IBJOpinion

GROSSMAN: Just what are 'green jobs,' anyway?

Peter Z. Grossman
November 7, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana officials appear to be working hard to get our share of the 5 million “green jobs” President Obama says he’ll create.

Sounds like a good idea, except for one problem: No one can really say just what a green job is. Perhaps we can agree that assembling windmills counts as one. But what about supplying the windmill maker with steel, plastic and copper? And if suppliers are “green,” we should probably add the copper smelter and copper miner; the windmill doesn’t get made without copper.

And what about the bureaucrats that are administering government green programs—are those jobs green? And if we count the bureaucrats, maybe we also need to include the accountants totaling up the “green job” subsidies, the congressional reps who passed the legislation (there’s 535 green jobs right there), the lawyers who work for the windmill companies, and maybe also the lawyers suing the copper mine for pollution.

Actually, not so fast on the last one. Polluters may actually be “green”! Solar photovoltaic production gets a green nod, but it generates toxic waste that is sometimes improperly handled. Ethanol is another product that produces various environmental costs but gets tagged as green—mainly because it’s not gasoline and has farm-state legislators behind it.

Green then will depend on which kind of pollution you’re talking about. Excluded may be, surprisingly, recycling jobs. Most would probably think recycling is green, but not everyone agrees because the practices of many recyclers are considered detrimental to the environment.

In fact, there is no common definition of what constitutes a green job. A recent study showed nearly everyone writing on the subject defines green jobs differently, and often the definitions seem completely arbitrary. For example, one report counts existing jobs in nuclear power as green but excludes new jobs in the field, notwithstanding the fact that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, offering a benefit that might help the environment more in the future than the present.

In the end, the answer to the question of what makes a green job is this: It’s anything the government wants it to be. With billions of dollars to hand out and swarms of lobbyists eager to obtain the money, Congress is sure to blur any distinction between green jobs and pork.

Some would say that, regardless of what we call them, we need this as a jobs program. But whether a green jobs program actually will create many or any jobs overall is unclear. According to one study in Spain, a country that has invested large resources in wind energy, it has cost more than $700,000 for every alternative-energy job that’s created. But higher electric costs are said to be taking as many or more jobs away from other sectors of the Spanish economy.

A series of ads run here in Indiana has argued that we need to urge our senators to support green jobs because, if we don’t create them, China will. That is, our senators should vote large subsidies to create jobs that the market won’t so China doesn’t get the jump on us. If we have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for every one of these jobs, I don’t know why we’d be losers if China spends that kind of money instead.

The green jobs program has faded into the background as Congress, the president and most of the nation have focused on health care. But the Obama administration still seems determined to spend billions of dollars on a program no one can really define.•

__________

Grossman is the Clarence Efroymson professor of economics at Butler University. He can be reached at pgrossma@butler.edu.


ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT