The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

What, exactly, is a ‘green’ job?

With an ailing economy, nearly double-digit unemployment and a sense among Washington lawmakers that something, anything, must be done to “create” jobs, politicians of both political stripes have turned to “green” jobs as the panacea to cure all ills.

The president has promised $2.3 billion here, $3 billion there, and we’ve certainly all witnessed an endless stream of public statements touting the virtues of “green” jobs. So, with all this media attention, taxpayer resources and political capital dedicated to “green” jobs, many Americans find themselves asking the question: what exactly is a green job?

In short, there is no true definition for a green job—even the Department of Labor admits that. Is a scientist working on the newest innovations in windmill technology a holder of a green job? How about the worker who burns 200 gallons of diesel fuel to transport that turbine to the installation site?

Many Americans are optimistic about the possibility of creating of green jobs, but not because of the color: With official unemployment rates just under 10 percent, it’s tough to be against any job—green, orange, polka-dot or otherwise.

Unfortunately, economists have not done their jobs with respect to educating the public about the tradeoffs involved in the debate over green jobs. Government and industry cheerleaders have largely gotten a pass in promoting the false idea that green jobs are a win-win, in which we can help the environment and the economy at the same time.

This is an empty promise. By their very nature, government-created green jobs are unsustainable. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t take government mandates or billions in taxpayer subsidies to create them in the first place—and it certainly wouldn’t take billions more to sustain them.

Late last year, President Obama visited the DeSoto Solar Center in Arcadia, Fla. Located two hours south of Tampa, this Florida Power and Light (FPL) facility is billed as “the largest solar power plant in the United States.”

One would naturally applaud this as success—a step forward in increasing our use of renewable energy. The president certainly did. Yet, once again, when you peel back the green curtain, disturbing details emerge.

You see, “the largest solar field in the United States,” now operational, employs a full time staff of two (this is not a typo). During the rainy season, FPL will add a team of six landscapers—one week a month to cut the grass. The 400 jobs to which President Obama referenced in his speech were installation jobs. Therein lies the inconvenient truth about green jobs: to keep 400 people at work, we’d have to continuously install additional solar plants. That means more government subsidies, mandates and ratepayer increases, and ultimately, the next economic “bubble” and “burst.”

This is no hypothetical warning. The Spanish embarked on the world’s most aggressive renewables program—President Obama specifically praised it soon after his inauguration as a model for his own agenda. Yet, as the Spanish government faced budget difficulties, it was forced to rein in its support for renewables.

  • rainmaker1145

    The reality is that the government cannot create jobs as efficiently as the private-sector because the cost of government cannot be avoided in the outcome and the source of job financing is from the private-sector economy and this means someone in the private-sector has to lose their job to sustain the inefficient job in the government-sector.

    If this “theory” of economics had any validity then the Soviet Union’s economy would never have crashed and the socialist countries of North Korea, Vietnam and China would have the highest per capita GDP and highest per capita incomes. This has NEVER been the case in actuality (do a Google search on this for yourself and read the CIA factbook entries if you don’t believe me). The reality is that all government spending comes from the private-sector economy because government is structured as an endogenous variable to economy that supports it. If you want to change this dynamic then the economy must be restructured so that all units of government are exogenous variables. Once you do that, all fiscal spending becomes stimulative in nature (stimulating both the demand schedule for capital investment and the demand schedule for employment). Until you do that it is not mathematically possible for the government to create a better economic outcome than the private-sector and this is the actual result in every case that the government has attempted to enter a private-sector industry. In each case, the government ends up destroying the business and offering the remaining scraps to the market. This has been true of agriculture, heavy industry, transportation and every other sector. It can’t work because political philosophy is no match for the laws of mathematics.

  • lamecherry

    A green job is an Obama greed job where his cronies are paid huge sums to hire Obamalings to make products no one buys costing taxpayers billions of dollars, but the money gets funneled back into Obama 2012 campaign funding illegally.