• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Green jobs a job killer?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
34,369
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Anyone hear about this study from Spain yet?

Here's one article about it

I have yet to form a firm opinion on this one way or the other, but I think it's something that needs to be studied carefully to make sure we aren't doing more harm than good.

To little fanfare this month, BP closed a solar-cell factory in Madrid, laying off 480 workers. But wait, aren't "green-collar" jobs the wave of the future -- the kind of employment that will only grow and "can't be outsourced," as President Obama likes to say?

Spain happens to be the country that the President often cites as his role model for the Green Jobs Revolution. It's also the source of an important new study that explains how expensive these jobs are -- and why Spain's renewable-energy business is a bubble waiting to burst. The study, released last month by researchers at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, uses data from the Spanish government and European Union to demonstrate that each job created in Spain's renewables industry costs as much as 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

The study's authors calculate that jobs in Spain's solar, wind and hydroelectric power industries were subsidized to the tune of more than €570,000 apiece from 2000 to 2008 -- a total exceeding €28.6 billion. And that figure only includes the extra cost to energy consumers of being forced by the government to buy renewable energy at prices several times higher than market rates for conventional power. The authors didn't calculate direct subsidies, such as grants to build solar farms, because the government doesn't even know how much money it has handed out to the renewables industry. But the direct-subsidies tally is at least €1.1 billion.

Some commentators have reported that Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for each job created by solar, wind or hydroelectric power producers. But the study instead is talking about opportunity cost -- the jobs that weren't created because resources were used inefficiently, or what the French economist Frédéric Bastiat meant by "what is seen and what is not seen."
. . .
 
I'm not up for analysis. Someone convince me this makes sense.

In order to know how many net jobs are destroyed by a green job program for each one that it is intended to create, we use two different methods:

with the first, we compare the average amount of capital destruction (the subsidized part of the investment) necessary to create a green job against the average amount of capital that a job requires in the private sector

with the second, we compare the average annual productivity that the subsidy to each green job would have contributed to the economy had it not been consumed in such a way, with the average productivity of labor in the private sector that allows workers to remain employed.
 
This seems to be consistent with that theory

From August 2007 to August 2008 Spain's unemployment rose 3% to 11.3%, the highest in the EU. Employment was flat for the EU as a whole during the same period.

These figures are published by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities.
Among the Member States, the lowest unemployment rates were registered in the Netherlands (2.6%) and Denmark (2.9% in July 2008), and the highest in Spain (11.3%) and Slovakia (9.9%).
Compared with a year ago, nineteen Member States recorded a fall in their unemployment rate and eight an increase. The largest fall was observed in Poland (9.2% to 6.7%), and the highest increase in Spain (8.3% to 11.3%).

That's pretty awful.
 
I'm not up for analysis. Someone convince me this makes sense.

Makes sense to me in theory, if the inputs are correct. That is, good data in, good data out. If the input data is garbage, the output would of course be garbage too.

ETA: it's probably not exactly correct to compare with the average cost of creating a job, but instead with the marginal cost of creating a job.
 
Last edited:
Well, living in a country saturated in solar energy and looking at the "green revolution" leading the way towards economic recovery and job creation, this makes very sobering reading.
 
From August 2007 to August 2008 Spain's unemployment rose 3% to 11.3%, the highest in the EU. Employment was flat for the EU as a whole during the same period.

There is no causal link proved between the two events. THere are other issues at work in Spain that also have a major effect on employment (like the slump in the tourism industry).

What can be said is that any industry that manufactures a commodity like batteries can always be moved somewhere where manufacturing is cheaper.

Steve
 
Try crunching the numbers on German solar and wind projects., It could be that the people running the Spanish program are blithering idiots.
 
Anyone hear about this study from Spain yet?

Here's one article about it

I have yet to form a firm opinion on this one way or the other, but I think it's something that needs to be studied carefully to make sure we aren't doing more harm than good.
I'm surprised that any would be surprised at this. Where a government subsidy was involved to allow an inefficient method to compete with an efficient one, there is no other possible outcome.
 
Maybe the Spaniards put those solar power plants in the plains. You know, the place where the rain mainly falls in that country.
Sure, they are really stupid and the progressive enlightened here are really smart. Our people will do the same stupid things but we'll have good results.

Y quien estupido, entonces?
 
I'm surprised that any would be surprised at this. Where a government subsidy was involved to allow an inefficient method to compete with an efficient one, there is no other possible outcome.

A very common critique of these economic analyses proferred by environmentalists is that they exclude external costs. eg: are there public or private savings obtained by reducing pollution? Does increased energy independence from fossil-fuel imports translate to reduced military costs? The authors don't seem to attempt to evaluate this, which makes the results pretty meaningless.
 
A very common critique of these economic analyses proferred by environmentalists is that they exclude external costs. eg: are there public or private savings obtained by reducing pollution? Does increased energy independence from fossil-fuel imports translate to reduced military costs? The authors don't seem to attempt to evaluate this, which makes the results pretty meaningless.
I doubt it, because a wide variety of externalities can be invoked, many which have all kinds of points of view. And these may be marginally related if at all to the primary proposition. So it may well be in the interests of clarity, that "externalities" were purposely not brought in. Only by typical vague and unquantified assertions of "externalities" that inefficient pet projects, that will not stand on their own in the free market, can be argued to be funded by taxpayer dollars.

Where are we on externalities with the Ethanol to Corn Boondoggle?

Let's here the wonders of that one and how including externalities, we have shaped a much better world than would have been the case without the Ethanol to Corn Boondoggle.

GO!
 
I doubt it, because a wide variety of externalities can be invoked, many which have all kinds of points of view. And these may be marginally related if at all to the primary proposition. So it may well be in the interests of clarity, that "externalities" were purposely not brought in. Only by typical vague and unquantified assertions of "externalities" that inefficient pet projects, that will not stand on their own in the free market, can be argued to be funded by taxpayer dollars.

I'm having trouble following what you're saying. The entire paper is based on assigning dollar values to economic factors, using assumptions.

I don't have a problem with that in general - that's economics.

I think the exclusion of likely benefits casts doubt on the thesis. The thesis does not contain qualifiers that say the scope is limited for clarity. The thesis is that these projects are a net loss to the nation that supports them. This is difficult to determine if benefits are excluded from the calculation.

eg: "If we ignore the benefits, we find that these projects don't have a lot of benefit."

Uh... Yeah... Did they get a grant for this "research"?





Where are we on externalities with the Ethanol to Corn Boondoggle?

Let's here the wonders of that one and how including externalities, we have shaped a much better world than would have been the case without the Ethanol to Corn Boondoggle.

GO!

No, I'm more interested in staying on topic.
 
Jobs only make sense if they actually generate wealth--more wealth than is necessary to do the job.

Government subsidies for jobs that don't actually create wealth don't make sense, usually. One time they do make sense is when there's an expectation that the subsidized jobs will jump-start a new wealth-creation industry. In this case, the subsidies can be seen as an investment of the nation's surplus wealth-creation in new, even more profitable activities.

But investment of this sort can only be profitable when there is surplus wealth available to invest. If the nation isn't generating enough wealth to even cover its current costs, then any so-called investment will be hard pressed to generate new wealth before the source of funds is completely drained away. This problem is only made worse when the government also bans existing wealth-creation activities, thus reducing even further the amount of surplus wealth (if any surplus exists) available for investment in new activities.
 
Jobs only make sense if they actually generate wealth--more wealth than is necessary to do the job.

Government subsidies for jobs that don't actually create wealth don't make sense, usually.....

Convert to government-politicians-think.

Jobs only make sense if they actually generate votes or payoff for votes. Net environmental or economic benefits are not a consideration.
 
Jobs only make sense if they actually generate wealth--more wealth than is necessary to do the job.

Only if taken in context of our consumption driven, profits above ethical choices, economy.

Jobs which create sustainable houses, food production, water systems, energy, and transportation make sense for the entire human race even if they lose money.

Convert to government-politicians-think.

Jobs only make sense if they actually generate votes or payoff for votes. Net environmental or economic benefits are not a consideration.

Money buys votes.
 
Only if taken in context of our consumption driven, profits above ethical choices, economy.

Jobs which create sustainable houses, food production, water systems, energy, and transportation make sense for the entire human race even if they lose money......
Well, no, not necessarily. This presumes some definition and implementation of "substainable" which creates that end goal to the extent that your assertion holds (circular logic).

In fact, "substainable" is used an endless variety of ways by anyone grabbing the latest buzz words. So I don't disagree with your intent with your statement, but rather, feel that in throwing the dart blindfolded, no telling what you might or might not hit. And we don't fund with public dollars, the throwing of billion or trillion dollar darts while blindfolded (ahem: Well, actually they do after calculating votes, duhh...but here we are looking at actual effects of policy).

Interesting review of this work by Donald Hertzmark at MasterResource, concludes:
The arithmetic of green jobs is ineluctable and grim. For each utility worker who moves from conventional electricity generation to renewable generation, two jobs at a similar rate of pay must be foregone elsewhere in the economy, otherwise the funds to pay for the excess costs of renewable generation cannot be provided. Moreover, by raising costs throughout the economy, high cost green energy will reduce the competitiveness of US exporters, thereby destroying (presumably well-paying) jobs in such industries.


http://masterresource.org/?p=1764​
 
Only if taken in context of our consumption driven, profits above ethical choices, economy.
Not so. I intentionally used the word "wealth", rather than "money" or "votes" because different people value different things. What makes a man wealthy in one culture might be utterly meaningless in another culture. The point is that you only do something when you get more of what you value as a result than you lose of what you value in the effort of doing it.

If I burn less calories planting, tending, harvesting, and processing wheat into bread than I gain calories from the bread I've produced, then I've created new wealth.

If I prance and caper on a streetcorner with such panache that passers-by shower me with more fish than I could have fished myself for the same investment in time and energy, then I have created new wealth.

If it costs me more energy to manufacture, install, and maintain solar panel, than that solar panel generates over its lifetime, then I have lost wealth. And if the government prohibits me from generating the energy necessary to produce the solar panel through other, more efficient means, then the problem is even worse.

And simply throwing around the word "sustainable" doesn't solve the problem. If it will take a hundred years for the sustainability investment to pay off in greater wealth, but the wealth necessary to make that investment will run out in two years, then no wealth has been created at all.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom