It's The Green Economy, Stupid

Like 1992, the economy is the central issue of this year’s presidential election.

Our country suffering from an economic recession, President Obama’s critics, most notably governor Romney, pounce in these troubled times. Blaming the president for America’s  7.8 percent

unemployment rate Governor Romney has claimed that he will produce over 12 million jobs over four years if he is elected to our nation’s highest office.  Like many candidates’ proposals, he’s big on promises and vague on the details.

For reasons I will expound on later, I am proponent of renewable energy and have been skeptical of Romney’s commitment to this type of job creation.

Nonetheless, as an objective type, I wanted to see for myself. Recently I scoured the Mitt Romney Program for Economic Recovery (don’t be too impressed, it’s only eight pages) for any mention of green job growth.  I didn’t find any, but I did find repeated calls for need of America’s “Energy Independence” and related jobs. 

Are you ready?

Mittens hopes to  “eliminate regulations destroying the coal industry, Approve Keystone XL pipeline, and streamline permitting for domestic exploration and energy development.”

Say it ain’t so.

Mitt Romney in fact has recently maligned Obama for the 90 billion dollar stimulus spent on Green Energy development and related job growth.  Implying that it was a give away, he has called for ending all subsidies to renewables. Citing the infamous Solyndra case as an example, he has said that the government should not be funding businesses.

These statements strike a chord with many who are anxious about the federal government’s record deficits.  The only problem for Romney is that they are not true.

For example, of the 90 billion “given away” to green energy, only 21 billion was spent on actual renewable energy, the rest was a mix of other green projects, including a 3 billion for “clean coal” projects.

Solyndra, which lost 528 million dollars, represents a small part of the DOE 1705 loan program.  Mitt Romney may become uncomfortable talking about it, but the overall success rate  of 1705 is higher than that of Bain capital’s. In fact, 1705 has had a 98% rate, compared to the 80% investment rate that Mitt’s company achieved.

Apart from Mitt Romney’s math, they call to question a fundamental difference in vision for the future between the President and his challenger.

We have been learning about balance sheets and their components: assets, liabilities and equity. Such knowledge is helpful when framing the debate for our energy future.

It is true that the United States has abundant coal, natural gas and oil.  It’s also true that we have considerable wind, solar and other renewable potential.  Seen strictly as energy produced and employment opportunities, both renewables and non-renewables could be seen as assets.

The similarities end when we look at the liabilities we incur from these respective energy sources.

Wind and solar, like all manufactured technologies have trade-offs that should be taken into account as we choose our energy future.

However, when compared to coal, oil and gas, which will make our planet hotter, poison the environment, harm people and ultimately be depleted, it is not a hard choice to make.

Obama is not perfect, and I hope that he can do more for clean energy over the next four years.  Nonetheless, given the alternative, I think that the choice is clear.