• 1 day Shell Oil Trading Head Steps Down After 29 Years
  • 1 day Higher Oil Prices Reduce North American Oil Bankruptcies
  • 1 day Statoil To Boost Exploration Drilling Offshore Norway In 2018
  • 2 days $1.6 Billion Canadian-US Hydropower Project Approved
  • 2 days Venezuela Officially In Default
  • 2 days Iran Prepares To Export LNG To Boost Trade Relations
  • 2 days Keystone Pipeline Leaks 5,000 Barrels Into Farmland
  • 2 days Saudi Oil Minister: Markets Will Not Rebalance By March
  • 2 days Obscure Dutch Firm Wins Venezuelan Oil Block As Debt Tensions Mount
  • 2 days Rosneft Announces Completion Of World’s Longest Well
  • 2 days Ecuador Won’t Ask Exemption From OPEC Oil Production Cuts
  • 3 days Norway’s $1 Trillion Wealth Fund Proposes To Ditch Oil Stocks
  • 3 days Ecuador Seeks To Clear Schlumberger Debt By End-November
  • 3 days Santos Admits It Rejected $7.2B Takeover Bid
  • 3 days U.S. Senate Panel Votes To Open Alaskan Refuge To Drilling
  • 3 days Africa’s Richest Woman Fired From Sonangol
  • 3 days Oil And Gas M&A Deal Appetite Highest Since 2013
  • 3 days Russian Hackers Target British Energy Industry
  • 4 days Venezuela Signs $3.15B Debt Restructuring Deal With Russia
  • 4 days DOJ: Protestors Interfering With Pipeline Construction Will Be Prosecuted
  • 4 days Lower Oil Prices Benefit European Refiners
  • 4 days World’s Biggest Private Equity Firm Raises $1 Billion To Invest In Oil
  • 4 days Oil Prices Tank After API Reports Strong Build In Crude Inventories
  • 5 days Iraq Oil Revenue Not Enough For Sustainable Development
  • 5 days Sudan In Talks With Foreign Oil Firms To Boost Crude Production
  • 5 days Shell: Four Oil Platforms Shut In Gulf Of Mexico After Fire
  • 5 days OPEC To Recruit New Members To Fight Market Imbalance
  • 5 days Green Groups Want Norway’s Arctic Oil Drilling Licenses Canceled
  • 5 days Venezuelan Oil Output Drops To Lowest In 28 Years
  • 5 days Shale Production Rises By 80,000 BPD In Latest EIA Forecasts
  • 5 days GE Considers Selling Baker Hughes Assets
  • 5 days Eni To Address Barents Sea Regulatory Breaches By Dec 11
  • 6 days Saudi Aramco To Invest $300 Billion In Upstream Projects
  • 6 days Aramco To List Shares In Hong Kong ‘For Sure’
  • 6 days BP CEO Sees Venezuela As Oil’s Wildcard
  • 6 days Iran Denies Involvement In Bahrain Oil Pipeline Blast
  • 8 days The Oil Rig Drilling 10 Miles Under The Sea
  • 8 days Baghdad Agrees To Ship Kirkuk Oil To Iran
  • 8 days Another Group Joins Niger Delta Avengers’ Ceasefire Boycott
  • 9 days Italy Looks To Phase Out Coal-Fired Electricity By 2025
Alt Text

The Surprise Winners Of The Oil Price Rally

The recent rally in oil…

Alt Text

The Kurdish Oil Gamble Has Backfired

Kurdistan’s failure to hold the…

MasterResource

MasterResource

MasterResource is a blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy.Precisely because energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy –…

More Info

The Dirty Secret About Clean Energy Jobs

The Dirty Secret About Clean Energy Jobs

Solyndra’s impending liquidation, replete with 1,100 layoffs and U.S. taxpayer liabilities in excess of a half billion dollars, has put so-called green jobs initiative of the Obama Administration in negative light.

