Study Says Green Jobs Are Over-Hyped

By Kate Galbraith

A new academic study released Monday disputes the promises of a new green-economy job boom.

“There’s this air of high science about it.”

— Roger Meiners,
co-author,
“Green Jobs Myths”

The study, funded by the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market, pro-business research group, arrived on the same day that the new White House “green jobs guru,”
Van Jones, begins his job. It argues that analyses from a variety of organizations — including the United Nations Environment Program, the Center for American Progress, the United States Conference of Mayors and the American Solar Energy Society — all over-hyped the potential to create good jobs from industries like wind and solar power.

The Center for American Progress, for example, has described a “green recovery” program that would create two million jobs — many in manufacturing and construction — over two years with $100 billion in investment.

But the authors of the new study argue that these types of assertions often overlook job losses — particularly those arising from the closure of polluting industries, like coal-fired power plants.

“We’re replacing other forms of energy generation,” said Andrew Morriss, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and one of four academics who wrote the study, in a conference call today with journalists. “You have to do a net calculation on these things.”

“There’s this air of high science about it,” added Roger Meiners, a professor of economics and law at the University of Texas-Arlington, referring to the level of specificity often used in green job predictions. But Mr. Meiners argued that a serious reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would result in a “massive restructuring” of economies in the United States and around the globe.

Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, argued that his group’s study only set out to look at the effects of stimulus money in renewable energy and energy efficiency, rather than the overall effects of cap-and-trade limitations on carbon-dioxide emissions.

However, he said, renewables are better for job creation than fossil fuel industries. “We found that you get four times the number of jobs from investing in efficiency and renewables than you get from investing in oil and natural gas,” said Mr. Hendricks — largely because renewable technologies “are more local and they’re more labor-intensive.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Greenpa March 16, 2009 · 5:36 pm

“academic study”?????

From “Institute for Energy Research, a free-market, pro-business research group” ???????????????

Guys- this is not journalism- do you also report on the “research” of the Flat Earth Society?

Really. I count at least 4 full oxymorons just in their name and description. And they are extinct morons, too.

Brennan March 16, 2009 · 6:35 pm

This is just another view or what they think will work. I agree that the jobs may not be as high as they predict but what ever does happen the way the government says. I think there can still be many jobs created and most of all we would not have to be relying on the Middle East at all times for our overpriced energy.

//meancleantech.com

Dr. James Singmaster March 16, 2009 · 7:16 pm

Misplaced emphasis on jobs being lost in coal mining and power plants using coal is what IER is claiming without mentioning of other jobs that could be opening up in the same areas. These could be in erecting and running windmills or in environmental recovery of lands despoiled by coal mining that could use a CCC type program for over 20,000 people.
I propose that a 10% SIN tax be put on coal sales to fund such a CCC program throughout much of Appalachia and elsewhere. Coal sales should be supplying the money for recovering these lands raped by the companies. That is something that IER ought to espouse, but of course companies never despoil anything like that, do they?. Dr. J. Singmaster

David Mercanus March 16, 2009 · 7:29 pm

Comment number 1 from Greenpa is entirely accurate, unfortunately.

And even without any new green jobs, we will continue to have job losses in “old” energy as supply runs down, which is inevitable. We’ve only got a few decades of coal and oil left…and how many decades of sun and wind do we have?

Government support via stimulus and subsidy for green industry is a win-win. After all, airlines, autos, etc. are heavily subsidized. The playing field is not level. There is a wave of innovation and creativity in our green sectors right now. Let’s not let Old Coal and Oil squash it, because that’s what this “study” seeks to do.

Chris Dudley March 16, 2009 · 9:21 pm

What we want, to boost prosperity, is to have the time average of jobs in the energy sector decrease. The less effort we put into energy, the more return we get in energy and the more economic activity can be supported. This is what renewable energy delivers. Building a wind turbine is a one time activity. After the turbine and tower are built, there may be refurbishment thirty years on and there might be a bit of access road maintenance but basically the job is done. Similarly, with rooftop solar, the work is done until a new roof is needed. There is no need to drill a new gas well or open a new coal mine or run the mine or the railway that delivers the coal or the power plant. Renewable energy is more efficient than fossil energy.

What we also want just now is a flood of new jobs to reverse our unemployment problems until we can get to the new prosperity that a reduced energy sector can provide. Renewable energy also helps out here because all the effort is needed up front. To transform our energy sector we need effort at the beginning. Thus, a strong push in renewables will not immediately be a net job loser. Coal jobs displaced will be fewer than new jobs created because the coal effort is spread out over time. So, even though we will have fewer man hours per kilowatt hour with renewables, during the transition, employment goes up owing to the need to expend those man hours all at once.

It is very important to remember that prosperity really does depend on energy being easy to get. Often this is expressed in terms of energy delivered for use relative to the energy invested to get energy though employment will track this fairly closely. let us consider the energy needed to get electricity from coal. If eighty times more energy is available in coal at the mouth of the mine than is spent in mining it, then we may assume about as much energy is needed to haul the coal to the power plant. Only 40% of that energy becomes electricity delivered to the user. So, the delivered energy is only 16 times more than the energy used to make that energy available. With a wind turbine, 30 to 60 times more energy is delivered than is used to build the turbine and solar panels are approaching this level of performance as well. So, we should be able to cut the economic size of the energy sector to half its present size by converting to renewable energy. This means getting back to the very early days of domestic oil in terms of how energy can boost prosperity.

So, instead of energy being a drag on the economy as it has been in the last number of years, energy can return to its previous role of boosting prosperity as we convert to renewables. And the really nice plus is that it provides a good boost in employment when we need it.

//mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/eroie.html

Susan Kraemer March 16, 2009 · 11:39 pm

What Greenpa said.

Fordham Law ’10 March 17, 2009 · 2:46 am

Greenpa –

The study promotes free-market solutions to environmental issues; they are pro- the free-market. The Times calls them “pro-business.” It’s nit in their official title; I assume you would be smart enough not to take the Times at its word

Michael Hogan March 17, 2009 · 5:24 am

Those of us who advocate the intense necessity of de-carbonizing the energy sector put our credibility at risk by over-reaching on various claims, and the “jobs boom” claim is one of the more questionable ones (leading climate scientists completely committed to the risk of anthropogenic climate disruption have raised the same concern about scientifically invalid hype regarding short-term meteorological phenomena – see the recent piece by Vicky Pope in The Guardian). The claims for the jobs benefits of efficiency retrofit programs seem valid, simply because these are almost 100% incremental and largely non-exportable. The jobs claims for renewables are far more problematic – every megawatt of new firm renewables capacity displaces the need for a MW of new firm fossil-fired capacity, and there are just as many local local jobs, unfortunately, in building a coal-fired power plant as there are in building a wind farm, and a very high percentage of the value-added in wind turbines and solar panels is imported. There is also the short-term negative economic impact from higher electricity costs related to support schemes like RPS and FIT, which should be reversed later by the beneficial impacts of low, stable production costs for these technologies. There is a moral imperative to do this, and the long-term economic impact is highly likely to be beneficial. But we’re just kidding ourselves if we think that publishing questionable jobs claims convinces anyone other than those who are already inclined to support us, and in fact the inevitable backlash against such intellectually vulnerable claims means they probably do more harm than good. Inevitably someone is going to blog on the claims for jobs creation in Germany, but there are just as many studies showing net jobs destruction as there are showing net jobs creation, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Renewables is not a jobs program, it’s an energy policy – there are better cheaper ways to generate local jobs, like energy efficiency retrofit programs, for instance.

Gertsen March 17, 2009 · 6:15 am

I read their abstract and it does not seem particularly insightful, sophisticated or, what is more important, constructive.

e.g.: “Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference – such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate stagnation”.

