The Truth About Green Jobs
When they're coming, who will get them, and how to prevent their outsourcing.
Message discipline has never been one of the left's strengths (oy gevalt), so it's been somewhat astonishing to hear the chorus of support lately for "green jobs." From city officials in Albuquerque and Minneapolis up to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, more and more Democrats are framing climate change as "a moment of opportunity for innovation and job creation," as Obama has put it, that can revitalize the flagging US economy. But occasionally, enthusiasm outpaces reality. Let's sift through a few of the more popular claims.
[ 1 ] Green jobs are everywhere!
Does the administrative assistant in the front office of a solar power company count? How about the vanpool driver? Using extremely generous assumptions, energy economist Roger Bezdek calculated that green jobs accounted for about 5 percent of the US workforce in 2006. That's not shabby, but it's a long way from a clean, green economy.
[ 2 ] We'll turn miners into solar installers.
Working-class Americans still feel burned by nafta, when they were told not to worry about lost manufacturing jobs because they'd be trained for new, high-skill jobs. Clean-energy advocates, promising that jobs sent offshore by future carbon taxes will quickly be replaced, are now pushing an uncomfortably similar line.
But things may be different this time. There is already a relatively high demand for green-collar labor in manufacturing and the power sector, and a shortage of trained workers. In a 2005 survey by the American Public Power Association, half of utility employers said that at least 20 percent of their workers would be eligible to retire within the next seven years. Most of those 20 percent were highly skilled. Those vacancies avoid the main problem with the old nafta strategy: A job training program that's not linked up to specific industries with documented demand for labor "never works," says Dan Kammen, director of the University of California-Berkeley's Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory and a top environmental policy adviser for Obama. "But if you have a federal mandate for clean energy, and you have job training in association with industry, there is a big success route." It's worked in Germany, which added 57,000 jobs in the wind, solar, hydro, and biomass industries between 2004 and 2006. But in the US, where industrial and job training policy is still haphazard? That remains to be seen.
[ 3 ] Green jobs are primarily in wind and solar, i.e. the West and Southwest.
Consider wind turbines: Each consists of more than 8,000 parts, from ball bearings to fiberglass housing. A 2004 report from the national research firm Renewable Energy Policy Project found more than 16,000 US firms that could take part in that supply chain, most in the populous Southern and Midwestern states that have lost the bulk of the manufacturing jobs.
But renewable energy is only half the strategy. The other half, and the biggest job creator, is increasing efficiency—revamping buildings, cars, and appliances as well as improving transit, waste, and water infrastructure. Take the building sector (please)—it accounts for 39 percent of US carbon emissions. Driving up its energy efficiency may be the fastest and most cost-effective way to reduce emissions; by one estimate, 75 percent of buildings stand to be replaced or substantially rehabbed over the next 25 years. According to architect Edward Mazria, investing about $20 billion in building energy efficiency would save consumers $8.46 billion in energy bills annually (a less than three-year payback), replace 22 coal-fired power plants, reduce annual CO2 emissions by the equivalent of taking almost 16 million cars off the road for a year—and create more than 200,000 new jobs.
[ 4 ] Green jobs can't be outsourced.
There's nothing magical about a solar panel that makes it less likely to gravitate toward cheap labor—in fact, China already produces one-third of the world's solar cells. If the US wants green manufacturing jobs, it will have to develop industrial policy to keep them here. Obama has taken a step in that direction by proposing $150 billion in spending over 10 years on green energy incentives and job training. And infrastructure jobs can't be outsourced—retrofitting an economy must be done from the inside.
[ 5 ] The green-jobs movement can unite progressives across race and class lines.
While "green jobs" and "green-collar jobs" are often used interchangeably, the latter is actually a subset of the former—the blue-collar green jobs. And who gets the green-collar work? Labor organizations want them to replenish the declining pool of mid-skill, working-class manufacturing jobs. (Though actually, old distinctions between white-collar and blue-collar work may not necessarily apply here. Renewables are so hot, says Michele McGeoy, who runs a solar-photovoltaic installation training program in Richmond, California, that "College grads who want to get their foot in the door are willing to do labor.") Meanwhile, community groups would like them matched up with recovering addicts, paroled felons, and at-risk youth.
