WSJ/ The Non-Green Jobs Boom

[twa]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024510087261078.html

So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that the U.S. jobless rate remains a dreadful 9%. But look more closely at the data and you can see which industries are bucking the jobless trend. One is oil and gas production, which now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period.

The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota's Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed.

The oil and gas rush has led to a jobs boom. North Dakota has the nation's lowest jobless rate, at 3.5%, and the state now has some 200 rigs pumping 440,000 barrels of oil a day, four times the amount in 2006. The state reports more than 16,000 current job openings, and places like Williston have become meccas for workers seeking jobs that often pay more than $100,000 a year.

...

The American Petroleum Institute recently commissioned a study by the Wood Mackenzie consulting firm, which estimated that better federal energy policy would create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

[Unforgiven]

Interesting article, just wish it wasn't written in such a corny douchey "aahah liberals suck" tone. It's the WSJ though, so I expected it going in...and they delivered.

Anyways at this point I'm beyond the party I back being right. I'm glad there is some kind of job growth, whatever it may be. Obviously fossil fuels aren't a long term solution by any stretch of the imagination, but right now we'll take what we can get.

Green jobs are the future, if we're to have a future...so to discredit the idea of green jobs is to be naive and short-sighted. We obviously need fossil fuels and if we can get them at home while the green job sector is grown in the meantime, all the better.

[PeterMP]

""Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment" concludes that:

The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors. Most clean economy jobs reside in mature segments that cover a wide swath of activities including manufacturing and the provision of public services such as wastewater and mass transit. A smaller portion of the clean economy encompasses newer segments that respond to energy-related challenges. These include the solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, fuel cell, smart grid, biofuel, and battery industries.

The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession. Overall, today’s clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. This performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2 percent annually over the period (if job losses from establishment closings are omitted to make the data comparable). However, this measured growth heavily reflected the fact that many longer-standing companies in the clean economy—especially those involved in housing- and building-related segments—laid off large numbers of workers during the real estate crash of 2007 and 2008, while sectors unrelated to the clean economy (mainly health care) created many more new jobs nationally. At the same time, newer clean economy establishments— especially those in young energy-related segments such as wind energy, solar PV, and smart grid—added jobs at a torrid pace, albeit from small bases."

Note the source is the Brookings Institute. I think most will agree they are a more neutral scource than the America Petroleum Institute.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0713_clean_economy.aspx

[twa]

How many of those green jobs require subsidies Peter?

How much money can we afford to lose trying to make unprofitable ventures common?

I fully support research and development of clean energy....pissing money away is another matter.

[PeterMP]

How many of those green jobs require subsidies Peter?

How much money can we afford to lose trying to make unprofitable ventures common?

I fully support research and development of clean energy....pissing money away is another matter.

How much of that oil/gas industry was based on tax breaks and tax incentives?

How much of it is based on pipelines that allow companies to grab land based on eminient domain laws in many states?

Honestly, I don't know, but the point is your article made it sound like that the green economy hasn't grown and hasn't grown substantially in the US, which is just false.

If you want to post something talks about the real costs/benefit of a "green job" vs. a "fossil fuel job", I'd love to see it.

If you want to post garbage that suggests that the green jobs in this country aren't growing, I'm going to point it out for the garbage that it is.

[twa]

When the govt pours billions into it how do you not expect it to prosper?

ya got a wakeup call coming

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-05-03-greencities_N.htm

The rather broad definition of green jobs in the Brookings piece is cute....I guess I have a green job since I oversee environmental compliance:ols:

wheres my damn subsidy?

[Unforgiven]

China poured more into green jobs/renewable energy than the US and in turn brought in the majority of the major manufacturers because of it.

I know what you're going to say...it's China, of course manufacturing jobs went there because of costs. The thing is the Chinese realized that you need a major investment to propel that industry. Now the majority of solar/renewable parts that are used in this country are manufactured in China.

Fossil fuels are where they are, it's not like you can outsource all those jobs to China when it comes from places like North Dakota. Green jobs aren't something you can sit around on and wait till it becomes convenient for you to drop a little cash on it. If we continually fall behind, we'll never catch up.

[twa]

Unforgiven we are funneling billions to the Chinese for manufacturing what we then pay to subsidize using (solar panels,wind and next the batteries)....and borrowing from them to do so

You will always be behind in manufacturing,WHILE paying for our idiocy.

Until the green tech becomes cost effective you simply make them the new Saudi's

we are cutting our own throats AGAIN.

[PeterMP]

When the govt pours billions into it how do you not expect it to prosper?

ya got a wakeup call coming

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-05-03-greencities_N.htm

Tell me about it:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm

(Oh and let's be clear this hasn't been going on for the last 10 years or fewer. This has been goind on EVERY year for amost a century. http://www.allbusiness.com/business-finance/equity-funding-private-equity-venture/111252-1.html (well not at the level of a billion dollars or so a year, but the general tax break))

Can solar companies get a depletion allowance based on the amount of energy the sun gives off every year?

Your link about the price of alternative energy is from 2 years ago.

The link from Brookings Institute is from July.

Your welcome to go into the study and look at individual sectors.

[twa]

You think it has gotten cheaper w/o the subsidies?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1126/Solar-power-Google-pulls-the-plug

Solar power: Google pulls the plug

Solar power was at heart of Google's alternative energy efforts. But CEO Page has dropped the solar power and other energy projects to refocus Google on the Internet.

you have more recent numbers?

the EIA projections for 2016

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif

[PeterMP]

You think it has gotten cheaper w/o the subsidies?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1126/Solar-power-Google-pulls-the-plug

Solar power: Google pulls the plug

Solar power was at heart of Google's alternative energy efforts. But CEO Page has dropped the solar power and other energy projects to refocus Google on the Internet.

you have more recent numbers?

the EIA projections for 2016

It has gotten cheaper because more the labor in terms of manufacturing is being done places where labor is cheaper (i.e. China) and the technology has gotten better.

Wait, you mean a company decided to focus on their expertise becaue other companies that are experts in those areas were beating them, I'm shocked!!

Looks like to me, they are essentially there, except for solar, which is a little more complex, but even that can be close dependent on how and where it is done:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/06/27/how-expensive-is-solar-energy.aspx

And that's without any depletion allowance based on how much energy the sun gave off that year.

**EDIT**

The fact of the matter is that your initial link is GARBAGE. It STRONGLY implies that green jobs in the US haven't increased significantly, and that is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

If you want to post something intelligent on the real costs/benefits of green jobs vs. fossil fuel jobs, I'd love to see it.

If you want to post garbage, I am going to point it out for the garbage that it is.

[alexey]

Obama really dropped the ball on Alternative Energy by going for Solyndra-style supply-side stimulus of the sector.

Yeah R&D investments are good, but in this economy lack of demand is the problem.

I think that many people would make solar/wind/geothermal installations, or at least get their houses weatherized if they could finance it with a low rate loan.

[twa]

Define green jobs or clean economy jobs for the class...The Brookings numbers are garbage w/o it

Is a bus driver a clean economy job?....how about construction workers on a HOV lane?

Do you refute the EIA numbers as well?

[PeterMP]

Define green jobs or clean economy jobs for the class...The Brookings numbers are garbage w/o it

Is a bus driver a clean economy job?....how about construction workers on a HOV lane?

Do you refute the EIA numbers as well?

The actual report gives a break down of jobs by sector w/ in the "clean fields". You are welcome to look at them if you'd like (as I've already said). The link to the actual report is in the link I gave. They also include a link to their methods, which gives even more details.

Though, I'll quote from the part I already quoted:

"At the same time, newer clean economy establishments— especially those in young energy-related segments such as wind energy, solar PV, and smart grid—added jobs at a torrid pace, albeit from small bases."

Those people wouldn't include bus drivers or HOV pavers.

No, I don't refute the EIA numbers. The solar energy are average values. We've discussed this before. Based on the EIA values, they are all close, except for solar, and as the link I provided showed for solar there are pretty large differences in the relevant values.

The values the EIA is giving you are average values. There are some solar instillations that will be cost competitive depending on where and how they are done. There are others that aren't.

Though, I would point out that the EIA numbers aren't "real" costs, but after government intervention costs.

[twa]

Peter it appears mass transit is listed in the clean economy(which would include bus drivers I assume)

It also seems to include my nuclear machinist daughter....it's unclear if I or the HOV builders qualify though

I got bored before I found out if natural gas vehicles were included....wouldn't that be a hoot?

add

It seems likely after further review I am part of your clean economy by virtue of my environmental monitoring duties and HVAC certification (hope they don't count me twice )

The EPA is as well

[Hubbs]

""Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment" concludes that:

The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry and bulks larger than bioscience but remains smaller than the IT-producing sectors. Most clean economy jobs reside in mature segments that cover a wide swath of activities including manufacturing and the provision of public services such as wastewater and mass transit. A smaller portion of the clean economy encompasses newer segments that respond to energy-related challenges. These include the solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, fuel cell, smart grid, biofuel, and battery industries.

The clean economy grew more slowly in aggregate than the national economy between 2003 and 2010, but newer “cleantech” segments produced explosive job gains and the clean economy outperformed the nation during the recession. Overall, today’s clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. This performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2 percent annually over the period (if job losses from establishment closings are omitted to make the data comparable). However, this measured growth heavily reflected the fact that many longer-standing companies in the clean economy—especially those involved in housing- and building-related segments—laid off large numbers of workers during the real estate crash of 2007 and 2008, while sectors unrelated to the clean economy (mainly health care) created many more new jobs nationally. At the same time, newer clean economy establishments— especially those in young energy-related segments such as wind energy, solar PV, and smart grid—added jobs at a torrid pace, albeit from small bases."

Note the source is the Brookings Institute. I think most will agree they are a more neutral scource than the America Petroleum Institute.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0713_clean_economy.aspx

I'm not sure that the fact that green energy requires several times as many jobs to produce a fraction of the energy that comes from oil and natural gas is a point in your favor.

[Thiebear]

Alaska has the largest

total share of its jobs in the clean economy (4.7 percent),

the majority of which involve conservation and management

of the environment given the state’s massive parklands.

Oregon (3.4 percent) is a big producer of organic food, as

well as green building materials and sustainable forestry

products; Montana contains vast public lands with park

rangers and related professions but also jobs in solar PV

and hydropower. Washington and Idaho also fall into the top

ten. Yet much of West’s advantage on clean intensity comes

from its historic possession of national parklands.

Do they count Yogi Bears home as 'green' jobs created?

[PeterMP]

Peter it appears mass transit is listed in the clean economy(which would include bus drivers I assume)

It also seems to include my nuclear machinist daughter....it's unclear if I or the HOV builders qualify though

I got bored before I found out if natural gas vehicles were included....wouldn't that be a hoot?

add

It seems likely after further review I am part of your clean economy by virtue of my environmental monitoring duties and HVAC certification (hope they don't count me twice )

The EPA is as well

They do count them as "green jobs", but they also break out the alternative energy sectors, and as I've already quoted, things like solar are having positive job growth, and on a percentage basis (from a small base), very positive job growth.

Again:

"At the same time, newer clean economy establishments— especially those in young energy-related segments such as wind energy, solar PV, and smart grid—added jobs at a torrid pace, albeit from small bases."

That doesn't includ bus drivers or your daughter.

---------- Post added November-27th-2011 at 08:13 AM ----------

I'm not sure that the fact that green energy requires several times as many jobs to produce a fraction of the energy that comes from oil and natural gas is a point in your favor.

The energy PRODUCTION sector is only one part of the green jobs sector.

[Thiebear]

Is there a list for actual green jobs?

[Bang]

There's no way that changing over to an entirely new form of energy and upgrading the entire country's infrastructure to accommodate it is going to create any jobs.

All of those things will happen magically by themselves. All we have to do is trust the oil companies and their buddies in Rupertville, and they have a decent shot of convincing people this is the case. (Actually, they won't try to convince anyone it will happen as if by magic. that was wrong of me to say and totally off base. They will try to convince people that it should never happen, that burning oil is the pinnacle of human technological advancement when it comes to energy.)

It's pretty obvious to me that as long we stay on a system that is antiquated and poisonous to our environtment, we'll be just fine. F what the rest of the world does. After all, we've been helping the developing world for decades,, about time they help us when we become the ass backwards fools hanging on to ancient ways. )

I hate to say I am sufficiently jaded by the propaganda to not believe what the Wall Street Journal says in this matter. I don't trust anything with Rupert Murdoch's name on it, and he has too many friends who will profit by convincing this country to stay with the old.

It's about as hard to swallow as the coal industry trying to convince me their product can be 'clean'.

The condemned will say anything to survive.

~Bang

[twa]

Is there a list for actual green jobs?

The study was for clean economy, not green

the pdf link shows mass transit,nuclear energy,organic farming,dry wall :ols:and carpet manufacturing,as well as all the massive monitoring/regulatory/compliance/clean up and remediation jobs,ect,ect

even AC manufacturers and service

There has certainly been a great expansion of clean energy jobs WITH massive subsidies,but they are unsustainable w/o subsidies or artificially inflating traditional energy costs.

If you don't like high gas prices you sure are not gonna like the higher electric costs inherent in 'green' energy

---------- Post added November-27th-2011 at 09:07 AM ----------

Bang, at this time we do not have the capability to go to all alt energy,nor even enough of the natural resources available(even if you ignore costs)......hell even large expansion of nuclear energy would be difficult.

You are going to need fossil fuels simply to manufacture the green energy sources.

that ain't spin...it is cold,hard fact

add

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/24/MNLV1M1CET.DTL

California's increasing use of renewable power will come at a price, pushing up electricity bills across the state.

