New York Times: Green Job Creation Falls Short - Who Knew?
Today's New York Times devotes a whole section specifically to the future of energy production. The lead article on unconventional fossil fuels is well worth reading - new technologies are unlocking vast new supplies. The concluding paragraph sums it up thusly:
"The fossil fuel age will be extended for decades," said Ivan Sandrea, president of the Energy Intelligence Group, a research publisher. "Unconventional oil and gas are at the beginning of a technological cycle that can last 60 years. They are really in their infancy."
The article on the green jobs shortfall in the solar power industry tries to sort through the complexities of determining just what is a "green job" and how does one know that the result as been net job creation instead merely shifting a job from one industry to another? Oddly the article does not muse on this arresting point:
"Net jobs" is seldom mentioned. The object now is to put more man-hours into each megawatt-hour, after years of trying to slim down the system and minimize labor input.
Recipe for more jobs: Make labor less efficient.
The article ends with this telling observation:
In December 2010, Susan Combs, the comptroller of Texas, reported that school districts in her state were giving tax abatements to lure new jobs, but had to give $1.6 million for every wind energy job. Manufacturing jobs could be created for $166,000 each.
And who knew that green job creation was a bogus concept? Well, lots of us at Reason did. See a plethora of articles dealing with this issue here.
