Not so, at all. Unless one gets their data solely from conservative talking-heads like Glenn Beck, the issue is appreciably more complicated; and this complexity is due in large part to the methodological issues afoot in Mr. Alvarez's study.
To cut to the "brass tax", so to speak, let us look at the most fundamental component of this study: the job creation to loss ratio. By Mr. Alvarez's estimates [see:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...renewable.pdf] the Spanish Government has created 50, 000 jobs as a direct result of the cap-and-trade 'green subsidy' program - the United Nations, on the other hand, estimates the absolute job creation to be in excess of 100, 000 jobs under the new policy, significantly diminishing the impact of Mr. Alvarez's results. This is in addition to the official estimates from Spain's government [maybe as skewed as Alvarez's] which posit, like the UN, more than double Alvarez's estimates, and directly refute his dollar-per-job estimates in regard to absolute losses.
As well, "The European Union has been in the forefront of renewables development, setting ambitious targets. In coming decades, this policy can be expected to create large numbers of new jobs. A modeling exercise supported by the EU found that under current policies, there would be about 950,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs by 2010 and 1.4 million by 2020. These are “net” numbers— taking into account potential job losses in conventional energy and relating to renewables support mechanisms, which may result in lower spending elsewhere in the economy." [see:
http://www.unep.org/labour_environme...2section1.pdf]
Spain has certainly had its shortcomings in regard to policy application here, but the EU as a whole has seen tremendous growth in so-called "renewable markets". The model here would obviously be Germany, with approximately 192,000 net job increases since 1998 in wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and associated services industries. In fact, certain cities in Germany operating off of a "green model" contain energy-producing houses which sell the excess electricity produced by the houses on a monthly bases to energy companies, for a profit in the high range of $1,000 per household.
Finally, none of this takes into consideration prominent US-based studies at the University of Massachusetts, for example, that directly refute Mr. Alvarez's findings - nor is it taking into consideration the fact Alvarez has previously been funded by Exxon Mobile to the tune of $1.6 million dollars, and this study in particular was funded by a think-tank who receives appreciable oil money as well. It also does not take into account that the Energy Information Administration's own review of the potential market impacts of a EU-like program directly refute Alvarez's results, as well.
At any rate, I am unsure where I stand on so-called "cap-and-trade" and "green subsidy programs" in the North American market from a moral-pragmatic standpoint; I have even more reservations when considering their viability. However, the Spanish study needs to be read and presented in context, and not in the reduced state presented by Glenn Beck and so forth.
