>murdoch wrote: > > They seem to want energy independence for the U.S., but > > only if it doesn't hurt their cronies. They have the priority of >better energy > > policy, but it is subverted to at least one higher priority, aka >Exxon-Mobil et. > > al. (under guise of giving due consideration to the rationale for >staying with > > much of the fossil fuel paradigm). > > > >I wonder, how much of the concern for big oil is actually concern for >all the people who work in oil related jobs? I am working for a >sustainable world, so don't get me wrong, but what do we do with the >people that are employed in the un-sustainable one? I am not speaking >of the educated engineers or management, but the guys out in the field, >who number in the thousands, quite probably hundreds of thousands. The >people who have no education, but have families to support. Also, the >clerks, dispatchers, and basic mechanics, that will need to be retrained. > >While I may be unusual, about half of the people I know, including my >husband work in an oil field related job that will disappear. We are >working to get my other half out of there, [and he has the education to >be employed elsewhere] but to find jobs and careers for all these people >is going to dislocate the economy, big time, if done too quickly. > >Let me say again, I do want to see the end of big oil. I am also aware >of the impact it is going to have, which is rarely mentioned. I have >seen mention that the oil cracking plants could be changed to biofuel >plants, but what about oil field service, which is a huge industry? > >Just some thoughts on a Monday morning. > >Bright Blessings, >Kim
Hi Kim It would seem there are more jobs in the alternatives, and probably better jobs, in more ways than one. For example: >In general, the oil industry does not employ a lot of people per >dollar invested. "If one is concerned with jobs as a key objective, >it's probably one of the poorest choices one can make to invest, of >almost any industry." [More below.] From a letter from Todd: >Negawatts is the anti-fossil and anti-nuclear activist's ace in the hole. > >It is the reduction of energy presently being used, without necessarily >reducing the all important "comfort level" or "standard of living." > >In layman's terms, it means conservation and efficiency, with great emphasis >on efficiency. > >Primarily, it means doing the same or more with less. > >To compare, a coal or nuclear plant can take between 3 & 10 years to >construct. > >A Negawatt plant (an "energy efficiency power plant") of equal output can be >"constructed" in as little as several months, for generally half the cost. > >In the end, the impetus of Negawatts transferred to the employment market is >generally 2.5 jobs created through Negawatt industries, such as compact >fluorescents, window tints, shades, insullation, weather stripping, etc, to >1.0 jobs created by new generation. >Recent history shows that Americans - often criticized for being >wasteful of energy - have made great strides. Since the first "oil >shock" of 1973, the US economy has grown nearly five times faster >than energy use, according to the federal Department of Energy. >While gross domestic product (GDP) more than doubled over the past >20 years, energy use rose just 26 percent. >Most of this improvement has come through the use of more >energy-efficient appliances, buildings, manufacturing processes, and >transportation. Much of this was prompted by a stick-and-carrot >government approach of new standards and incentives. From: Saving energy by the "negawatt" The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com:80/durable/2001/05/29/p2s1.htm Typical case: >After a referendum shut down the troubled nuclear plant that had >provided nearly half Sacramento's power, investments in efficiency >and new, diverse, and often decentralized and renewable supplies >replaced it reliably at lower cost. Moreover, university analysts >found that five years' investments in electric efficiency had >boosted county economic output by $185 million and added 2,946 >employee-years of net jobs. From: Energy Forever By Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins (see separate post) http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/3/lovins-a.html With a great quote from Yamani: >Ex-Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Yamani is the latest of several energy >experts to say that "the Stone Age did not end because the world ran >out of stones, and the Oil Age will not end because the world runs >out of oil." >Modern efficiency technologies can put another $300 billion a year >back in Americans' pockets. >Producing such biofuels locally bypasses vulnerable pipelines and >provides more jobs. From: THE 800-MILE LONG CHAPSTIK... ...And Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity Amory B. Lovins (see separate post) http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4651 The ANWR debate (?) provided some interesting information. >Jerry Hood, secretary treasurer for the Alaska Teamsters, said >drilling for oil in ANWR would create "a lot of employment for the >American worker -- 735,000 jobs nationwide at a time when we have >lost 400,000 jobs since the first of the year in this country." > >That's a lot of jobs if Hood's estimate is correct, but is it? If >ANWR ever does become an oil field, the Teamsters may well be >disappointed. > >It turns out that Hood's estimate is drawn from a decade-old Wharton >Econometric Forecasting Association study commissioned by the >American Petroleum Institute (API), Big Oil's Washington trade >association and lobby shop. > >API's own support for its study seemed soft in recent interviews. > >"It's a 12-year-old study done by a very reputable company, whether >or not it's still accurate is something we don't know for sure," >Bill Hickman, of API's communications department, told TomPaine.com. > >The institute's chief economist, John Felmy, defended the study but >appeared to hedge. > >"It's clear that the study is still in the ballpark of what the >potential impact on jobs would be," he said. "There's no question to >me that you'd generate hundreds of thousands of jobs in that general >area." > >But environmentalists and some economists reject the new-jobs claim. > >Michael Renner, a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, a >public policy group, called the API estimate "implausible." > >"The number to me sounds pretty outrageous because the entire >employment in U.S. oil and gas extraction, at this point, isn't that >large and it keeps going down," he said. "It's true, of course, that >you would get a lot in construction of roads and laying pipeline and >putting down all kinds of facilities and that stuff, but that's very >short-term employment. It comes and it goes," Renner said. > >In general, the oil industry does not employ a lot of people per >dollar invested. "If one is concerned with jobs as a key objective, >it's probably one of the poorest choices one can make to invest, of >almost any industry," Renner said. > >Neil Elliot of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy >(ACEEE) agreed. "It's just not that much," he said. "You are just >not opening up that big a field, and the payroll cost associated >with that would drive the cost of the oil out the roof. It would not >be economic." > >According to a 1994 Economic Policy Institute study, drilling in >ANWR would only create 55,000 new jobs, or less than 8 percent of >API's prediction. From: Looking For Jobs In All The Wrong Places Shortsightedness Prevails at Leading Labor Unions http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/18/index.html Negawatts and biofuels are the best bet, for everything and everyone, including employment. Regards Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
