BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — The Obama administration’s investments in the green energy economy have already produced a great number of jobs in a sector with significant potential for additional growth. It would be a serious mistake to undercut the initiative just as it’s contributing to the recovery.
While estimates vary on exactly how many jobs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created, several experts have put the number at 2 million or more. Separate studies by Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College and the Congressional Budget Office also conclude that government spending on infrastructure, goods and services produces one of the highest jobs-per-dollar ratios of all spending alternatives.
Included in this category of government spending is support of green energy programs such as weatherization, smart grids and the Department of Energy’s loans for innovative technologies.
A study conducted in 2011 by the BlueGreen Alliance and the Economic Policy Institute confirmed the jobs benefits of green energy policies. It found that the stimulus created or saved 997,000 green jobs — including jobs in the energy sector — through the end of 2010. One can view some of these jobs online via the website Recovery.gov, although these are only the “direct” jobs reported by project contractors and do not include “induced” jobs, such as those devoted to the production of the steel needed to make wind turbines.
Even more of these jobs can be viewed at the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office website (https://lpo.energy.gov/).
Although critics lambaste the Loan Program Office and the Recovery Act in general because of the Solyndra scandal, far more projects have successfully used Recovery Act money through these loans to create a total of 50,000 jobs — not counting indirect employment.
Some argue that these green jobs destroy other jobs in the fossil fuel industries, such coal mining. But University of California at Berkeley researchers addressed this topic in 2010 and concluded that green and low-carbon energy investment produces significantly more jobs than are lost in fossil fuel industries. In fact, solar photovoltaic energy creates the most employment of all the energy sources the researchers studied. The researchers ultimately determined that increased energy efficiency and a high renewable portfolio standard target — along with nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage technology — would yield millions of full-time equivalent jobs.
Nor should anyone accuse the Obama administration of using government funds to prop up a sector best left in private hands. The Council of Economic Advisors finds that $46 billion in Recovery Act funds will leverage over $150 billion in clean energy financing by private investors. Such leverage includes assistance for building renewable energy facilities and developing smart grids.
Further, green energy represents not only a high-return investment for the federal government but a competitive world market in which America has arguably fallen behind despite years of continued growth in wind power and other sectors..
Princeton University economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently cautioned against only counting jobs gained while ignoring jobs lost. Of course, there were still 13.1 million unemployed Americans when last measured. But given the success and potential of Obama’s green energy policies, the real question is not whether his administration has hindered private sector growth. Rather, in light of research conducted by University of California and elsewhere, we should ask if the administration’s policies should be taken further, potentially along with the enactment of a clean energy standard or other national-level energy policies that target both energy and economic development.
• Carley is an assistant professor at Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs from which Hyman is a graduate.




Comments (12)
Add commentDon't these people understand?
Oil is infinite. We can just keep pumping it forever and it will never run out. There is no point even thinking about replacing it with something else.
I'm willing to bet our nation's future on that assumption. Aren't you?
missing a lot of points
How about all the losses to companies like Solyndra (funny how they weren't mentioned in the article). All the idle windmill farms which have decimated bird populations. All the Chevy Volts that catch fire and had to be bought back from owners, not a recall, a buy back they were so bad. All the huge tax breaks that have produced nothing, but have enrichened a few. Notice how no specifics are mentioned here? No real companies mentioned, no measureable success with real facts and figures. This whole artice is just hypothetical with no substance.
Banditrider
I think Hoover Dam is a good example of successful green energy (though, of course, hydro power isn't without its problems).
Google and Apple, your free-market poster children, are both investing heavily in solar to power their server farms.
For solar and wind power, Germany currently produces about 30 gigawatts of energy from those two sources. The U.S. doesn't, but if Germany can, so can we. Maybe the problem isn't that solar and wind power are unfeasible, but that people like you block progress out of their ignorance.
And as to wind power killing birds: yup. Each tower kills, on average, 1.2 birds a year. Compare this to the millions of birds killed every year by automobile collisions, pollution, and habitat destruction.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/27/wind-power-wildlife-lu...
And, once again, even though I've said it many times so you must be lying when you go on about it, Solyndra failed because the Chinese are taking solar seriously and outcompeted our company. Solar panel prices also fell dramatically, which prevented Solyndra from being able to make a profit.
Not one of these ridiculous
Not one of these ridiculous green energy companies could even begin to exist if not for government subsidies at all levels - federal, state and local.
And p, you can cite all the government websites and studies you want to try and prop up, what in reality is, dismal failures on the taxpayers' backs.
Read about Vestas' financial troubles for starters. Abound Solar will be interesting reading too - "unfortunately for taxpayers who provided a $400 million loan guarantee for Abound."
I found the figure 2.19 birds killed/year by each wind turbine - so those numbers you cite don't really mean anything either.
Wind and solar are nothing more than agendas being pushed by the progressives, on the backs of taxpayers. They're not feasible on a large scale yet.
p, we're not Germany, either. Could you tell us how much back-up energy from other sources is required to produce Germany's 30 gigawatts of power from wind and solar?
Germany has fossil fuel
Germany has fossil fuel plants capable of supplying about an extra gigawatt.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15355950,00.html
It's sad that this, the least important of my points, is the one you chose to substantively address. Perhaps you were hoping for an answer that would score you more rhetorical points?
Wack am Dano:
The American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year.
A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.
And this is just one site in California. I'm also not going to post the URL, look it up.
p, I wanted you to tell us
p, I wanted you to tell us how much other energy (oil or coal or diesel, etc.) was used to supplement the wind and solar powerplants when there wasn't any sun or wind to turn the turbines - like back-up power needed to generate that 30 gigiwatts.
It's getting to be not so
It's getting to be not so much fun to post on this forum anymore when 30% of posts get sent to moderation.
Anyone else agree?
Yes:
Agree it is old.
subsidies
Calypso, you mention: "Not one of these ridiculous green energy companies could even begin to exist if not for government subsidies at all levels - federal, state and local."
I don't think you should really go there, as I'm sure you are very well aware of the enormous subsidies given to industries that you probably support (oil and gas, forestry, big agriculture). To condemn solar energy because of its application of government subsidies is only telling half the story. You should simultaneously condemn oil or logging because of their government subsidies, too.
You can read all you'd care to in the book "Perverse Subsidies" by Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent.
@sefood - I don't support all
@sefood - I don't support all subsidies but I try to understand them before I paint an entire industry as evil.
Here's a good article from American Thinker on the real truth about oil subsidies -
http://www.americanthinker(dot) com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html
The Farm Bill is up for renewal in 2012 and I expect we'll see cuts in agriculture subsidies. Remember though that food assistance programs (food stamps, school breakfast and lunch programs) are included in that bill and are the major spending portion of the bill.
As of January 1, 2012, the $6 billion ethanol subsidy has ended. That's a good thing.
Don't complain though when the price of food and gas jump because subsidies are ending. There's always a give and take when government moves in and out of industries.
No thanks on your book suggestion. When I see the word eco-radicals to describe the authors, I don't think I'd make it past the first page. Thanks anyway!
Frenchie doesn't like being moderated?
Good. Don't come back.