The rush to America of foreign wind-turbine manufacturers shows that the Obama administration's plan for stimulating the creation of green-energy jobs is going in an odd direction. Two weeks ago, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, led by Dallas investor Cappy McGarr, announced plans to build a $1.5 billion wind energy farm in West Texas. About a third of the money would come from federal stimulus funds. ...There would be perhaps 330 jobs created in Texas. Most would be temporary construction jobs. Meanwhile, thousands of Chinese workers in the northeastern industrial city Shenyang would build the labor-intensive turbines.

But if US wind turbine manufacturers want another foreign renewables contingent to worry about, there's always the Europeans. A study by non-profit group the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 84 per cent of the $1.05bn handed out by the US government since September 1 has gone to foreign companies - mostly European. It's not an overwhelmingly surprising finding given that the US subsidiary of Spain's Iberdrola Renovables - the biggest wind farm operator in the world - was also the biggest recipient of the funds. And big European turbine manufacturers such as Vestas have been quite clear that they see the US as their big growth market.

In AWEA's blog post, they describe a national Renewable Electricity Standard as "a free-market" program. That is not accurate. In free markets, people are free to choose. A Renewable Electricity Standard forces people to buy wind, solar, and other government-approved energy sources. It is a mandate. Forcing someone to buy your product is not a free-market program by any definition. Contrary to AWEA's assertion that a Renewable Electricity Standard would lower energy prices, common sense and real-world evidence suggest otherwise.

Wind power costs a lot to build and nothing to operate. Could it hammer the profits of power utilities that currently charge a premium to light your home by burning the decayed remains of ancient organisms? Investors shouldn't be too worried, according to Lasan Johong, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. Johong says that increasing our reliance on wind power could actually raise power prices significantly.

Policy fantasies are dangerous because they cause direct harm, replacing plans that might actually work, and because they spread economic illiteracy that can negatively influence future policies. ...Right now, one of the most dangerous policy fantasies is the distracting notion that government can create so-called green jobs and should strive to do so enthusiastically. While the principal proponent of the green jobs hokum, Van Jones, is now out of government, the idea still influences policy design.

Don't let the hype about "green jobs" fool you. The global warming bill approved earlier this year by the House of Representatives would destroy far more jobs than it could ever possibly create.

Over the past year, we have read several op-eds and letters to the editor debating the true cost of Cape Wind. After eight years of controversy, the Cape Wind developer has failed to prove that his costly private venture won't raise our electric bills. The Alliance has asked Gov. Deval Patrick to order an independent cost analysis to get Massachusetts ratepayers some well-deserved answers to the looming Cape Wind cost question. In the absence of a formal cost analysis, we can look to Europe, California, and perhaps most importantly, Texas, for lessons learned.

Of course, politicians are not alone. It's not unusual to find an economist who succumbs to the dark side of politics, letting political preferences override sound economic reasoning. A glaring example of politics overriding economics came June 26 when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. ...In effect, politicians are willing to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy for the sake of green politics.

Renewable energy faces many hurdles before it is "ready for prime-time", not the least of which is the ability for the industry to sustain itself long-term without government subsidies. Simply put, green energy has to provide sufficient profit for companies to invest in the infrastructure needed to produce it. Without government subsidies, that is not currently possible.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending - no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources - on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. His report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies; wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs.

I received a press release on Thursday about a new Emerging Energy Research [EER] study on wind power installations in the US for 2009 and beyond. EER argues that US installations could be down as much as 24% in 2009 from a record 8.55 GW in 2008. While utility-led projects remain mostly on track, smaller IPPs and developers that rely on project finance or other forms of external financing are finding the current market environment challenging.

European countries have been pushing a green jobs agenda far longer than America. Matthew Kahn, professor of economics at the University of California, Los Angeles, summarizes their record in the May/June issue of the centrist journal Foreign Policy. While "an optimist can certainly find success stories" in green job creation, Kahn concludes, there's no doubt that the "subsidies are costly," and that they not only "distort consumption and investment decisions" but result in "a less robust economy."

Despite expensive and extensive green-job policies, a surprisingly low number of jobs were created. And about two-thirds of those "green" jobs were just to set up the energy source, in construction, fabrication, installation, marketing and administration. Only 10 percent of the green jobs created were permanent jobs actually operating and maintaining the renewable sources of energy. Each wind industry job created in Spain required a subsidy of about $1.4 million.

The bill would require doubling in three years of the share of electric utility output that comes from renewable sources-wind, solar, geothermal, biomass-from three percent now to six percent in 2012. In a further leap of central-planning arrogance, the bill would raise that standard in stages to 25 percent in 2025. Sounds good? Maybe, but the technology to do it doesn't exist.

"Green jobs" are touted as the universal cure-all, saving the environment and the economy at the same time. Congress included more than $80 billion in spending and tax incentives to promote them in the recent stimulus bill. Van Jones, President Barack Obama's "green" jobs adviser, even recently called for using ex-convicts to build solar cells ...Unfortunately, claims about the wonders of green jobs are all too often constructed on myths about economics, forecasting, and technology.

President Obama in a speech at the Southern California Edison Electric Vehicle Technical Center last month favorably cited Spain as an example of how to boost an economy by creating green jobs. ...A new study by researchers at Spain's King Juan Carlos University suggests that the president may want to rethink Spain as a model for stimulating the economy with green jobs.

In signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this week in Denver, President Barack Obama claimed that the law -- which among other things will ramp up funding for renewable energy development -- is "laying the groundwork for new green energy economies that can create countless well-paying jobs." ...If the green-jobs claim sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was all smiles in 2006 when he signed into law the toughest anti-global-warming regulations of any state. Mr. Schwarzenegger and his green supporters boasted that the regulations would steer California into a prosperous era of green jobs, renewable energy, and technological leadership. Instead, since 2007 -- in anticipation of the new mandates -- California has led the nation in job losses.