But make no mistake: recent loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy to new solar projects to beat a September 31st funding cutoff is business-as-usual as the foes of oil, gas, and coal desperately seek business traction for an uneconomic energy.

From Climate Alarmism to ‘Green’ Jobs

With unemployment on the rise and new jobs scarce, politicians are keen to create employment, at least the visible kind that they can sum up for the public. And so yesteryear’s talk about addressing global warming (remember cap-and-trade?) has taken the back seat to policies geared towards restarting the sluggish economy.

Indeed, more Americans have grown skeptical about potential threats posed by climate change. According to a recent Pew Research poll, fewer Americans believe that global warming is a real threat than they did five years ago. A similar poll found that the top two priorities for Americans were the economy and jobs, while global warming ranked dead last.

So now, the sales pitch for forced energy transformation revolves around catch phrases such as the “renewable energy economy,” “green jobs,” and “leading the world in clean energy technologies.” In short, environmental policies have been rebranded as job creators.

What is a ‘Green’ Job?

Our report, The Dirty Secret Behind Clean Jobs, reveals numerous flaws with this approach. The definition of “green jobs” is vague; green job subsidies are based on flawed economic principles; and assumptions for job growth are inaccurate or downright false.

One is the shifting definition of what is a ‘green’ job. Is a green job a new job that has been created by a new environmental initiative? Or when an existing job has been made more environmentally friendly? Maybe both?

And what exactly is ‘green’ and not ‘green’? Often this term itself is based on dubious assumptions about economics, environmental impacts, etc. Indeed, some green initiatives have turned out to be more damaging to the environment than the status quo.

For example, ethanol is seen as a renewable fuel; and thus, those involved in its manufacture have green jobs. But according to a recent report published by the EPA, refining ethanol can actually emit more greenhouse gases than gasoline. Green jobs are not always green.

Despite the arcane wordplay and various definitions, environmental organizations and policy makers have claimed that the U.S. will see significant increases in green jobs. The media will often cite studies showing that green jobs have grown substantially and the rate of growth has outpaced other sectors of the economy.

Unfortunately for green job advocates, the low base numbers for green jobs means that percentage-wise, green job growth will seem impressive. But in absolute terms the economy may have added only a few jobs in this loosely defined labor sector. Furthermore, some of this growth in green job creation might not even be new jobs.

Many of these green jobs are simply jobs shifted from other sectors, or current employees with new green responsibilities. Denmark, a pioneer in wind energy, demonstrates the prevalence of such shifting. CEPOS, an independent Danish think tank, determined that approximately 28,000 people in the country were employed in the wind industry, but only one in 10 was a new job. In other words, 90% of these green jobs were simply positions shifted from one industry to another. This is hardly a recipe for growth.

But truly a “clean/green job” turns out to be just another term for big government. According to The Brookings Institution, the industry of “regulation and compliance” (i.e., government employees) was the fourth largest source of clean jobs in the United States. Surprisingly, the top sector for clean jobs was not installing sleek new solar panels or manufacturing electric cars, but “waste management and treatment” (386,000 jobs).

In other words, trash collectors. Rounding out the rest of the top four were “mass public transit” (350,000 jobs), conservation (315,000), and “regulation and compliance,” i.e., government employees (141,000).Should the 21st Century economy really depend on hiring more trash collectors, bus drivers, and bureaucrats?

Invisible Job Losses–Enter Economics

Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson explained how resources spent in one direction cannot be used in another, and how government jobs ipso facto crowds out private employment–and leaves everyone poorer. As he wrote:

It is obvious in the case of a subsidy that the taxpayers must lose precisely as much as the X industry gains. It should be equally clear that, as a consequence, other industries must lose what the X industry gains. They must pay part of the taxes that are used to support the X industry. And consumers, because they are taxed to support the X industry, will have that much less income left with which to buy other things. The result must be that other industries on the average must be smaller than otherwise in order that the X industry may be larger.

But the result of this subsidy is not merely that there has been a transfer of wealth or income, or that other industries have shrunk in the aggregate as much as the X industry has expanded. The result is also (and this is where the net loss comes in to the nation considered as a unit) that capital and labor are driven out of industries in which they are more efficiently employed to be diverted to an industry in which they are less efficiently employed. Less wealth is created. The average standard of living is lowered compared with what it would have been.

Green job estimates do not account for job losses in other sectors. Unfortunately for the taxpayer, many reports supportive of green job creation schemes do not include the number of job losses. Since using green power may displace the use of coal, oil, and other “dirty” fuels, green jobs will also displace those currently working in the fossil fuel industry. In other words, one must take into account the opportunity cost of creating a green job through government intervention.

Any increase in green jobs through government intervention is likely to have a negative effect on existing jobs in a number of ways. First, there will be job losses resulting from the crowding out of less expensive, conventional forms of energy, i.e., replacing a coal plant with a wind farm.

Next, there will be job losses in energy intensive sectors. As conventional forms of energy are replaced by more expensive, less reliable forms such as wind power, higher energy prices will increase the cost of doing business, thereby making energy-intensive U.S. companies less competitive. Spain, a pioneer in renewable energy before the recession, is a sobering example. A recent Spanish economic analysis revealed that for every green job created, more than two jobs were lost.

More Cost, More Jobs: A Perversion

Many claim the green power industry is much more labor-intensive than the fossil fuel industry. Green jobs advocates, like former Green Jobs czar Van Jones, praise wind and solar for needing to employ more people than fossil fuels. Indeed, according to President Obama, businesses that lack labor-intensity are responsible for the nation’s high unemployment:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

In other words, President Obama has fallen for the labor intensity fallacy: the idea that businesses must employ many people to provide jobs.

However, this is not a characteristic of a prosperous economy. It is a sign of inefficiency. If green industries are praised for their labor intensity, then why not mandate wind turbines, solar panels and other green technologies to be made of shoddy materials? This would ensure plenty of jobs manufacturing, replacing, and maintaining inferior equipment. Better yet, pay workers to physically turn the wind turbines when the wind stops blowing.

Can you imagine the ridiculousness of a series of pullies and ropes with thousands of previously unemployed Americans working to create “wind” energy? This would create thousands of jobs, but what is overlooked by misinformed politicians is the actually productive activities these workers could be engaged in instead of using physical labor to create a negligible amount of energy.

In the end, environmentalists should not base their calls to action on specious claims of job creation and policy makers should be wary of attempting to jumpstart the economy with flawed initiatives. As a way to end unemployment, creating new green job schemes and subsidizing green companies is not the answer. The idea of promoting green jobs is plagued with vague definitions, empty promises, and ignorance of basic economic principles.

Conclusion

Clean jobs have a dirty secret: They will not put Americans back to work.  And they leave Americans as consumers and taxpayers poorer. Timeless economics and current facts (think Solyndra) reach the same verdict.

By. Nick Sibilla and Todd Wynn

This article was provided by MasterResource




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on October 08 2011 said:
    Excellent article, and it deserves the widest possible dissemination. This is an important topic, and its propagandists need to be taught a few lessons.
  • Anonymous on October 08 2011 said:
    I particularly enjoy the reductio ad absurdum image of Americans physically turning the blades of wind turbines using ropes and pullies -- so as to provide thousands of Obama green jobs!A wonderful image to keep in mind. :D
  • Anonymous on June 01 2016 said:
    The writing is on the wall, whether you like it, or not. Private investor funds to green space are now 2X that of fossil fuels and coal. Green jobs outpace those in the traditional fossil fuel and coal sector What else? Subsidies are necessary to grow alternative energy. IMF reports that traditional power world-wide receives $5.3 trillion in yearly benefits, all the while decimating the planet. You have been supported for 100 years, you are unsustainable long-term, and whether you guys like it, or not. You will see, solar and wind aggressively built out, storage solutions are coming, as well as a host of methods to finance these projects. Wake up, if not for yourself, then your future descendants. Cheers!

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News