A Free-Market Energy Blog

"Green Job" Fallacies (Part II: What is a 'Green' Job?)

By -- September 29, 2011

Even if there were a usable model to analyze job creation, we are left with the problem of identifying which jobs are actually “green.”  A renewable project can result in the employment of technical personnel trained to specialize in operating or maintaining its technology (whom we presume are green), as well as additional bartenders who will help the workers to enjoy their evenings (harder to classify as green).

The matter is important because any type of governmental or private spending might open up slots for bartenders.  Renewable technologies, however, have been viewed as the foundation for a massive increase in skilled workers whose human capital will provide them with higher lifelong earnings.

Two recent studies point up that the choice of definitions can affect estimates of the green workforce, and show that an extremely small fraction of jobs defined as green are in renewables.…

Continue Reading

"Green Job" Fallacies (Part I: First Principles)

By -- September 28, 2011

[Ed. note: The following is excerpted from Dr. Michaels’s recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. Part II tomorrow will examine how green jobs are defined by their proponents.]

It is rapidly becoming apparent that renewable energy is failing to produce the promise of painless prosperity embodied in “green jobs” that will simultaneously decrease unemployment rates and reduce pollution.  Begin with some principles:

1.  The proper goal of energy policy is to support the efficient provision of energy. 

The lower the cost of energy to the economy, all else equal, the higher will be job creation and economic growth outside of the energy sector.  Raising energy costs by forcing the use of uneconomic technologies that create more job slots will have exactly the opposite effect.  Put simply, more workers in energy reduce the production of non-energy goods and services.

Continue Reading

Lindzen on Kerry Emanuel's Climate Alarmism, Non-Sequitur

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 27, 2011

When I was director of public policy analysis at Enron in the late 1990s, I hired climatologist Gerald North of Texas A&M as a consultant to help me get to the bottom of the raging debate between climate ‘skeptics’ and ‘alarmists.’ I was Ken Lay’s speechwriter, and I was concerned that Enron’s embrace of climate alarmism (we had seven profit centers banking on priced CO2 from government intervention) was intellectually off base and thus violated the honesty plank of corporate responsibility.

It was money well spent. Dr. North was personable and honest, although he had a propensity to default toward alarmism if you did not challenge him. (Such is the neo-Malthusian propensity of most natural scientists who see nature as optimal and the human influence as only downside.) This is why I have called Dr.…

Continue Reading

Wind Energy and Radar: A National Security Issue

By -- September 26, 2011
Continue Reading

Go Industrial, Not 'Green' (Part II)

By -- September 24, 2011
Continue Reading

Go Industrial, Not 'Green' (Part I)

By -- September 23, 2011
Continue Reading

Unlearned Cap-and-Trade Lessons: EPA's Problematic Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

By Roger Calazza -- September 22, 2011
Continue Reading

Biomass vs. Fossil Fuels: Thinking of CO2 Emissions in Terms of Nature’s “Battery”

By Indur Goklany -- September 21, 2011
Continue Reading

Solar circa 1994: What Has Really Changed? (Remembering Enron's hoodwink in the age of Solyndra)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- September 20, 2011
Continue Reading

State Climatologist of Georgia Ousting: Was It Justified? ('Skepticism', not only alarmism, can get political)

By Chip Knappenberger -- September 19, 2011
Continue Reading