DENVER — Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has been savaging what it calls President Barack Obama’s “unhealthy” obsession with “green jobs.” The Republican challenger criticizes the government program that propped up solar manufacturer Solyndra, and he mocks Obama’s vision of a boom in employment, citing a European study to argue that new solar or wind-energy positions would destroy jobs elsewhere.

But when a campaign spokesman said last week that Congress should let a tax break for wind energy producers expire at the end of the year, some Republicans were concerned the candidate had gone too far.

Republican Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that nearly 7,000 Iowans work in the wind industry, assailed the Romney campaign for “a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation.” Iowa’s senior senator, Chuck Grassley, told reporters he didn’t believe Romney really opposed the extension, and he joined five other GOP lawmakers in voting for it in the Senate Finance Committee.

The Obama campaign quickly organized conference calls for reporters and circulated fact sheets showing the deep support the credit has in such swing-voting states as Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.

Obama will appear in Denver and western Colorado Wednesday to promote his economic plan, and the wind tax credit may well come up.

The backlash on the wind tax issue shows the risks Romney takes in targeting a fast-growing and popular industry that Obama has embraced. However, Romney’s aides argue the campaign is just making a principled economic argument against excessive government interference in the marketplace — one that the conservative movement, which Romney has struggled to win over, has praised.

Indeed, Patrick Hedger, a researcher at FreedomWorks, a small-government group that is a prominent backer of the tea party movement, called Romney’s position “a happy surprise.” He added that Republicans who feared a political cost from Romney’s position were stuck in an outdated way of thinking. “We’ve got to get out of this cycle of buying votes with money we don’t have,” Hedger said.

But critics contend that Romney, who counts members of the fossil fuels industry as major financial supporters and relies on the head of an oil company as his energy adviser, has backed himself into a corner. “I think it’s really a knee-jerk reaction to what this president has done,” said Jeff Gohringer, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. “He (Romney) is actually going to states and advocating cutting thousands of their jobs.”

Surveys show the industry’s popularity. A Gallup poll in March found Americans nearly twice as likely to favor wind and solar energy as coal or oil. The American Wind Energy Association released a poll last month showing that more than half of Iowa’s voters say they would not back a presidential candidate who did not support expanding wind power. The January poll by Colorado College found that a majority of voters in six Western states — including the nearly two-thirds of Coloradans — believe that expanding renewable energy will create more jobs.

In Colorado, GOP Rep. Doug Lamborn says he was pleased the Romney campaign took a stand against the tax credit. “It shows he’s standing on principle and not pandering to win votes,” Lamborn said. But Lamborn is the only one of the state’s seven congressional representatives to oppose the extension.

Obama made green jobs a focus of his 2008 campaign, and he included tens of billions of dollars in incentives to promote energy efficiency and the renewable industry in federal stimulus efforts. After Solyndra’s bankruptcy last year, Republicans lined up to criticize the administration program that guaranteed the firm’s loans, and Romney has broadened the attack to the administration’s support for the entire industry, even in states where it is popular.

During a May stop in Colorado, where a poll from Colorado College found two-thirds of residents believe renewable energy will create jobs, Romney mocked Obama for spending billions to create “green jobs.” He asked the crowd: “Have you seen those jobs anywhere?”

The Romney campaign argues that what it calls “much-ballyhooed” wind and solar jobs may actually lessen the total number of jobs available because they replace positions in dirtier, but more labor-intensive industries. It cites a controversial Spanish study that found that every renewable energy job in that country destroyed 2.2 others.

“In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy,” Romney wrote in a March op-ed piece published in The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio. “This vision has failed.”

The Obama campaign has been eager to respond, especially after an Iowa Romney campaign spokesman, Shawn McCoy, said last week that the candidate favored doing away with the wind tax credit.

“Mitt Romney would slash investments in clean energy, which would cede leadership of these critical sectors of our economy to competitors like China and India — and the jobs that go with them,” the Obama campaign said in a statement, adding that the Republican has opposed ending tax breaks for the oil industry.

The American Wind Energy Association estimates that 37,000 jobs would be lost if the tax credit isn’t extended this year. The credit was created in a 1992 energy bill signed by President George H.W. Bush and was renewed in a 2005 measure that passed a Republican Congress and was signed by President George W. Bush.

The Obama administration gave Romney an opening by overselling the promise of renewable energy jobs, said Jonathan Rothwell, a senior associate at the Brookings Institution who helped write a report on the growth of green jobs. The jobs will come, Rothwell said, but it will probably take a couple of decades. “The Obama administration did exaggerate the short-term benefits of the green economy by implying it would drive us out of the recession,” he said.

Rothwell noted that renewable energy jobs are well-dispersed across the country and, while small in number, are growing rapidly. “That explains why there is broad, and in some cases bipartisan support,” he said.

The issue came up in an annual green energy conference hosted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday in Las Vegas.

Obama’s interior secretary, former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, noted that the Senate Finance Committee agreed on the proposal last week to extend the wind energy tax credit.

“That shows it ought not to be a Republican or Democratic issue, it ought to be an American issue,” Salazar said, stating the administration view.

Reid said he was confident it would pass by the end of the year.

___

Associated Press writer Ken Ritter contributed from Las Vegas.

Join the Conversation

22 Comments

  1. How hilarious can it get? The AP labels an authoritative study by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez from King Juan Carlos University in Spain “controversial.” That study has been replicated by a dozen other highly authoritative researchers — Verso Economics, CEPOS, Bruno Leoni Institute, Kenneth Green at AEI, Richard S.J. Tol, Bjorn Lomborg, RWI, Hilliard Huntington, University of Texas, University of Illinois College of Law, etc.
     
    Meanwhile, the Brookings study that bent over backwards to classify every imaginable job as “green” including bus drivers, sanitation workers, waste water treatment workers, etc. to show rapid growth of the “green” sector does not earn any such label. The AP could not possibly corrupt journalism more than it does with its editorials that masquerade as serious news stories.
     
    Joseph Toomey
    Author, “Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies”

  2. Insider U.S. Senate candidate Angus King and financial backer “Bayroot” (shell company masking the uber-rich Yale Endowment fund) finagled a $102 million DOE loan guarantee for their green nonsense, the Record Hill wind “farm”. No way they qualified, other than crony connections. Public risk, private profits. Useless energy source.

    See:
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/citizen-warned-dept-of-energy-not-to-loan-money-to-king-s-wind-co 

    and

    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-untold-story-of-record-hill-wind-continued 

  3. U.S. Dept of Labor testimony on what jobs it counts as being “GreenFri Jun 8, 2012 4:38 am (PDT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpQ47t7Yx6Q
    Start watching from the 3:15 mark of this video to its end.  It is U.S. Dept of Labor testimony on what jobs it counts as being “Green Jobs”.   Funny, but really disgusting.

  4. Before we get too excited over the “bipartisan” support for the wind production tax credit, let’s take account of how many of these Republican supporters are from states on the receiving end of the taxpayer’s generosity.  Grassley and Latham represent Iowa, a state long dependent on taxpayer funding – farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies and wind power subsidies.  It was Grassley who was the “father of the wind PTC” 20 years ago.  It’s the taxpayer funded gift to Iowa that just keeps on giving – he’s not about to let it go.  (We finally wised up and got rid of ethanol subsidies.  Hey, how much more can a corporate welfare state take?)

    Columnist David Brooks recently wrote an excellent piece in which he criticized our legislators’ lack of restraint and the unfortunate path that it is leading us down.  It applies well here.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/opinion/the-age-of-innocence.html?_r=2 

    Legislators have become like the parents who don’t have the willpower, integrity, or the courage of leadership to just say “no” to the kids in the toy store.  Instead, they’re focused on buying favor with voters using our money.

    1. Already, the American West leads the way in construction of clean and
      renewable electricity projects on the ground, spurred forward by
      policies including state renewable electricity standards and government
      investments in clean technologies. A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics
      study reflects this success, determining that in 2010, “green goods and
      services” accounted for:

      49,717 jobs in Arizona
      338445 jobs in California
      72,452 jobs in Colorado
      17254 jobs in Nevada
      21,267 jobs in New Mexico
      27,948 jobs in Utah

      This comes to 527,083 jobs altogether in these six states.

      1. @Mike, those numbers are a joke.  Look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of “green job” and laugh hard:  A stock boy in an antique dealer.  A clerk in a Salvation Army store.  A floor sweeper in a bicycle shop….   

      2. This is a fantastic comment. We’re indebted to you. The June 2012 BLS Regional and State and Unemployment Survey finds the following headline unemployment levels of the states you mention:
         
        States Embracing “Green Energy”
        Nevada (highest in the nation): 11.6%
        California (3rd highest): 10.7%
        Colorado: rate not shown but increase of 33,600 unemployed workers in 1 year
        Arizona: 8.2%
        New Mexico: rate not shown
        Utah: 6%
        USA Average: 8.2%
         
        States Embracing “Brown Energy”
        North Dakota: 2.9%
        Nebraska: 3.8%
        South Dakota: 4.3%
         
        How do those “green energy” jobs look to the legions of unemployed in the “green” states?
         
        Joseph Toomey
        Author, “Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies”

    2. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are the Real Job Killers

      Monday, 16 April 2012 10:59

      By May Boeve and Brendan Smith, Grist | Report

      How many lobbyists does it take to defend billions in subsidies for one of the most profitable industries in the world? 786.
      That’s the size of the army that oil and gas companies maintain in
      Washington to strong-arm Congress into bankrolling an industry that is
      cutting jobs and literally fueling the climate crisis. This army
      is bigger than Congress itself, which has only 535 members.

      Last year, Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee decided to investigate Big Oil’s jobs claims — and it turns out the industry has gone on a firing spree in
      recent years. They discovered that despite generating $546 billion in
      profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP
      reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that period. In
      2010 alone, the top five oil companies slashed their global workforce by
      4,400 employees — the same year executives paid themselves nearly $220
      million. But at least those working in the industry as a whole get paid
      high wages, right? Turns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs
      consist of minimum-wage work at gas stations.
       

  5. On cost alone renewable energy is the winner. The annual rate of energy inflation is 7%. The cost of producing electricity from solar has dropped 10% annually for 6 years and is expected to drop by 10% this year. I dont have the numbers on the decrease in annual cost for wind generated electricity but it is dropping.

    The problem of uneven production of electricity from renewable sources will be solved soon when batteries capable of efficient storage reach the market. Today car batteries store electricity.

    Communities and individuals can become energy independent by producing electricity for themselves. The winners will be the people. The losers will be the monopolies that control the production and distribution of energy.

    1. I do have the numbers Mike. DoE provides Levelized Costs of New Electricity Sources here:
       
      http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
       
      There are 2 big problems here. First is the 34% capacity factor they provide for wind. Where on earth do they get that? Texas is the largest wind state at better than 2-to-1 over the next biggest and deploys 21% of the nation’s wind. They will harvest only 7.8% of nameplate capacity this summer. DoE says 34%, ERCOT says it’s 7.8%. ERCOT runs the grid. They should know. You can get the data from ERCOT here:
       
      http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/510
       
      So the real costs are far higher than DoE’s numbers. The other problem is that DoE wind and solar cost numbers don’t include capital costs of 100% backup required to cover intermittency of these problematic sources. DoE admits this. Analysis by economists range all over the map. But the costs are real and DoE factors zero into their comparisons.
       
      Even if you accept DoE numbers, and who should, combined-cycle gas beats wind 1.5-to-1 and solar by 3.2-to-1. All that being said, I don’t expect even one syllable of any of this to convince “green energy” believers. It’s a faith-based belief not grounded in economic realities.
       