Politicians are notorious for wooing white, working-class voters. If policy choices have to be made that favor either whites or poor minorities, who do you think gets screwed? The Green Jobs Act of 2007 set aside $125 million for green-collar job training. Just 20 percent was targeted for pathways out of poverty.
[ 6 ] Fossil fuels power lots of jobs.
Proponents of fossil fuels tout job creation, but the truth is there aren't many jobs in dirty energy, and that number is declining. To wit: Over the last two decades, coal output in the US has grown by a third, while the number of jobs in the coal industry has fallen by half. According to economist John A. "Skip" Laitner of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, for every $1 million of revenue in energy-related sectors, fewer than two jobs are created, compared to seven jobs per $1 million earned elsewhere. Thus, shifting investment away from conventional energy can't help but create more jobs, particularly during the transition to a green economy, when construction, efficiency, and other labor-intensive industries will be scaling up.
[ 7 ] Environmental laws slow the economy.
The classic rebuttal to green-jobs hype: Putting people to work installing geothermal systems won't help if green policies destroy more jobs than they create. In this year's Senate debate over cap-and-trade legislation, for example, Republicans brandished economic models from the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere that predicted the destruction of up to 1.8 million jobs if a price is put on carbon.
Without getting into a discussion of econometric modeling (you're welcome), suffice it to say many mainstream macroeconomic models are increasingly considered, in the somewhat intemperate words of ucla economics professor Matthew Kahn, "crap." Their problem is a whole series of dubious assumptions that overstate costs and understate benefits.
Even as it tallies up specific jobs in specific industries, the green-jobs crew is missing a chance to confront the toxic premise that sustainability is at odds with economic growth. A country that takes on the massive task of creating a clean and efficient economy will put more people to work, create competitive industries, and ultimately make all jobs a little greener.
Page 1 of 1 
This whole "green jobs" premise is ridiculous. Want to see the real perspective? Read John Stossel's article below.
Green Jobs
John Stossel
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a great twofer pitch: "green jobs." It sounds like a winner. In one fell swoop he can promise to end unemployment and fix and save the planet from climate change.
Or so he says.
"I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced," he told the Democratic National Convention.
Wow. Five million new jobs. All that work building windmills and creating biofuels are the "green jobs" that will come into existence when wise government creates the industries that will produce the energy and vehicles that will make fossil fuels obsolete.
Politicians always promise that their programs will create jobs. It's used to justify building palatial sports stadiums for wealthy team owners. Alaska Rep. Don Young claimed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" would create jobs. The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects.
Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Overlooking this fact is known as the broken-window fallacy. The French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn't have to replace the window.
Creating jobs is not difficult for government officials. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed. It's like arguing the hurricanes create jobs. After all, the destruction is followed by rebuilding. But does anyone seriously believe that replacing destroyed buildings creates wealth?
Look at Obama's plan. His website says:
"Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world."
Note that word "strategically." It is there to suggest that Obama knows how best to "invest" the $150 billion. (Of course it is not his money, and he'll have none of his own at risk, so from his perspective, it won't really be investment.) But how does he know that the things he names ought to get the money? Will he give it to cronies of his campaign contributors? Will he appoint Al Gore to pick grant recipients? Lobbyists will make a fortune steering "green" inventors and promoters to the $150 billion.
Politicians have a lousy record trying to make "strategic investments." President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corporation cost taxpayers at least $19 billion but failed to give us alternative fuels. In the 1950s Japan's supposedly omniscient Ministry of International Trade and Investment rebuffed Sony and was sure the country should have just one car producer.
Neither Gore nor Obama can know how the money should best be invested. Investing is about predicting the future, and the future is always uncertain. We know from experience that people who have their own money at risk -- who face a profit-and-loss test and possible bankruptcy -- are much better predictors than people who play with other people's money. Just compare North and South Korea.
One reason decentralized markets are preferable to government central planning is that human beings are fallible. Mistakes are inevitable. Some investments will be errors. Mistakes in the market tend to be on a comparatively small scale. If one company invests in plug-in hybrids and it goes bust, only a relatively few people suffer. The assets of the bankrupt firm pass into more capable hands.
But decisions by government, especially the federal government, affect all of us. When government makes a mistake, the bureaucracy can't go bankrupt. Instead, it will use its failure to justify increased appropriations in the next budget.
If "green jobs" make so much sense, the market will create them. They will be created by private entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are eager to profit from winning investments. The best ideas will rise to the top, and green energy will gradually replace coal and oil.
If politicians were serious about creating jobs and cleaner technologies, they would step aside and let the free market go to work.
####
What you are forgetting here is that a large part of our current energy program includes billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuel burning energy-- the same subsidies that gave these industries their start in the first place. With these subsidies in place, alternative energy has no political weight and no 'free market' chance.
I really find your site most informative especially during these economic times. I have and grand daughter and grand son graduating high school this year and intend to pass this information on to them. Thank you
I'm a little puzzled by the statement: Even as it tallies up specific jobs in specific industries, the green-jobs crew is missing a chance to confront the toxic premise that sustainability is at odds with economic growth.
You seem to be suggesting sustainability is not at odds with economic growth, at least as it is defined by GDP. I personally hope it is at odds. This absurd oversimplification of general welfare (i.e., GDP) elevates needless consumption to a virtue. It has become an unquestioned tenet of mainstream (neoclassical, Keynesian, hybrid, pick one) economics. The only way we will achieve sustainability is to abandon economic fantasies untethered from the real (physical) world.
Maybe we need to start licensing economists. One of requirements for that license would be a demonstrated understanding of the laws of thermodynamics--the 2nd law in particular. I suppose one of the benefits of this economic collapse is that reality is beginning to intrude.
"Free market will create them..."
In which century? Hasn't happened yet, your free market gave us the big 3!
Charlie the Stossel article is missing a couple of things:
One, a lot of the green jobs that will be created are for workers from industries that have collapsed under their own obsolesence. i.e. the auto industry as it exists today?
Two, you say that if the market needs them companies will create them without government intervention. When has that ever happened? Particularly in times like these when most companies either haven't enough money to do more then survive until the markets improve or just refuse to change what works now for something new. One of the main things that has created the current situation is simple inertia. Without encouragement to change of one sort or another most industries will not budge. Market forces tend to be a lot more destructive then government intervention by subsidy, and guess who they are most destructive to.
These perople repeat "free market" as a religious mantra. They deceive the gullible. What about the monopoly of "money creation" conducted by the Fed and allies. What is "free" about that? The real analysts insist that without correcting the monetary system, there won´t be any bailout for the general population.
The bigger problem is when government greases the way for private profits with cost plus contractor [who knows a company that lost money in a government contract] or with regulations that restrict competition "for the public good". By all reasonable definitions insurance companies, banks, utilities, doctors, real estate agents and any other professional is granted a license to steal from consumers with a market that guarantees profitability with mandated apprenticeships that ensure a lack of competition in "professional" fields.
One should fully expect that once "Green Jobs" get started they will be regulated so as to guarantee limited access and guaranteed profitability[aka as slamming the door of opportunity behind you]. I would also expect that disinformation will abound until the environmental laws can be adapted to keep those with money control all the profitability - with government securities of course. The worst you can do to these "free market" freeloaders would be to subject them to competition - like the average worker.
Complaining and critique are unfortuantely not renewable resources, or these naysayers could fuel New York on their not-hot-air.
Green jobs are the proactive answer to getting out of the ecological crisis and healing the economy at the same time. Foward into the Ecological Age!
This is terrific. I'm glad it's been said.
I agree with Theo. The climb will be gradual but there is no other way to go but green and John Stossel is an [deleted]. He's a pay to play repoter.
The real line to pay attention to here is about the Green Jobs Act of 2007: 'The Green Jobs Act of 2007 set aside $125 million for green-collar job training. Just 20 percent was targeted for pathways out of poverty.'
The answer to this, in my mind, is funding Green Collar Job Corps throughout the country. There are programs like this in Chicago, New York and Oakland. (Check out Green For All's website for more info.) These programs would partner with local businesses, unions and the Department of Labor to train and place individuals with barriers to employment (while addressing those barrier; i.e. substance abuse, financial literacy and/or GED programs).
There should also be federal funding for individuals willing to go back to school for 'green' degree programs, similar to programs like Teach America that reward tuition assistance to those willing to use their degree to teach in inner city schools.
Anyway. Just my two cents.
Oh, and the 'free market' enthusiasts need help. Possibly electro-shock.
Market Economy and alternative energy sources
-
tagged as:
- solution
It interesting when writers (Jeremy Rifkin, "The New Hydrogen Economy", and
others, quote well-placed people such as Mr. Emmelt,
C.E.O. of General Electric, who says people believing in the market economy are
following a "false idol". He was referring to how the Europen Union set rules in place so there would be upo to Euro 20 Billions for reneewable energy upgrades
(ie: Wind Turbines).
In fact, George Bush when Governor of Texas set the benchmark for renewable energy sources at 2MMW by 2009, and this achieved by 2005. Apparently the
Texas Legislature was so impressed, they have increased that target for 2015.
Hydrogen can actually replace gasoline, (see California's experiment) and cost
equivlaent is .04 Cents per gallon.
actually makes a dishwasher sized hydrogen converter that
can run off power from a solar panel. Bye Bye gas companies !!!
Sorry, cannot remember the California site.
Outsource THIS. Make your own 'green' job. THIS -->
my post got truncated. That's fine. Learn where kilowatts come from, then learn how to make your own, presto, you're a 'green collar worker' with no union ties and no fear of your job(YOUR job?) being 'outsourced' by some union hack and their political cronies.
Do central americans count as in-sourcing or out-sourcing. A huge
percentage of construction work is done
by central americans and ramping up construction is likely to ramp up an
influx of central americans has a highly
mobile inexpensive work force.
John Stossel is not a legitimate reporter. He is a shill for corporate entities paid to dish out fascist propaganda.
Do you really think these
Do you really think these things about this reporter? Do you know him personally or what? Kirsten jump higher fast lady guide.
Green jobs, dirty jobs, blue collar jobs, white collar jobs. It is all semantics. What we need is a rational trade policy. Was it our intent to create a 700 billion trade deficit when we decided to financialize the economy in 1974 and then move to a global free trade model in 1981? By the way, there is no such thing as free trade. What has essentially happened is that the American economy and worker has simply been exposed to a giant Yale/Harvard experiment gone terribly wrong. Milton Friedman told us that markets would always come back to balance in a "free trade world." This has proven to be hogwash. Countries manipulate their own currencies to keep their advantage. Friedman also never envisioned entire industries leaving land for another to then simply export back to square one. The good minded Mr. Adam Smith was clueless about this as well. We must move to balanced trade. America can no longer take in the worlds goods at such a rate. Things are so out of balance the realignment is surely to be messy.
These same economists have been telling us that "free trade" creates 7 new jobs for each job lost. If you ask what jobs were created you get a blank stare. So much propaganda has been perpetuated around this myth that it is accepted as truth. If this were really true government policy should mandate the offshoring of jobs to reduce unemployment. Of course this is ridiculous in the extreme.
The big myth about government not being able to manage anything efficiently is also bogus. Some examples of social spending that has been quite successful are the highway system, the post office, the public school system, most water and sewage utilities, etc. To be sure all of these have had their problems but overall are not bad. Many private corporations have also had problems and many have gone bankrupt or required a bailout.
"These same economists have been telling us that "free trade" creates 7 new jobs for each job lost."
What's really great is the factoid that American agricultural subsidies+NAFTA have put Mexican farmers out of business causing 'em to come here for work.
"The big myth about government not being able to manage anything efficiently is also bogus."
Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Private companies can go out of business--government can't. Do you really want your highway maintenance department to go out of business? Further, no private entity could manage to build a highway system without government support. "Business" is good for some things, truly stupid for others.
I'm laughing my butt off at you folks,,,esepcially after reading an article in the UK about the fraud perpetrated by the Wind people regarding the actual amount of CO2 a Wind mill Replaces was how can you say,,,bogus... It will take nearly ten million windmills to make even a dent in the energy supplied by Coal and Gas.. and where are you going to put them.. National Parks? National Forests, Line the Coastlines with them and as we know from your Hero Teddy a true NIMBY, Streisand and Reford aren't going to allow it to happen to their neighbohoods and T. Pickens sure is going to make a lot of money to line his pockets with at $3.5 million average per windmill. So where are these 10 million windmills going to be placed.... You folks just don't have much going for you that I can see....
Could you provide me with how many jobs are created per $1m in revenue in the electronic medical device manufacturing industry? Thanks
If going green, puts people out of work, so be it. Then create decent "make work" jobs,
if you have to.
Better people working, ideally at something interesting, if possible, than destitute
or on weldfare, with "idle hands" getting into trouble, causing the crime rate to go up
for the rest of society.
Even productivity and efficiency are not absolutes, and have to be balanced with what's
needed for the greater good of the ENTIRE society, not just the elite and/or the rich.
Sorry about the previous post.
I copied and pasted the wrong version.
Here's a better rendition.
If going green, puts people out of work, so be it, it'll be better for us in the long run,
from a climate, as well as national security perspective, by not feeding our "enemies"
ex. Russia, Middle Eastern region countries, etc, as well as sending a lot of our wealth,
in terms of energy costs, offshore.
But then create decent "make work" jobs, if you have to. Better people working, ideally
at something interesting, if possible, than destitute or on welfare, sitting around with
"idle hands" getting into trouble, causing the crime rate to go up for the rest of society.
Productivity and efficiency are not absolutes, and have to be balanced with what's
needed for the greater good of the ENTIRE society, not just the elite and/or the rich.
A well thought out balance between capitalism and socialism is what is needed for
a healthy sustainable democracy, creating A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE FOR AS MANY AS POSSIBLE.
green jobs
-
tagged as:
- result
We heard this job creation theory for the last 25 years. Green jobs are not going to replace the millions of jobs we have lost since the signing of NAFTA. China already makes 1/3 of the solar cells. Who is to say they will not produce wind mills, the materials for our new electrical grid, and everything else.
Going green will not replace bad trade policy.
If we follow our current trade laws we are not allowed to buy or build American. Our own government cannot spend American tax dollars to buy American steel without violating NAFTA or the WTO. Our use of tax dollars is decided by NAFTA not our government.
The U.S. Chamber of commerce is screaming foul. Canada is threatening trade sanctions if we use the term buy American. NAFTA has little to do with trade, but much to do with jobs and investor protections. Investors may sue the U.S. Government if they feel we violated NAFTA. The cases are decided by NAFTA arbitration tribunals not U.S. Courts.
”An important feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability in domestic courts of final awards by arbitration tribunals.” You can find more info here:
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Monitoring_Enforcement/Dispute_Settlement/NAFTA/Section_Index.html
In my opinion, this allows circumvention of U.S. State and Federal laws.
Basically, it allows the US or any other country to be sued if a law (such as buy American clause) infringes on corporate profits.
The more you understand our trade policies the more frightening it gets.
Dr. C
If you do careful research
If you do careful research on the issue, I don't believe that there is any fraud perpetrated by the Wind in regards to the actual amount of CO2 a Wind mill Replaces.
hi boys
Barack Obama has declared, that will spend $210 billion for creation of workplaces in building and green power. Obama suggests to put these means in two programs throughout 10 years. Larger program on which will leave $150 billion, is aimed at use more ecologically safe energy sources. It is supposed, that it will provide with work of 5 million persons.
UK Phone Psychic
Did someone say ..JOBS?
-
tagged as:
- solution
Carbon trading is an invitation for disaster. To suggest the possibility that this could serve as a global currency is about as rational as using a set of 3 seashells to determine the fate of the world. The consummerist economic model is broken, but 'they' (ok, the artifice of history,) will package this eventual 'collapse' as mere 'greed' on the part of the investor class. These recent fiscal suggestions and events are ALL intended to lead to a 'NWO,' regardless of who may be appointed to play, or sit-out the next round of cricket. Hillary, Noriega, Cheney, Gordon Brown, it doesn't matter who fronts the IMF or their goons at the WHO.
Think it over
Like your site, most of time make me think deeply! thanks
From how to jump higher and Mp3 rocket download
Good point
I do agree, just right on the point!
Green jobs
need more advocate for green jobs!
From learn German and learn Spanish
tiffany jewelry
of tiffany jewelry on ebay are cheaper than tiffany jewellery outlet store, why is that?
You will find the newest tiffany jewelry on sale fashion release on their official website.
I am planning to give my wife a big surprise with tiffany and co as a birthday gift, but I don’t know which one to choose, any ideas?
louis vuitton
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
No matter where you choose
No matter where you choose to buy your Eugenie Wallet
,louis vuitton onlineno matter whether you decide on a replica handbag of Louis Vuitton Eugenie Wallet or the authentic one, Louis Vuitton Multiple Wallet in mind that take your time choosing the bag of your dreams to Multiple Wallet that you have the best possible deal for your money.
