By Suzanne Kleiman

FIRST OF ALL, CHICKEN LITTLE, the sky is not falling. But the Chicken Little obsession with global warming — or climate change or whatever the alarmists are calling it these days — is harming us today, and will hurt us in the future.

Yes, climate change occurs every single day. No two days are alike. The world has gone through at least five major ice ages followed by five warming periods. Humans had nothing to do with those. Humans probably have an impact now on climate change, but it is small in comparison with the huge forces of nature — solar activity, volcanic eruptions, orbital variations, etc. — that have a direct impact on our weather. But by spending lots of money on something over which we may or may not have much control, we are misallocating resources today at the expense of prosperity tomorrow.

That lost prosperity — read: jobs and standard of living — might have led to a better quality of life for everyone in the future, including a cleaner environment.

A recent study out of Barcelona, Spain, by noted climate expert Gabriel Caldaza, vice president of the University Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala and president of the Juan de Mariana Institute of Madrid, Spain, shows unequivocally that for every one green job created, 2.2 jobs are lost. Wow! That is quite a statistic! He cites Spain as an example, though there are striking parallels in the U.S. Spain has spent massive amounts on uneconomical green projects while restricting conventional energy build-outs through regulation. Spain now has a 27-percent unemployment rate and massive debt. The youth unemployment rate is more than 50 percent.

There are, unfortunately, striking parallels in the U.S. Look at Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy and cost the taxpayers $527 million. Proponents claim that 40 other clean energy projects sponsored by taxpayers money helped keep 60,000 people employed (no mention whether those were part-time or full-time jobs). But how many of these projects are economically viable without taxpayer money? None.

On the other hand, how many jobs have been lost? Using Caldaza’s calculations: 132,000! These are conventional jobs — jobs that would have been created if the taxpayers could have spent that half billion dollars themselves, buying goods and services they want. Moreover, there are collateral jobs that would have been created by the ripple effect those demands place on the marketplace.

Even more jobs would have been created if the government had not stymied clean but traditional sources of energy through unnecessary regulation and stalling tactics. Our natural gas development is a real game-changer in the world. We would be totally energy self-sufficient — and, in fact, a net exporter of energy — if our gas resources were allowed to be developed rationally. What a difference that would make in world politics, too! The Keystone XL pipeline, if it were allowed to proceed, would infuse $4 billion to $5 billion of private money — not tax money — into the economy and employ 9,000 skilled American workers, with about 7,000 collateral support jobs. It has passed five EPA evaluations, yet still it is not allowed to proceed.

On the other hand, renewable energy projects have cost U.S. taxpayers $26 billion, with fewer than 2,300 permanent jobs created. That is $11.5 million per job, according to an AEIdeas.org article published in May, citing data from the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office. The article is readily available online and I urge everyone to read it.

Every time I read that Benicia or Solano County is off, like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills — or building windmills, or studying windmills — I cringe, wondering, “How much of the taxpayers’ money are they blowing in the wind this time?” Wouldn’t the money be better spent building schools, keeping the parks open, fixing the roads, adding police (think Vallejo), maintaining infrastructure like water pipelines and bridges, expanding Internet coverage, adding firemen, etc.?

It is a simple fact that a more prosperous society demands and can afford more of the benefits (goods and services) that society can create. Look at China. They have a rapidly expanding middle class, per capita income has risen dramatically and the quality of the average person’s life has improved — including air and water. According to the World Bank, China today is an upper-middle-income country whose per-capita income in 2011 was $4,940. This may not seem like much, but when you consider that according to the World Bank China’s per-capita income in 1991 was $370, it is pretty astounding. China is now the second-largest economy in the world. According to a report for the Congressional Research Services, from 1979, when economic reforms began, to 2012 China’s real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 10 percent. The projected rate for 2013 is 7.8 percent.

Contrast that with the U.S. Our middle class is shrinking. Net income (minus inflation) of the average worker has declined. We have an anemic recovery five years after going into recession. The expected GDP rate for the U.S. for 2013 is less than 2 percent. This climate obsession isn’t the whole reason, but it is definitely a part of it.

The question in my mind is three-fold. Is there climate change? Yes. Do humans contribute to it? Probably yes, but to a small degree. Finally, and most importantly, should we allocate our precious resources at this time to fight it, especially given our fragile economic recovery?

Is it worth it? Do we get good bang for the buck? To this I say emphatically — no!

Of all the major issues facing us as a small town, state, nation and as members of the world community, where should “sustainable projects” fall in spending priority? In my opinion, pretty far down. Our money would be spent much more effectively elsewhere. Once we get our feet firmly back under us, then we should look to lesser-priority items.

Ask yourself: Is our nation drifting economically toward the way of Spain, or toward China, and why? This is serious stuff, folks. The future for our kids and our nation depends on it. Give it some thought.

Suzanne Kleiman is a former college teacher who served on the Benicia Economic Development Board from 1999 to 2003. She has been an active Libertarian for many years.