What Green Jobs Crisis? Environmental Groups Take a Fresh Look at the Numbers

The installation and support of these energy devices cannot be out source across the ocean in the same manner as customer service jobs. We are a nation dependent on energy and by developing this local energy infrastructure we are also creating jobs that will continue to stay in good old USA! Also a great many of these energy devices are also manufactured in USA too. Of course often manufacturing a item is often moved to cheap labor overseas eventually. But it will be a necessity to have local installers and maintainers of this energy technology.

Shill. Grist is completely ignoring what happened in Spain, whose "green economy" was supposed to be the model for ours, according to Obama. If I recall the statistics correctly, for every green job created in Spain, about ten regular ones were lost. Plus, out of every ten green those jobs created, nine of them were only temporary. The net result? 20% unemployment. "Massive growth" in the green jobs sector is meaningless if it destroys more jobs in other sectors than it creates itself. I'd also remind you that solar, wind and other alternative energy technologies are simply not affordable and efficient enough yet to be viable on the market without huge government subsidies. That should tell you something right there.

^
Huge government subsidies like the ones given to big oil? Maybe you're right, maybe green energy needs huge subsidies to get off the ground, so we should take that money from long established and grossly profitable oil companies. Also Spain's high unemployment was not the result of their green initiative. It's quite clear you have a political agenda with your statements, and the fact that you so blatantly twist the facts. You want to talk about shills? You sound like one for the GOP and big oil.

@frong, ".....for every green job created in Spain, about ten regular ones were lost...." I am curious beyond you statement, exactly how did this happen. It seems hard to imagine that putting up a windmill would displace 10 workers. But I do not have the facts. Or is this just a flamboyant remark..... I am sure you can point to internet links or stories to support you comments. Please explain this, thank you.

The comment was based on a study by the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos aug.2009. Have only skimmed the report but it determined that the cost of GREEN energy was so high that it drove manufactures out of the country. Plus the actually ratio was 11 lost to 4 created. I believe the actual 10 to 1 ratio refers to the manufacture jobs in the country loss.

Facts no longer matter. Just accuse them of promoting a pro child molestation agenda.

"green" tech really isn't so "green" when you look at the total energy, mining operations to get rare earth items, steel, etc to create a Solar Panel or even a windmill.

I DO agree about oil dependency being an issue, HOWEVER, I don't believe new regulation or other BS is the answer. We HAVE enough oil in the US to BE FULLY INDEPENDENT OF OIL.. WHY are we not doing it?? Why do we buy oil from 3rd world scum when we can pump more here?? STUPID ... I say CUT OFF ALL foreign oil immediately and USE OUR OWN. By time we run out in 100 years I an guessing FUSION will have been perfected long ago...

Good point why haven't we utilized our own resources, including green. The 70's had the oil crisis, why didn't we and europe develop our own resources then it's like someone paid key people off and using pressure through radical enviro groups to stay on foreign oil.

Look at what happened with dams then, the enviro groups were blowing up and blocking construction of dams. Clean ultra green hydroelectric power stopped by enviro's. How many millions of tons of CO2 wouldn't be in the atmosphere today if it hadn't been for green groups. Find the same in the research and dev of clean nuclear.

If greens really wanted green alone, not political, not idealogical, not something they dare not mention then they sure have messed things up a lot. And shot themselves and us in the foot. (Don't forget them putting spikes in trees to kill the lumberjacks who were harvesting renewable resources).

There are a lot of people who truly want green for greens sake. But they don't realize they are being run by people who have an alternate agenda using any and all possible social movements to advance, under the guise and mask of it.

Jobs are created by consumption and "green" technology, to be cost competitive, works toward efficiency. Efficiency looses jobs.

Think of it this way, you want to make your car "green" by improving its MPH, so when you design it, you use 500lbs less steel. You are more green, but you also put a lot of steel miners and mill workers out of a job. Sure, your new Engineer of Efficency in Design posistion is out there, but dozens of medium wage, low education job were lost in the process.

If, say, solar panals were being made on a scale to replace the consumption of fossil fuels (note, that is energy consumption, not energy harvested, as most of the energy in fossil fuels is wasted into heat or in transference), then solar panals would not be job killing - because we would need so many of them.

Similarly, if "green" cars were equal to, say, SUVs, apart from their "greenness," they would be great. Taking away to make green is not a job adding solution.

Giving subsidies for "green" tech is a regressive tax of the worst order. Taking from all, to subsidize something which only the rich can afford, is regressive. Taking from all, to subsidize something which comprizes a higher percentage of the budgets of the poor (fuel and fuel reactive food products), is progressive.

Thus, it should be the Democrates who support oil subsidies and Republicans who support green subsidies (or no subsidies at all if they are free market libers like Paul or Tea Partiers).

@cruzin

Unfortunately, the survival of our species can't depend on your guess that fusion will be developed in the next 100 years. We need to work with what we've got.

I'm curious what research you've done on the efficiency of solar panels, by the way. My best friend is an electrical engineer, spent roughly $500 on solar panels, and powers his whole house, cloudy day or not. When you hear economists and politicians blathering about their "inefficiency", what they really mean is that solar panels aren't as profitable because solar panel effectively generate infinite resources.

Which brings up a good point... When is our economy going to start learning to adapt to effectively infinite, yet still desired resources? 3-D printers, nanotech, file sharing, renewable energy sources... All of these things don't fit into the current (out dated) economic model. So you see things like DRM and lies about inefficiency to keep things running the same as the past 100 years. Critical problems like the energy crisis will never be solved until the old institutions either learn to adapt or fall apart due to internal decay.

Just sayin...

NO ONE powers their modern home on $500 worth of PV cells.

The problem with PV's that only idiots can't seem to get is they are a net minus energy product. It takes more energy to create a PV cell than you'd ever get out of it. That doesn't even include any transportation or installation. Just the PV silicon cell takes more energy to create.

Spain is one of the leaders in truly green energy production. They use the heat of the sun to generate electricity.

People have to realize simple basics. It is easier to reduce energy use than it is to create electricity. Simple tasks and changes could result in a massive savings.

I wish someone would work on wind generators. They need to have led's embedded in the propellers to help warn birds. Choices of IR or visual light may help reduce the millions of birds and other animals being killed in this so called green product.

@ jefro

You are incorrect about PVs. The energy payback period on PVs is less than 4 years according to www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

The number I usually see is 5 to 7 years but the NREL quotes a shorter payback period. Most PVs are rated to produce 80% of listed power @ 20 years. Many will continue to produce for 25 to 30 years.

I do agree with you on the benefits of efficiency though.

Reduce a home to 1/4 its size and you will save lots of energy. Focus on only heating and cooling you bed room and you will save more. Rather than insulate a house a few inches, why not insulate it a foot. Carry a lamp as you walk around your home at night; no need to light all your rooms. Heat only the water you use and do not continue heating water you do not use. Unplug energy efficient devices; they tend to suck energy being off line too. Work at home and you continue to save lots of energy. It all adds up. Sometimes it’s our attitude about our life style that can make the biggest adjustment to the monies we spend on energy. As I make these suggestions, most people will not like them and surely will not conform to them as well. A lot of our energy consumption is self inflicted use by choice.