010 by jake · 8 Comments

Yesterday, Jackie Green put out a press release that we like:

Louisville, Ky. — Jackie Green responds to today’s news that the Kentucky Economic Development has offered $7 million in incentives to an Australian company to build a coal-drying plant in Louisville, and that the EPA is being pressed to cut coal ash water pollution from Louisville’s Mill Creek power plant.

“Rather than perpetuate contaminates in our water, mountain top removal and sending Louisville dollars out of our local economy, Louisville needs to attract manufacturers of solar panels to Louisville (creating local jobs), install those panels on our roofs (creating more jobs) and keep Louisville energy dollars in Louisville. Let’s find a greener use of the $7 million.”

Where are the other two mayoral candidates on this front?

Tags: Economy · Mayor's Race 2010

8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 31, 2010 at 11:19 am

    The whole “Green Job” movement is about as viable as the ethanol industry. It only operates with the injection of government supports for products that make little or no real impact to the reduction of hydrocarbons. It has been sold as some holy grail of salvation to replace the jobs that Cap & Trade will inevitably destroy or push outside of the country.

    If we continue with this business plan for the significant reduction of hydrocarbons, we are going to continue to be disappointed. We are spending billions of dollars in subsidizing the usage of hand shovels (solar panels, bio-diesel, ethanol, geothermal, wind) in an attempt to replace bulldozers ( coal, oil, natural gas).

    Instead of subsidizing the development of solar panel and wind farm plants, we instead should be putting that money in the funding of the development of home or business fuel cell which can utilize natural gas to generate significant quantities of far cleaner electricity in quantities that make an real impact.

    We can fund all of the residential solar panel plants we want, but they still will not generate enough electricity to make any significant impact on coal or oil demand. We are wasting time and wasting money chasing these insignificant paths to greener energy.

  • 2 jake // Aug 31, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Not that you have the ability to stop spinning or anything, but it would behoove you to educate yourself before commenting.

    Not all “green” jobs are solely focused on nixing global warming. And I don’t know too many folks creating green jobs that rely on government subsidies.

  • 3 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51 am

    I’m spinning anything. I never said all green jobs are focused on global warming, but certainly that has been the push of the Obama administration who is speaking from some some battery plant, wind, or solar plant every week that received federal stimulus monies. If thy are not receiving direct stimulus, they are certainly benefiting from federal and state tax incentives for the installation of their products.

    Maybe I am ignorant. Please enlighten me to the green job sector that has created a significant number of jobs that doesn’t rely on direct subsidies or government tax incentives to market the sale of their products.

    What am I missing? Wasn’t Mr. Green suggesting that we invest $7M in government money into solar panel plants here in Louisville?

    All I’m suggesting is that the course that we have taken over the past three decades hasn’t gotten us any closer to the finding an real alternative to replacing hydrocarbons. At what point do we try to take another route?

    I have worked in the coal fields of Harlan and Letcher counties trying to reduce acid mine drainage and other mining legacy impacts. I hate mountain-top removal as much as you do.

  • 4 E // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Despite divergent opinions, discussing any and all options and ideas is the stuff that progress is made of.
    Green has weighed in and begun the dialogue, good for him.

  • 5 jake // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Here’s one: Dan Hoffman. He doesn’t get government incentives to retrofit housing and businesses and his clients don’t get giant tax credits.

    Here’s another: Gill Holland. Do all of the properties he redoes and the jobs created to rehab them depend on tax dollars? Nope?

    Or what about these companies that have created thousands of jobs?

    None of them depend on government subsidies.

  • 6 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 31, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Jake I’m not trying to argue with you. I should have clarified myself better and that’s my fault.

    I was referring to the kind of green jobs that Mr. Green was talking about and the ones that President Obama is always touting. The ones that they are pushing in regards to reducing greenhouse gases.

    Like this one that will create 180 jobs:

    http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/web/en/about_us/general/news/archive/2010/solar_20100703.html

  • 7 Shawn B // Sep 1, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    There are several independent studies that show that green jobs, such as clean energy (i.e. solar) and retrofitting old homes for energy efficiency, will create many thousands of jobs in the U.S. Make no mistake about that. Mr. Green is the only mayoral candidate that truely believes in pushing this agenda.

  • 8 Stunoland // Sep 1, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Most early game changing industries started off relying on gov’t subsidies i.e. nuclear power, the railroads, and automobiles. That said I just don’t see where Louisville has a competitive advantage in solar panel research or instalation. Germany got the early jump on research and development and has recently been switching manufacturing to lower cost manufacturing economies in Asia. The major solar growth industry will be in large scale generation, storage and transmission from the deserts to cities. Given our state’s agrarian tradition Louisville should focus some of it’s R&D money into cracking the cellulosic ethanol problem.

google

couk