The Green Jobs Agenda Comes a Cropper

I am under-amused by my friend and local blogosphere colleague Cory Heidelberger's remark that "Republican economics is wrong, intellectually, empirically, and morally." I think the view that America ought not to turn into Greece is neither intellectually, empirically, nor morally wrong. That doesn't mean that Cory's view, that we ought to emulate Greece, is morally wrong. Somehow I have never developed the taste for believing that people who disagree with me do so out of some character flaw.

I do think that "Democratic", i.e., liberal economics is frequently wrong both intellectually and empirically. Take the green jobs agenda that President Obama is so fond of. This economic strategy proceeds on the assumption that jobs can be created by investment in "green" energy technologies. These include wind and solar power and energy efficiency.

Like most conservatives, I find this strategy to be "intellectually" suspect. It is possible, of course, that as a result of current investments, green technologies will someday become self-sustaining and so create real live jobs. There are reasons to be suspicious about that claim. But the fact that we have to subsidize them now means that they aren't self-sustaining yet. That means that wealth has to be diverted from productive sources to support unproductive ones. Such a diversion cannot result in a net job creation in the short term, which is precisely what the President thinks it can do.

So much for the intellectual side. Can the conservative intellectual analysis be empirically verified? Astonishingly enough, the New York Times has confirmed it.

Aaron Glantz has the goods.

In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream…

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.

The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry. Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on as homeowners balked at the upfront costs…

Job training programs intended for the clean economy have also failed to generate big numbers. The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.

There are some empirical findings for you! There are more in the article. The green jobs agenda is intellectually and empirically wrong. I would not argue that it is morally wrong to believe in it. Moral censure for intellectual and empirical error would be draconian indeed. But is there not some measure of moral error in continued spending when it is clear that the spending is useless?

California has forged ahead with environmental legislation, including its own version of cap-and-trade that is part of the landmark anti-global-warming law AB 32 enacted in 2006. Another measure, signed into law earlier this year by Mr. Brown, requires utilities to generate at least a third of all their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The 600-turbine Alta Wind Energy Center southeast of Bakersfield is set to become the world's largest wind farm when it is completed in 2015. Terra-Gen, a company based in New York that has received more than $300 million in private investment from Google and Citi for the Alta farm, says it will bring 1,020 megawatts on line by the end of the year. But even when it is fully up and running, the wind farm will bring only 50 permanent operations and maintenance jobs to rural Kern County, the company said.

Okay, that's private investment, though I am guessing that Google and Citi aren't getting something for that trouble. But let's do the math. A $300 million investment divided by 50 permanent jobs equals what? Six million dollars per job.

The green jobs agenda is an intellectual and empirically verified farce. My friends on the left will still believe in it, and insist that we invest in it. What else could they do? But this kind of spending on useless things means that somebody isn't getting a raise and somebody else isn't getting a job. That might matter morally.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

You might want to actually educate yourself on various green energy sources. You are very out of touch with reality.

My electricity provider has found wind to be extremely important, and is increasing its wind portfolio yearly. You seem to be arguing against the market, and against conservation. That's what the big fossil fuel industry has been doing for years, and it has gotten us hooked on sources of energy that pollute (another way of saying "socializing the cost of production"). Pretty dumb, especially when you have alternatives.

The link will take you to Alliant Energy's wind page, but from there you can get to a lot of different pages on alternative energy and energy conservation.

http://www.alliantenergy.com/Environmental/RenewableAlternativeEnergy/014405

Many of energy efficiency (green) jobs can't be specifically assigned to "green energy" because many are simply common sense improvements done when a person upgrades certain equipment or insulation. These jobs are integrated into the economy.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: I give you the New York Times. You give me a corporate webpage. you are entirely immune to the evidence.

[duggersd]

Donald, I perused your link. I was looking rather quickly, so I may have missed it. Can you point out to me where Alliant Energy does not take any subsidies to pay for wind generation? I know they said the fuel is free, but I am under the impression wind turbines only make economic sense if they receive a subsidy.

[Stavros Apartmani]

A picture is worth a thousand words. What the heck?!

[Stavros Apartmani]

A picture is worth a thousand words. What the heck?!

[Donald Pay]

Republicans are foolish. They search high and low for any smidgeon of problem in the green economy, yet when we have leak after leak and nuclear power plants and oil and natural gas facilities, they are blind.for green jobs. Some states put their efforts in one area, others go into a different area. The idea that all the green jobs in the country are supposed to be concentrated forever in Silicon Valley is kooky/ The whole idea is for green economy to spread. If one area (Silicon Valley) is losing some green jobs, that's because there are places where green jobs are increasing.

Also, some of the green jobs are leaving for China, because the Republicans are hostile to innovation, and have created uncertainty. Here in Wisconsin Governor Walker has killed many green jobs in order to pay off his Koch Brother funders.

Many states have completed their weatherization programs and are seeking more money. Of course states that turned up their noses at certain stimulus funding and/or failed to put programs in place ended up creating few jobs didn't create those jobs. Other states utilized the funding, and want more.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/41026--ohio-weatherization-jobs-to-be-cut-as-funding-ends

Republicans have proved themselves to be job killers, not job creators.

[Miranda]

It is interesting that nearly every issue that the left and right disagree upon has been made into a "moral" issue. The Tea Party's opposition to raising the debt ceiling led many on the left to compare the party to terrorists. Disagreement on climate change has led some to call for Nuremberg style trials for "deniers." Now, having a different approach to economics is also becoming sinful. Can a Republican or a conservative disagree with the left on any issue without charges of moral misconduct or is having an opposing view a sin in itself?

[George Mason]

Donald opposes corporations but is all in favor of corporate welfare.

[George Mason]

Donald opposes corporations but is all in favor of corporate welfare.

[duggersd]

Speaking of weatherizing homes....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2764634/posts
$20 million to weatherize 3 homes? Now that is an efficient use of tax dollars, huh?

[Donald Pay]

Freerepublic? God.

[duggersd]

Free Republic got it from a Seattle newspaper. I was not sure about the link, but they said the same thing. Here is another. http://www.runboard.com/bestboardonthenet.p194100 Are you disputing it? But if true, you would agree it is a waste, right?

[Donald Pay]

I think what you've got in Seattle is a local entity that was a little slow on the uptick. The cause of the problem in Seattle was not having homes lined up for weatherizationm so it got off to a slow start. You seem to want to focus on the bad stories, but Ohio and Wisconsin seem to have had no problem finding homes to weatherize, partly because this is just an add on to a popular and well-known programs. In Wisconsin, utilities and social service agencies actively recruit homes for the program. You'll never see freerepublic writing anything positive.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: the question is not whether some of the green policies sort of worked some of the time, nor whether they are good policies or not. The question is whether they were likely to or in fact did create jobs in any significant numbers. They weren't and they didn't. The New York Times can see this, for heaven's sake.