It sounds commonsensically right, but it is true only to a point. Governments can indeed create a regulatory environment that fosters spontaneous innovation instead of paralyzing it. There is not such a thing as an “unrestricted” market. In the real world markets (especially energy markets) are constantly constrained by mandatory rules more or less effectively negotiated by special, political or even international interests. So the general point in itself is not very relevant or illuminating. A generic “non interference” argument simply covers the regulatory status quo (and special interests). One must try and see what works and what does not.

Just recentely Bernanke called for a “political will” to address the financial crisis. I believe he is right. There is always an interplay between economic growth and policy. In other words, politics matters…

Rob S. March 17, 2009 · 9:51 am

Just got laid off from my “Green Collar” job as an environmental Geologist last week. Pickings are slim on the job posting sites…

Roy March 17, 2009 · 10:06 am

It’s surprising that you would describe IER as “pro-business.” They oppose all business bailouts and subsidies and are perfectly happy to let businesses that make bad decisions suffer the consequences and even fail. It seems to be the Obamanistas and the progressives who are “pro-business” these days. They are the ones advocating massive wealth transfers to every big business that can reach its arms out and face its palms upward.

Ecogordo March 17, 2009 · 11:22 am

Save jobs, create green jobs – use GM, Ford & Chrysler bailout money to finance Free Electric Cars, financed by miles driven using a Green Credit Card. Cell phones are marketed this way, why not Electric Cars?

Bill March 17, 2009 · 11:33 am

Why would anyone think that any organization who depends on government funding wouldn’t hype everything they do to get the funding? There is no accountability after the fact.
In fact why would anyone trust any organization that derives fees from a belief to be truthful? Start with looking how fact based religion is. Then move on to environmentalism in which billions of dollars in voluntary payments go to organizations that sell beliefs.
The income model for religious organizations and environmental organizations are very similar. If their product doesn’t work, you can’t take it back to the store for a refund. There are no warranties.
One has to be naive to believe what information comes out of both the religous and environmental groups as fact, belief, yes.
For those of you who call people like me skeptics, I think you really need to study organizational behavior.

BobbyG March 17, 2009 · 12:22 pm

Scary that Van Jones stated on his book tour that there was no need to build nuclear plants since the footprint for both a nuclear plant and a wind farm produced the same amount of energy. It took me 10 minutes on Goggle to show that he was off by a factor of 50-100. Take a look at the planned output from Cape Code Wind’s 143MW (25 sq/miles) and compare it to Indian Point’s 1,970MW (239 acres).

Chris Dudley March 17, 2009 · 12:35 pm

Bobby (#14),

Two things: 1) You neglect all the ruined land from uranium mining so your foot print is just wrong. 2) When considering footprints here we are likely talking about carbon footprints. Wind power usually does better than nuclear power in that comparison.

eleryfudge March 17, 2009 · 12:52 pm

From the article:

“We found that you get four times the number of jobs from investing in efficiency and renewables than you get from investing in oil and natural gas,” said Mr. Hendricks — largely because renewable technologies “are more local and they’re more labor-intensive.”

If you get four times the number of jobs and the jobs are more labor intensive then the energy produced is going to cost more. If it costs more then the typical family has less to meet other requirements. We should persue strategies that provide abundant power as cheaply as possible.

Elery

eleryfudge March 17, 2009 · 1:21 pm

One consideration in comparing the carbon footprints of wind and nuclear is the amount of cement required for construction. When comparing a nuclear plant with a wind farm producing the same amount of electricity, the erection of the required number of wind towers requires significantly more cement than the nuclear plant does.

Also wind farms rarely produce even 25% of their rated capacity while nuclear power plants typically produce at better than 90% of their rated capacity.

Chris Dudley March 17, 2009 · 1:40 pm

Elery (#17),

It is a mistake not to consider the energy involved in mining, milling and enriching uranium all of which lead to carbon emissions. For this reason, wind usually does better than nuclear power in its carbon footprint.

