Green Subsidy and Money Waste in California
AwN | California proposition 39 was supposed to create a lot of "green jobs" in California, instead what they got was some consulting jobs and a lot of incomplete or non-existent projects. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say that "green" has just become a method of funneling money into pet projects. I don't want to sound like I am not a believer in doing technological things in a better, more ecological way than before, but the truth is (or seems to be) most of the projects are doomed from the start. Rather than actually getting things done, the state of California (and the people who voted this into effect) have created another way for money to be wasted albeit while pretending to make a real difference.
The article states that philanthropist Tom Seyer invested 30 million into getting this proposition passed. 30 Million itself could have paid 600 workers 50,000 for one year. A private individual, obviously intelligent like I'm sure Mr. Seyer is may have been able to accomplish more than the entire project compared to California. I am not implying Tom Seyer had or has some other motive, I do not have any idea, but it seems to me that there were better ways of going about creating "green jobs". Or perhaps it is that green jobs are really just a red herring intended for use to concentrate the funds of those tricked into believing they are doing something beneficial.
I don't really have an answer to this problem. We see time and time again the green projects need subsidization above and beyond almost everything else. Meanwhile oil, gas, or coal don't but still get similar levels of subsidation anyway. It is all very convoluted, but I guess I'd like to hit on one final point. Be green for yourself, your neighbors, and the earth. You don't need to force the government to create inefficient projects, you only need to support the people and places that do righ by the people and planet.
Resources on California's Failure
"California lawmakers directed the tax revenue raised by the program to clean energy projects at schools around the state, predicting it could create 11,000 jobs every year. But the program is so far responsible for only 1,700 jobs total, according to the AP.
State officials told the AP they didn’t have details on the number of projects the program has been able to fund or the amount of energy savings it’s found. They also didn’t have information on the types of jobs created by the fund.
It's also bringing in less money than expected. When pushing the program ahead of its 2012 referendum, supporters said the fund would lead to $550 million in new clean energy spending, but it raised less than $280 million last year."
"It's undeniable that Proposition 39 has created a disappointing number of jobs, said Kirk Clark, vice president of the California Business Roundtable, which opposed the measure but did not aggressively lobby against it.
"We've got a long track record in California of over-promising green jobs and under-delivering," said Clark, who also expressed concern that most of the jobs created so far appear to be consulting positions.
Neither the Energy Commission nor Tim Rainey, director of the California Workforce Investment Board, could identify the types of jobs created by Proposition 39 projects. They said that information would be available when the oversight board meets for the first time, likely in October or November."