      Joseph Toomey
      Author, “Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies”

      1. Wind turbines in Maine are generating at about 30% capacity factor on average.  Isn’t the 7.8% ERCOT number just a forward planning number based on wind’s non-dispatchable nature – not the same as capacity factor?

        1. That’s a distinction without a difference. It’s what ERCOT expects to get this year based upon what they got last year. What’s the dif.? The Nameplate Capacity of all their wonderful wind investment is 10,045 megawatts. If they got that output, they’d be getting 100%. They’ll get 7.8% of it. The Effective Load Carrying Capacity is 874 megawatts. If Maine is getting 30%, it’s among the highest in the country. Cape Wind expects 28%. Altamont gets 26%, San Gorgonio gets 23.9% and Tehachapi gets 23%. Where on earth does DoE get 34% if all our examples are far below that number?
           
          Wind and solar are the only sources that need to be backed up to 100% of peak capacity. Every other source “displaces” existing capacity. Wind and solar “supplement” it. That’s why the DoE levelized costs are highly understated. Existing cost parameters at DoE numbers don’t recognize the incremental capital costs of backup generation capacity needed to prevent the lights from going out.
           
          There other problems as well. DoE doesn’t include the inefficiencies on base-load generation caused by wind cycling. Wind and solar result in more, not less, CO2, believe it or not, due to cycle-on, cycle-off inefficiencies at base-load fossil-fuel plants resulting from intermittency. We’ll save the deep explanation for my forthcoming book.
           
          Wind and solar makes us more, not less dependent on foreign sources of supply. Fossil comes from everywhere. Oil comes from 50+ exporting countries including the U.S., the world’s 3rd largest producer. The U.S. has the largest deposits of coal and nat. gas on earth. China supplies 98% of rare earths required for solar PV, phosphors in energy-efficient lighting, permanent magnets in wind and advanced hybrid batteries. Energy independence claims about renewables fail the test.
           
          Lastly, wind and solar are the most ecological damaging sources on the planet. A 1.5 Mw turbine requires 2 tons of lanthanum. All of it comes from China. Today, the leading cause of premature death in China is cancer and 85% of premature cancer deaths are digestive tract from ingesting polluted water from rare earth metals mining. Time to re-examine the canonical basis of renewable religion. Facts, not party-line dogma, will keep the lights on.
           
          Joseph Toomey
          Author, “Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies”

        2. And with respect to your sensible reply to Mike above, wind’s problem is not about batteries. Mike’s in a fog. He’s singing from a hymnal, not preaching truth. Wind doesn’t need batteries to store excess and balance loads. It can’t possibly generate enough power. It doesn’t require battery storage, it requires fossil-fuel backup.
           
          Joseph Toomey
          Author, “Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies”

    2. The problem storing wind energy will be solved soon?  Really?   Do you have some inside information?  Do you know how expensive a single battery for an electric car is?  When will wind generated electricity become economical enough to stop subsidizing it?  When will it be economical enough that it can compete side by side with other sources of electricity without government mandates to force it on consumers?

  6. Facts, those Darn Facts!

    Romney states “In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where
    government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the
    economy,”

    Finally  , recognition that there has never been credible independent scientific analysis of Wind.
    It is an economic and scientific  EXPENSIVE Fraud!
    Do the science , do the math…opt for readily available domestic  dense energy sources, oil ,natural gas,hrdro.

    It is time to use science and math for energy policy , and the laws of thermodynamics.

    We know many  politicians are mentally challenged in many ways, Romney is not one of them !

    No to subsized Wind—– Kudos to Romney!

  7. I wonder if some of those renewable tax credits (our tax dollars) could be channeled into retrofitting our military vehicles, including planes and nuclear submarines, with wind turbines?  Could this be done if enough batteries were used?  Imagine what a green statement this would make to the world!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *