Are green jobs bad for the economy?

Reuters’ environment blog has posed an interesting question: do green jobs cannibalize other jobs?

The idea comes from a Spanish study on renewable energy that found that “creating green jobs actually destroys jobs in other sectors—and most of the time doesn’t lead to permanent employment.”

What’s more, the study found that every green job created by the Spanish government destroyed an average of 2.2 other jobs and that only one in 10 positions were permanent.

What this study says to me is that we can’t have an energy policy that puts jobs at stake, especially given the economy. While adding renewable resources to the energy mix makes sense from some perspectives, the ultimate goal needs to be ensuring reliable, affordable energy.

If we take our eye off that goal and bring about changes in the energy mix that result in higher energy costs, we’ll lose more manufacturing jobs (in energy-intensive industries) than we create green jobs. And as the Spanish study shows, the jobs lost could be more long-term and higher-paying than the jobs created.

Comments

[JN]

Amen. I've been saying this for a while now - green does not equal jobs - coal equals jobs. Penn State did a study that found the for every one coal job ten other jobs were created and sustained. Now we discover that for every green job 2.2 jobs are destroyed??? Wrong direction to move in America! Think about this: how many hundreds of permanant jobs are created by a coal fired power plant? You have workers at the plant, miners mining the coal, truckers, trains, barges, accountants, supply people, etc, etc. How many permanant jobs are created by a windmill? One at a computer monitoring the windmill farm and maybe one maintenance person!

[grant]

lets see whats more important.....more money for the rich or protecting the planet for future generations??????????? oh gosh this one's really hard...
do i get a life line only a country that was founded on the genocide of the indigenious peoples would continue this STUPIDITY

[AreYouSure]

Joe, if I understand you correctly, we should not let green jobs displace existing job, in this case coal workers. I think most people don't want to see anyone lose their jobs but it is a sad reality of the times we are facing. Should we employ everyone and prop up business, viable or not, with our taxes? Sounds like the much feared facist state we democrats secretely wish for. As much as the coal industry lobbies for clean coal, the general public is acutely aware of the hyperbole.

It's interesting to read some of the opinions on this blog. Some of the bloggers speculate can wind replace coal or use a Reuter's Spanish study to argue for a protectionist business model. Most people understand coal will be part of the solution as will many types of technology, mainly "green" ones. Making the arguement can anyone technology replace coal is a straw man.

You might want to stay abreast of the auto industry and the public and government's willingness to protect the UAW if you want a glimpse of the future of protectionism. Additionally,the R&D for clean coal is akin to GM finally focusing on greener vehicles, too little, too late.

We need affordable energy is mentioned on this site. Yes we do. We also need to live within our means and not waste less expensive forms of energy when it's available. I don't see that being a main topic on this site and why would it?

The proof is in the pudding and if Peabody and the coal lobby CAN produce a less polluting and affordable solution, they have nothing to worry about. On the flip side, if it's all just typical lobbying strategy, well, we expect to see more websites and commercials like this one.

I seriously doubt this post will make it to being posted since this site's goal seems more of misinformation rather than good stewardship.

[George J. Silvestri Jr.]

The whole spectrum of alternative energy sources(green power) have wasted and will waste megabillions and megabillions of monetary resources as well as diverting human resources from where they are really needed.
Moreover, the proponents of coal, oil and nuclear energy should form a common front. They should stop from promoting their own energy sector only, but provide mutual support for each other. We need all three sources of energy.

United we will stand, divided we will fall.

[Megan from ACCCE]

Grant:
It’s important to remember that all of our energy sources have their challenges, and that none of them are without impact. Moreover, you seem to miss the point that by creating these new technologies, we can create jobs, reduce emissions and maintain affordable electricity for Americans derived from domestic energy sources. Should we keep on with efforts to develop renewables like wind and solar? Absolutely. But we need all of our domestic energy sources to meet our growing demand.

AreYouSure:
We’ve drawn the parallels between the U.S. late arrival to the hybrid vehicle game and clean coal technology before. In fact, that’s one reason why it’s so critical we develop these commercial technologies. New technologies are one way we can reposition the U.S. as a global leader in technology and innovation. Plus, these technologies could be exported to developing countries like China and India—helping us achieve global emissions reduction goals.

George:
We’d like to work together with all types of energy producers, as we recognize that it’s going to take all of our domestic energy resources to meet our growing energy demand.

[Bad Economy]

Renewable energy is not cost efficient right now. But isn't the mass production of renewable energy products going to reduce the cost in the end? A lot of new technologies start out expensive and eventually get cheaper as the mass production of them causes them to get cheaper. One example is the change from regular bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs. Private companies with the help from the government have pushed this to consumers.

[Wetdog]

If we continue to use fossil fuels, we will end up being the fossils.

There is no such thing as "Clean Coal".

"Poppa, won't you take me back down to Muehlenburg County,
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay?
Well I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking, Mr. Peabody's coal train done hauled it away."

Muehelburg County--John Prine

[Russell]

Displacing jobs, my butt, take the coal miners and train them to build wind generators, wave generators, and solar generators, you haven't eliminated jobs, but created more jobs. And as for coal miners, think they would really enjoy breathing clean air (kinda clean anyway, thanks to fossil fuels) instead of coal dust.
Clean coal, sounds like a oxymoron, coal will always have a dirty side, no matter what you do to it before you burn it, same for all fossil fuels. The technology is here it's past time to use it, retrain, rethink clean power

[Wetdog]

------"Clean coal, sounds like a oxymoron, coal will always have a dirty side, no matter what you do to it before you burn it, same for all fossil fuels."------

It IS an oxymoron. There IS no such thing as "Clean Coal". No matter WHAT you do to clean up smokestacks---coal STILL comes from strip mines. Strip mines destroy the land and its ability to support life for thousands of years. Coal mines leach deadly toxins into both above ground water sheds and below ground water. It poisons lakes, rivers, wells and aquifers. Burning coal creates acid rain that kills everything it touches. Burning coal creates mountains of cinders and ash that are a deadly witch's brew of toxic heavy metals and other poisons.

How much good is the electricity that you "need" going to do you when there is no food to eat and no water to drink? You can't eat electricity.

[Megan from ACCCE]

Wetdog:
Actually, today's coal-based generating fleet is 77 percent cleaner in terms of emissions currently regulated under existing Clean Air Act programs per unit of energy produced—EPA figures show this. The calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. We believe we can make the same reductions in carbon dioxide.

The fact of the matter is, all of our energy sources have their challenges. Take wind and solar for example. Electricity is produced in base-load power and peaking power. Base-load power is the energy necessary to keep the electricity grid energized and meet a constant demand. Peaking power is energy that comes on and off throughout the day, when electricity usage and energy demand goes up. Peaking power uses intermittent power resources like solar and wind that produce electricity only when there’s sufficient direct sunlight or sufficient sustained wind speed. For base-load power, you must use so-called hard-path fuels such as coal, which can provide power 24 hours per day.

[Wetdog]

Megan---no matter HOW you try to clean up smokestacks, coal STILL comes from strip mines. Strip mines and mountain top removal destroys the earth and everything on it. For hundreds to thousands of years. Strip mines alter watersheds and pollute both surface water and subterranean aquifers.
Burning coal releases CO2 that retains solar heat and is altering the climate.
Burning coal produces mountains of ashes, soot and cinders---that contain heavy metal toxins and pollute the land and water as happened recently in Tennessee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ats3dClc0No

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsZ9A9h2SA0&feature=related

Wind power can be used to pump water into reservoirs to be stored as potential energy. It is then released when needed to produce kinetic energy. This is not a new concept--the Dutch were doing this over 300 years ago. The most efficient use of solar energy is directly as heat, there are many ways to store heat energy. Burning biomass can boil water the same as coal can---without destroying the earth and it's waters. The sun has been pretty dependable, it has been there everyday for over 4.5 billion years. The wind has been dependable enough to take man to all the far corners of the earth for thousands of years with nothing more than sails.

There is no such thing as "Clean Coal".