Dr. James Singmaster March 17, 2009 · 2:45 pm

Since the start of Green,Inc., through all the many reports ,and comments on this blog about clean energy including ones above, no one, except myself it seems, makes any mention of developing hydrogen. The big oil companies were all hyping about getting hydrogen up to the start of 2008, but have you heard them hyping it much since? In mid 2007 a report on a catalyst to split water using sunlight to get hydrogen has been followed by five more reports on other catalysts. The oil and energy companies suddenly got very quiet realizing that several trillion dollars of assets may go under water if all that is needed to get hydrogen is water, sunlight and a catalyst, one of which was recently reported as being very cheap to make.
We have a National Renewable Energy Lab that continues wasting money on biofuels that just recycle carbon dioxide not removing on balance one molecule of that gas from the biosphere. Recycling that gas will do nothing to reduce our carbon footprint. That NREL seems to be avoiding work on hydrogen as a fuel like the plague WHY? Maybe CAP and IER ought to be asking NREL and Congress why no action by federal energy research agencies is being directed to developing hydrogen.
As for jobs being lost in coal mining, I point to my comment 3 above for developing a fund from a carbon SIN tax, as it were, of 10% on coal sales to underwrite a CCC type program to provide jobs recovering the lands raped by the coal companies. OH I forgot that with CAP and IER companies have only acted to benefit the environment never to despoil it.
CAP and IER cry crocodile tears for the poor miners, who could find jobs in working for the proposed CCC program in a much safer and healthier outdoor environment. Perhaps CAP and IER might want to contend that breathing fresh air working at such jobs would be too hard on the cloistered lives of miners.
Dr. J. Singmaster

Tracey de Morsella March 17, 2009 · 9:26 pm

I think there IS a lot of green jobs hype going on. However there are many facts to back up many of the claims. Even before the government was pouring billions into green programs and green jobs programs green jobs growth was making an impact on the economy.

Let me give you a few examples:

American Solar Energy Society (ASES) recently reported that for 2007, the latest year compiled statistics were available, the U.S renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE&EE) industries generated $1,045 billion in sales and created over 9 million jobs.

According to the 2009 Green Innovation Index, since 2005 green jobs in California have grown at a rate ten times faster than total job growth.

The Environmental & Energy Study Institute (EESI) reported gross revenues over $900 billion and 8 million jobs created in 2006. With over seventy percent of major corporations along with federal, state and local government planning on spending huge sums on energy efficiency this year, that number can only go up.

When the hype fades into the background, I think there are going to being a large number of skilled workers with decent wages and employment stability as a result of all the activity going on right now to build the green economy.

Tracey
//greeneconomypost.com

Debbie Smith March 18, 2009 · 9:26 am

Ok, isn’t the fact that we are losing jobs already a given? We all know that. Thankfully there will be green jobs taking their place. Any way you look at it, it’s a good thing. Over-hyped, maybe, but what isn’t? It all rests on the economy, but green jobs will come to the forefront because we have to change our ways, the old ways are simply not sustainable. Soon every job will have to be a green job.

jerryd March 18, 2009 · 11:06 am

No one mentions H2 because it takes way more energy to make than you get out. The only ones doing H2 are those doing grants or trying to deflect people from solving the energy problem, mostly oil companies.

Just Like Chevron bought the NiMH battery patents and stopped people from making EV size ones anymore like Toyota from making their excellent RAV4EV they sold for $45k now selling for $75k 7-10 yrs old.

We now subsidize oil, coal by about 100% of their costs in our income taxes, health/environment costs direct and indirect. If a true free market these costs should be in them. And this doesn’t include cO2 costs. If these subsidies were in them as they should be RE/green power/energy would be much cheaper than them. My preference is no subsidies for any energy source and those who use the energy pay it;s full costs.

Here are facts on Re, fossil fuel costs

While we could use more R+D what we really need is more RE equipment production. We keep talking about RE but never do anything hardly.

We have the cost effective tech already to almost completely replace oil, coal. We just need to get on with doing it.

We already know how to build homes that need little power and even produce more power than they need.

In real mass production solar thermal engines, basically a 5hp steam engine, 3kw induction generator, a 200sq’ trough collector and a back up burner can easily be made for under $4k/kw and supply peak/callable electricity more than an eff 1500sq’ home needs, even get a nice check from the utility each month.

A CHP unit based on the above run on wood pellets or any other fuel could be made for $2k/kw plus supply heat, hot water.

A 1kw wind generator is only a 1kw generator, 3 blades, some bearings, wire, pole and an inverter. No reason this can’t be built for under $2k/kw.

Tidal/river generators can make power for under $.02kwhr and cost under $2k/kw. These can supply at least 20% of our power needs without problems and many dams could be replace by them too.

Coal costs $4k/kw, Nuke is $9k/kw, NG $2k/kw to install plus fuel costs make them more expensive even now than the above RE units/kwhr.

Nukes need to be the more eff, less costly pebble bed types that are inherently safe, much smaller and hot water types both and coal, NG units need low temp Rankine generators to replace the large condensers for electricity and smaller condensers. This also saves water.

On EV’s we don’t need anything new as present LiFePo4 give us 200-300 mile range EV’s, they just need orders to go into mass production and an open mind to composite, aero body/chassis. I’m building one now like Lovin’s future car EV and have built driven EV’s that get 400mpg equivalent with lead batteries.

Semi’s need to be lighter, more aero with 75hp NG engines, exhaust driven 25hp Rankine engine with a 20 mile range battery pack and 200hp electric motor would get 12-16mpg vs 4-6mpg now. And once highways are electrified can run on overhead wires or a 3rd rail. Or even have train wheels too and run on train tracks.

Local battery dominated hybrid trucks can increase mileage 3x’s.

The train tracks need to be nationalized and electrified for freight as it’s a mess now. High speed trains for long distance and local commuter trains where doable.

To go with them personal transport modules, basically 20mph electric wheelchairs to get to, on and from mass transit or short trips.

All these once in mass production they will cost about the same to make but much lower running costs so no reason not to do them. Bigger versions work for industrial needs.

And while R+D would be nice, all of the above can be done with present tech, about 1/2 of them I’ve already done.

Jean-Luc Marcoux March 18, 2009 · 11:35 am

It seems to me that green jobs most often refer to Green Energy jobs or CleanTech jobs in the media. We must remember that this is a Triple E Crisis : Economic, Environmental and Energy; a perfect 21st century storm! Jobs in all sectors of the economy are being abolished at an alarming rate and they may not come back no matter how much stimulus and money is being pumped in the economy.

Eco-innovation should be the focus of a strategy to bring back jobs which have actually been outsourced to Asia.
Why don’t we try to develop a recycled-product manufacturing base using our own plastic/metal/paper garbage rather than shipping it in containers to China. We are entering the century of sustainable development trying to do more with fewer resources. Green jobs is only a new language for the new economy AFTER this recession.

Jeff March 18, 2009 · 12:50 pm

Seriously, you guys at the Times should be very circumspect about any “research” that’s put out by existing industry-funded groups. This is one part of their strategy to hold on to profits and power as long as possible, planet be damned. You are responsible for doing the additional legwork that reveals the agenda behind the industry “findings.”

Dr. James Singmaster March 18, 2009 · 1:01 pm

To jerryd: If you use sunlight energy to generate hydrogen via a catalyst, how can you claim that it takes more energy than you will get. You sound like some other source of energy has to be used. Maybe you are thinking that hydrogen can only be generated by electrolysis of water.
And if windmill generated electricity were used to get hydrogen by electrolysis of water, it would be a recycling of some of the energy excess warrming the globe. That would be getting back some of the energy trapped by the GHG effect. Nature because of spinning globe and light and dark periods gives us a chance to tap a diffuse but unevenly distributed source of energy in the winds.
Dr. J. Singmaster