in ...

>> book tv continues of diana furchtgott-roth. she looks it up on the screen jobs initiative and argues that it hurts the economy. this is about 40 minutes. >> and howard hughes for research at the manhattan institute. thank you for joining us. the question of whether and how governments, particularly the federal government direct tax dollars to industries was a discussion last night presidential debate and is becoming an ongoing theme in the campaign. the term on which the finance and industries have also been the focus of intense debate, but probably the most contentious example of all is the one on which diana furchtgott-roth of the manhattan to senior fellow and speaker this afternoon

focuses and are tightly regulating to disaster, have green jobs policies are damaging america's economy. in fact, she subjects the assumptions and policies which led to such elevated as of now bankrupt seller paid no manufacture as well as the electric car battery manufacturer to a withering analysis, which we at the institute have come to expect from this oxford trained economist who served as chief of staff of the council of economic advisers -- sorry. during the administration of president george w. bush. while the serving direct investments in private firms and cautionary tales for those who tell the government rather than private investors allocate

capital. they can't stay in its first year as an institute senior fellow, a year in which he is to prolific and influential cited by writers, reporters, talkshow host across the country. i think in particular many contributions to a series called issues 2012 ranging from her analysis demonstrating even adjusting the state of the economy receiving food stamps is at an all-time high. we've heard that occurred in the campaign. she made clear the oil companies so vilified by politicians are not monopolies controlled by a few wealthy industrialist but rather an important wealth income for millions of average americans. but their real clear markets in the "washtington examiner," tax has her testify before congress issues frequently asked to do, diana is a powerful an effect of

voice and debates. as i know you will agree after her talk this afternoon. the college and oxford university in addition to president george w. bush, served us well on the staff of messy policy counsel for president george h.w. bush embassy staff economist for economic advisers during the reagan administration in 2,322,005, ms. furchtgott-roth was chief economist of the u.s. department of labor. she's also the author of the specialized of women's figures come a guide to the economic progress of women in america. please join me in welcoming senior fellow, it ansi one. [applause] >> thank you very much howard

for that kind introduction and thank you all for coming. briefly you can be doing other things today but here you are listening to me talk about green jobs in the fallacies of green jobs. i like to thank the manhattan institute not only for supporting this research, but organizing this talk. i'd also like to thank a mechanical engineer who has built all around the world who is here in the basin and technical aspects of energy in the boat and who wrote the whole manuscript to check on the scientific details of it. well, this is an appropriate day for talking about regulation to disaster because less that president obama promised once more to develop the energy sources of the future. republican or democrat decides to develop energy projects, taxpayers had better watch out.

governments get in the business of picking winners and losers, which leads to cronyism and wasted taxpayer dollars. this is the question of industrial policy. whether government should support business ventures and new technology that are unable to secure private hunting, government appears to be worse than private market in the records that we have over the past five years. in california in may, mitt romney said, quote, the president doesn't understand when you invest like that in one solar energy company makes it harder for solar technology generally because the scores from the ranch partners in the field suddenly lost their opportunity to get capital. who wants to put money into a solar company when the government puts half a billion

into one of its choice? excellent question. i wrote this book because were not just spending half a billion. we are spending $12 billion year-to-date electricity more expensive rather than cheaper. that's about six elion and tax breaks and 6 billion in direct expenditures. we are pursuing a vision of green jobs that makes no sense and has low income americans. we brainwash our children to think green is good and think uncritically about green products and green jobs. yet we can't even define what a green job aids. let's start with green jobs. the bureau of labor statistics has five definitions of the 3.1 million green jobs is calculated, namely energy from renewable sources, energy

efficiency, energy pollution reduction and removal, natural resource conservation and environmental compliance, education and training public awareness. when i was testifying on capitol hill before the house energy and calmness committee they had a paper cup in front of me. often they have a bottle of water come up at this time they had a bottle of water and a paper cut. power to save energy on the other side. since this that the definition of education, training and public awareness, the workers who made it green jobs. if they had just said a plain white cup, the people who made it would not have had green jobs. when i wrote this book for my regulating disaster about

environmental issues, while i was doing it i had a green job and perhaps they still do right now because i'm talking about it. but if i had been writing -- if i'd been writing about social security and at the same time was writing a book about women figures, if i'd just been working on that i would not have had a green job. they still are regular toaster have green jobs. if they low flow toilets that have green jobs. farmers can have big grow corn for ethanol they have a great job. if they grow corn for ethanol and corn for people to eat, they have a green job. if they just grow corn for people to meet, even though they are farmers they don't have green jobs. salvation army workers if they recycle used clothing they have green jobs, too.

well, they're 4665 people who produce renewable energy and utility companies according to the bureau of labor statistics latest report, which came out in april. they are clearly green. which you have to ask, are they making energy more expensive are they making it less expensive? it is clear they're making energy energy less expensive. the average level as cost entering service in 2017 according to the department of energy, if they are field by natural gas, this cost $66 per megawatt hour. for wind, $96 per megawatt hour. for solar power $153 per megawatt hour. five years ago when the energy loan guarantee program was put in place and many of these subsidies for solar and wind, we didn't know we were sitting at

200 years of inexpensive natural gas. so maybe it was logical for people to think we need to be independent or as independent as we can be of the middle east. in fact, the first president to claim the phrase energy independent was richard nixon, a republican. so maybe it was logical to think if we make our own energy, we'll be more independent and self-sufficient. but this is before we found we had all this inexpensive natural gas around $2.75 send. so now we are in the middle the new american energy revolution. we found that we have all this. as john maynard keynes once said, when the facts change, i change my mind. what do you do? well, the facts have changed. we have inexpensive energy right

here without having to ask around saudi arabia to send it to us. we have so much natural gas that now we are talking about exporting liquid natural gas. a single year described in an op-ed in today's "wall street journal" it's so cheap that chemical manufacturers are attracted back to america. it's so cheap that russia is worried his hold on the eastern european economy is going to fail because we cannot supply them at natural gas in southern russia at the initial supply. in this environment, subsidizing wind and solar makes no sense. also five years ago, we thought china and india and other emerging economies might sign on to emissions reduction and therefore if we reduced emissions, perhaps global temperatures would be reduced.

i don't take a position on whether man-made emissions cause global warming are not, but if we are reducing emissions in china and india, which make up 37% of the worlds population are not doing so, we're not going to have any effect on global temperatures. in the first chapter of the book i talk about geoengineering solutions that nobel prize winning scientists paul crookston thinks could reduce global temperatures if we adjust honoring such as spurring water or painting rooms white to reflect the sun rays. what we are doing with the $12 billion they spent on alternative energy is pushing people into cars they don't want to buy. we are raising electricity costs. we are getting rid of incandescent light bulbs and fluorescent lightbulbs.

the cost of this falls disproportionately on to those who are least able to afford it. the lowest of the income distribution according to recent data assessment that the labor bureau statistics spent 24% income on electricity, natural gas and gasoline. that's right. a house on the bottom fifth spends 24% of income on energy compared to an average of 7% for american households in general. the top spent 4% of income on energy. it's just strange that well-intentioned people who purport to represent the interests of the poor are advocating policies who are going to do them harm rather than good. in addition to hurting the poor and putting taxpayer money at risk, industrial policy to promote solar and wind are also undesirable because they create

opportunity for political influence on what should be decisions on the merits. take ricers energy for example, an oakland, california company that received $1.6 billion in energy department loan guarantee e-mail specifically referred to vice president joe biden's involvement in the 1.6 billion grand. for the proposed solar power project in the desert in southern california. an e-mail from bracer's energy subcontractor tells the systems and infrastructures said i'd met weekly with energy secretary steven chu to discuss the energy department loan guarantee. bernie toon, britain's chief of staff when he was a senator in the senate as a principal vice president and manager.

an e-mail to ceo john willard dated december 3rd, 2910 he wrote calls are into biting sass and i be approaching political affairs at the white house tomorrow so as is projected to benefit and races will be tough next year. barbara boxer of california and majority leader senator reid from nevada. both won reelection in 2010. over a year later in march 2011, bracer are still had no love. they sent e-mail to jonathan silver who is executive dirt of the energy department phone guarantee program. he was responsible for making sure these loans went through. woolard wanted software to review a draft e-mail that the chairman of the board of bracer synergy was planning to send to

william daley, who was then chief of staff to president obama at the white house. and this is from the e-mail. either e-mail or call and you can with suggestions woolard wrote. the e-mail stated the white house needs to focus on finalizing the loan guarantee for what would be the largest solar project in the world. bracer's energy was conditionally approved more than a year ago and is in the final stages of being completed. we need a commitment from the white house for a long closure between allenby india d. by march 18, end quote. a house energy and commerce subcommittee meeting last may, chairman jim jordan said to woolard, quote, you're asking the guy in charge of making final decisions to proofread an e-mail that your chairman is going to send to the white house chief of staff nec there is no

political involvement? while in another coincidence or not, the loan received final approval in may 2011 a month after silver reviewed proofreading requests, which he repeated as the e-mails can be seen from his personal accounts, personal e-mail account, not department of energy account. the draft e-mail had served itself. after all of the political appointees in the energy department knows the white house chief of staff is concerned about a loan in his portfolio, you'll quickly deal with it. as we all, white house involvement in bracer synergy was not an isolated incident. the energy and commerce committee published e-mails energy that specifically refer to brighten and his staff is advocating for someone to come of the solar panel company that

receives $520 million in loan guarantees before declaring bankruptcy in september 2011. the winter was rushed through september 2009 so that vice president biden couldn't appear at the opening period for days beforehand a communications aide to the vice president asked them to see and there's pushback from career staff at the office of management and budget. kevin carroll, chief of the office of management and budget energy staff replied, i would prefer this announcement he postponed. this is the first loan guarantee and we should have a full review with all hands on deck to make sure we get it right, unquote. well, they didn't get it right in 528 million taxpayer dollars were lost. it can be seen that the energy

loan guarantees have been notoriously unsuccessful record. at the 33 energy loan guarantee projects made since 2009, i calculate that over 90% have shown signs of trouble ranging from this production close to bankruptcy filings appeared a report for the government oversight committee said 70 of these fonts were judged as junk or the investment grade because of their low rating quality, low quality. we have an election two weeks from today in american voters have a clear choice that is going to vote for greater government support or are they going to let the private sector manage on its own? as an indicator, all we have to do is look at north dakota where

it is 3% because of all the hater fracturing for oil and natural gas going on a privately held land. every state wants to be like north dakota. it is interesting that mitt romney would default the decisions as to whether to explore homeland or not to the individual states. he let each individual states decide. virginia for example that wants to look for oil off its coast would be allowed to do so. that permission was revoked by the obama administration even that was granted by the bush administration previously. everybody wants to get sources of energy in their states for not only to be able to get the jobs of getting it out, but attract criminal and manufacturing companies with low prices. so this is the choice we will have before us and to meet sees

clearly the the way to go. i'd like to thank all of you for listening and i'd be very happy to take any questions. [applause] >> thanks, dana. if i could just start off with one question. among the natural gas reserves are natural gas reserves in the state, upstate new york. if by some fluke you had governor cuomo regarding potential for hater fracturing in the decision he is facing, what might you say to him? >> i would certainly say to look at the example of pennsylvania, which has created many, many jobs and is doing well and that job and they have an experienced environmental problems. it seems obvious that haida refracting is the way to go and

governor cuomo is free to set whatever regulations he wants around that to ensure the safety of water quality and other things that residents are concerned about. i would say that project should proceed. there's no reason new york should be left behind. >> right in front. wait for the microphone. >> i wanted to ask you very good examples of unsuccessful creation of new green jobs. have you also look at the elimination of existing jobs that really good cost-benefit analysis for mercury regulations of gold, for example quite >> the cost-benefit analysis for mercury was a travesty. if you look at the cost-benefit

analysis carefully, all the benefits for reducing mercury came from getting rid of particular and particulars were not the focus of that particular regulations and what was interesting is the benefits focused on additional days of school, another is fewer days of school must fewer days of work missed because of lower levels of particular because that particular relation to asthma. over the past 25 years has gone down tremendously, mostly because of this which are invited to on london. the incidence of asthma is going up. the center for disease control does not have a strong link between asthma and particular, but that was the basis of the mercury rule. this has resulted in very large

to coal-fired power plant to have to close because of this. we party had 110 coal-fired power plants close since january january 2010. it's also interesting where the das aims can send about airborne mercury, they don't seem to be concerned about houses and fluorescent lightbulbs. so if you look at the bp website, it has strict instructions what to do if you have a fluorescent fold that breaks because apparently it contains mercury. according to the website you're supposed to clear the room for 15 minutes. not a lot to see the broken bulbs. you need to moisten a paper towel or take some sticky tape. then you need to take the broken bowl of prey center. how many people are going to be bothered to do this? this is because it contains

mercury. why are they bring it into peoples homes as they are so concerned to close many minds and coal-fired power plants. it doesn't make any sense. >> thank you, diana. the department of energy loan guarantee program, what is the funding flow to the program? do you think they should be such a program at all? feedback they have you spend all the money by last september. there are still projects out there. many are experiencing difficulties and i think that there should not be a program at all. there should be an even playing field between all forms of

energy. the stock at the same same domestic manufacturing deduction, which is 9% and they shouldn't have any special tax breaks. the problem with subsidizing is making everyone's lives worse off. it's making utility bills workcenter rather than less expensive and this isn't something we want to be doing. [inaudible] >> well, it is already hitting the 520 million that won't be repaid and we are hearing about more bankruptcies. so as these companies go bankrupt, we will incur losses. some of them may succeed and we would be in an even position budget wise. i don't think any would result in big games for the government. the reason is any kind to me that can get up from a bank or can get support from a venture capitalists will do that if the

government is left of the tricks of the project and outside have a lower success rate than the ones in the private sector. they start out with a biased sample. >> stanley. >> stanley goldstein. they controlled the house two years and we can stop just about any allocation of funds. are we at fault, too quick >> republicans are more fault because during the last decade we put in place the loan guarantee program. we put in place in nbc's ethanol. 13 billion gallons this year, moving up to 36 and gallons in 2020 or 2025. so be originated this. i'm a little bit embarrassed to say so, but when i worked at the white house in 2001 in 2002,

there is very much awareness of environmental issues in certain things done because we wanted environmentalists who like us. the republicans should just do the right thing. everyone should do the right in without worrying about the clique mentality, who's going to like us, who isn't going to like this? there's an idea appealing to these groups. it's difficult for house republicans these past two years to stop any spending the regular spending elsewhere. once the program is in some, people just keep it going and what we need to do right now at the end of the year tax credits will expire. the wind credit, solar credit we should let expire. some would companies are laying off workers because they don't expect it to be extended.

the need to get rid of the ethanol mandate because it's hitting what is called the blend well. we use us unless castling but it is going up from what only is 10% ethanol and gasoline. so there isn't any way to use the amount congress mandated in the last decade and that is something that needs to be changed. >> david masher. if i recall correctly i believe it was the eisenhower administration to put in the interstate highway system. i might be mistaken. >> that's right. they started it off. >> is there a way, or do you think there is a way in which the federal government could provide an infrastructure such that the automobile industry could shift to natural gas, for

example? or even batteries if people wish to have that kind national way. >> said the government already has provided grants to battery companies and last week another one what bankrupt, a 123 battery company. algae can is another battery company laying off workers. i'm not sure that the government has a role. the first natural gas goes, gm and chrysler -- gm and ford have announced to also pick up trucks using natural gas and gasoline in many fleets of trucks and buses now run on natural gas. some people have called for the government to fund infrastructure so people can fill up with natural gas to different places. that is something for the private sector to do.

natural gas is so inexpensive that companies have the incentive to do this. if government just takes one of these comments say charging up the vehicle in people's homes, which is when we took over churching the vehicle at gas stations the public on to allergy justice concerns about electronic medical records, which sounded like a good idea at the time, because his innumerable headaches for the recent patients right now. when the government picks the technology is often likely to pick the wrong one. at least the one technology will be a drain on the taxpayer and walk on torturing dollars deficit. ibm back ibm back thank you. i would like to know to which degree to think as the united

nation but for the 21st century to political power in the hands of the green lobby. >> well, the u.n. has been very encouraging of the green lobby and the screen job issue is not an issue here in the united state. it is an issue also in europe being encouraged by the u.n., encouraged by the meeting over the summer. but europe is also finding green job aren't all they thought they would be. spain has stopped subsidies for solar power under that doesn't work in sunny spain it's not going to work anywhere. germany has also stopped at subsidies which is more understandable because there's a lot of clubs in germany, even though the economy isn't cloudy at all. the u.n. has had a strong influence on this.

>> yes, sir. >> chuck bradford. you are probably not old enough to remember, the jimmy carter gave lots of money, billions of dollars to alternate energy projects. >> i do remember. >> too many of those plants still exist is the question? i don't think they lasted more than a couple years. secondly, are you familiar with another jimmy carter program, where he gave money to five different steel mills, for about engraft immediately on the fifth one put out a plan to kansas city that the blame on being. >> ray. what jimmy carter's programs didn't work then. as i mentioned, i remember waiting in the 1970s to philip gasoline in the washington d.c. area. just as the programs didn't work then and are not working now,

they're unlike to work in the future. it's just that the government is not good at picking winning projects. the government wouldn't have thought of picking apple iphone five for example. that is expensive, but people wait in line because they want to buy one. it's not necessarily technology and expensive. is it just know what people want spend money and we don't know what it is. but there's other smart entrepreneurs and i'm sure many in the audience who have a better idea than the folks in washington. >> would you be in favor of a significantly higher gasoline tax to address the hidden social cost of pollution, what economists refer to as externalities? >> if i thought the castling were underpriced coming if they would be in favor of a carbon

tax, not just gasoline, but that would affect energy. i don't believe energy is underpriced in the united states. there's many benefits of energy. is my job mobility. particular gasoline, people been able to drive on trips and get to work in places where public transportation does not run. lower-priced energy attracts manufacturing back into the united states. as a type of energy becomes more scarce, we see the price rising of its own accord, no gasoline is up to about 350 a gallon, about almost twice what it was when president obama took office although as many people point out, that is partly due to the weakening dollar. when there is a shortage of one type of energy, the price rises that people switch to other energies. i don't think this negative externalities and if we don't pass any more energy regulations

come areas will continue to get clean as old equipment is taking off the roads and new equipment is brought on. if i were to say get rid of may may 1995 jeep invited to a five jeep come in the air irrigate cleaner without without any other regulations mr. power plants, other equipment also. >> yes, sir. >> our view chomsky. i believe you said a moment ago that since 2010, some date in 2010, over 100 coal plant -- >> since january 1, 2010 it had 110 coal-fired power plants closed down. that's what i said. >> at the very large number. how many jobs have been lost on that? i haven't seen this written up any place or given any degree of

prominence. very good articles about individual plant closings, the nothing about the magnitude of it. how many jobs have been lost quick >> at the number offhand, but i can get back to that later and we've gone from producing 40% of our electricity with coal to producing about 30%. interestingly enough in one of the carbon will set the environmental protection agency put out over the summer, they said that this carping rule at no cost on the coal industry. i had to read carefully through cost-benefit analysis to figure out why there is zero cost from the coal industry. the answer was they were not expecting one additional coal-fired power plant to be built. so there's no cost on the coal industry, ray? said they are sending coal the picture. my colleague has written extensively about this and it's

very interesting the president a promise that we should be more like china. china produces 70% of electricity from coal and less than 2% from renewables. they are making solar panels and wind turbines and exploding them to us for our use of missouri city becomes more expensive and manufacturing because of the price of electricity here goes over to china. it's very smart of chinese and the legal. it is not as though they engage in anything underhand and we are doing this to ourselves. we need to use their own resources and focus on the benefits of inexpensive energy. >> diana, you mention exports and the possibility for experts. with the institute of the power and growth initiative, which you are aware of of course it is predicated on the idea that can be what they called the the new middle east. i wonder if you can talk a little bit about why you feel exports of energy, natural gas,

oil is practical at this point. >> well, we used to import -- we imported a lot of natural gas. what's interesting is to seek a forecaster with three years ago for imports of natural gas. those are headed steadily up. now instead of down, there are many -- there are companies that now want to export. it's not just important because it exists revenues, it's good for trade talents, but it's also good for geopolitical reasons. it enables us to offset the power, economic power countries such as russia such as the satellite republic, eastern european economies and this could bring us tremendous benefit, not just in the united states. we also want to import oil from canada through the keystone

pipeline. that gets more jobs to refineries in the gulf of mexico because it supplies of oil they get from venezuela and mexico are dwindling. so we can also be exporting oil, oil products we don't use in the united states, but that i use elsewhere in the world. >> the name of the book is "regulating to disaster." i suspect diana is willing to sign your copy. thank you rematch, diana for coming. >> thank you for listening. [applause] >> baratunde thurston is the author of "how to be black." mr. thurston, how do you be black? >> it helps so much to be born

black. i think that's the most reliable way. this book doesn't convert you from non-black to black. it's not an enhanced genetic modification. as for an intellectual exercise and identity storytelling and polarity. >> what is one example of being black in your view? >> the story of the book is mostly a memoir. a group in washington d.c. during the crack wars in columbia heights before cutting matchers station on a target. that journey from very political but our family and the legacy of my ancestors through harvard, that is the back of the boat. then there's lessons i learned along the way, how to beat a black friend. how to speak for all black people, which we are often to represent. everybody was sort of kind of baby look like. how to be the next but president bush's applicable during the season. contains those of interviews

with experts identified primarily people who think like their entire lives as well who really know what they're talking about. >> when you graduate from college and your mother said we did it come and set an example of being black? >> that was an example of being both proud and probably generous. when she said that, she was talking both about her efforts as a tiny family, me, her older sister and also the people before us in this stage that was set to allow someone who is the offended the great grandfather born to slavery to graduate from acoustic harvard university, ever to the onion for years mocking the very government and society to inflate my ancestors. there's a huge progress and opportunity within that story. when she said we did it shouldn't all those things. >> you mentioned her work at the onion. with your day job now? >> i? >> i am the founder. i left a start up company called

cultivated widths. we do projects that combine humor and technology to tell better stories, make the worthless horrible. so day job, my job come in between that job. so i think about right now. i want to be one of the sneakers, not a taker. >> baratunde thurston, how is having a black president affected your work? >> it gives me one other child, which is great. you can add to the list thug, athlete, sassy black women, also president. that school expanded the range for one particular job. it's a fun and proud image and is also created challenges. i think president of him as a symbol of massive racial progress is often overstated, so it makes the argument are complicated when people say her work is finished as america in the great racial project of equal opportunity. it really isn't, so having a