Recently, the San Juan Record ran a story about the wind-farm projects in the Monticello Utah area. One point the article made was that the wind project that was being constructed by sPower would be a great
asset to the county and the school district because of the property taxes they would be paying.
“However, the impact goes beyond jobs. Every year, the wind farm will generate an estimated $200 in property tax for every student in the San Juan School District. In addition, it will also help pave roads, feed senior citizens, keep the libraries open, and operate local government.”
On the surface this green energy talk sounds really good and makes you feel all warm and cozy inside like when you sip a hot cup of hot chocolate on a cold winter’s day. But is this $200 in property tax real? There are some that say a wind farm will lower property values by something like 13%, and there are reports that say there is no effect to the value. But if there is any amount of a drop in property values that could be a problem, but another problem is all those grants and subsidies we talked about.
A study titled, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” addresses this issue in-depth.
Here is a quick look at the economic cost to the citizens as a result of these projects according to this analysis.
“The Heritage Foundation’s dynamic analysis of these economic costs are summarized as follows (adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars):
• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
• Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
• The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
• A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
• Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
This CDA analysis extends only to 2035, as this is the forecasting horizon for the macroeconomic model used to prepare these estimates. But it should be noted that the emissions reductions continue to tighten through 2050 and that model-based analysis by other groups whose models extend beyond 2035 shows increasing harm to the U.S. economy.
In addition to burdening households, the high energy prices weaken the production side of the economy. Contrary to the claims of an economic boost from “green” investment as firms undertake the changes to reduce emissions and increased employment as so-called green jobs are created to do this work, Waxman-Markey would be a significant net drain on GDP and employment.” (Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009)
When you look at the actual research and see the real cost of green energy on the citizens of this nation the picture isn’t as rosy as they want you to believe it is.