And while it's impossible to tell how big the cost to consumers will be, some experts fear the total cost of renewable energy in California will be in the billions of dollars.

In the next three years, many long-planned solar plants and wind farms will come online, bringing California closer to its goal of getting one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. As soon as they start delivering power to utility companies, the utilities' customers will start paying for that electricity.

But the public doesn't get to see the prices the utilities are paying. And without that information, assessing the impact on consumers is difficult at best.

Few doubt that higher bills are on their way.

"You're going to see significant price increases over time from renewables," said Aaron Johnson, director of renewable energy policy at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. "As you add it to the system, it is going to result in higher costs for consumers."

California energy regulators, who approve contracts between utilities and renewable power developers, keep the prices confidential for the first three years after each solar plant, geothermal plant or wind farm starts operations. The information blackout was supposed to protect the public by keeping power plant operators from seeing each others' prices and raising their own to match - a major worry back when the state had only a handful of renewable power projects selling electricity to the utilities.

But it also leaves the public in the dark,

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/23/MNLV1M1CET.DTL#ixzz1ev77m0dY

[Thiebear]

I get what the administration is doing.

I was wondering if we had just a list of things that "Produce" green energy like wind/solar/algae.

Things that use less than they did previously which is conservation, on a different tab.

I like the Gov't paying companies that are straight GREEN to push new technology, I want a solar/wind and magnetic"almost perpetual" generator.

I dislike the Gov't paying companies that give green to the campaign.

[PeterMP]

Bang, at this time we do not have the capability to go to all alt energy,nor even enough of the natural resources available(even if you ignore costs)......hell even large expansion of nuclear energy would be difficult.

You are going to need fossil fuels simply to manufacture the green energy sources.

that ain't spin...it is cold,hard fact

add

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/24/MNLV1M1CET.DTL

California's increasing use of renewable power will come at a price, pushing up electricity bills across the state.

And while it's impossible to tell how big the cost to consumers will be, some experts fear the total cost of renewable energy in California will be in the billions of dollars.

In the next three years, many long-planned solar plants and wind farms will come online, bringing California closer to its goal of getting one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. As soon as they start delivering power to utility companies, the utilities' customers will start paying for that electricity.

But the public doesn't get to see the prices the utilities are paying. And without that information, assessing the impact on consumers is difficult at best.

Few doubt that higher bills are on their way.

"You're going to see significant price increases over time from renewables," said Aaron Johnson, director of renewable energy policy at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. "As you add it to the system, it is going to result in higher costs for consumers."

California energy regulators, who approve contracts between utilities and renewable power developers, keep the prices confidential for the first three years after each solar plant, geothermal plant or wind farm starts operations. The information blackout was supposed to protect the public by keeping power plant operators from seeing each others' prices and raising their own to match - a major worry back when the state had only a handful of renewable power projects selling electricity to the utilities.

But it also leaves the public in the dark,

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/23/MNLV1M1CET.DTL#ixzz1ev77m0dY

Bang, nor anybody else, is saying that we have to convert over to ONLY an alternative energy platform immediately.

"

The consumer advocacy office of the utilities commission, however, has access to the data. The office, called the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, issued a report this year that analyzed all the contracts signed to date and found that they cost, on average, about 15 percent more than electricity from a power plant burning natural gas. That figure includes the cost of building, fueling and operating the renewable energy plant."

15% from a NEW electric plant, doesn't sound too bad to me.

How many of BILLIONS of dollars of a tax breaks and incentives have the fossil fuel industry gotten over DECADES?

No new industry can EVER compete with a pre-existing industry given the breaks that the fossil fuel industry has been given over a century more. Heck, they've dictated a large chunk of our post-WWII foreign policy.

How much was the costs of the first Gulf war for the average Californian?

AND the price of solar is falling RAPIDLY:

"The number of renewable projects proposed across the state continued to grow, creating more competition. Larger, more-established power plant developers waded into the market, sensing an opportunity. The price of solar cells plunged, dropping an estimated 59 percent this year alone."

(Again, from YOUR own link.)

[twa]

Why does the claim of 15% not match up with the DOE/AEI numbers?

Is it because they are using peak rates instead of normal ones :pfft: ,and the compliance costs other utilities face?

You wish to complain about tax breaks,so tell me what the tax revenue from fossil fuels is and how you will replace it W/O raising rates/taxes even more?

There are already efforts to tax EV's to recoup losses in tax revenue.

I certainly agree we need to change our energy policy and FP to domestic production and energy security(be it alt or fossil based)....I am less than thrilled to see us simply switching dependence from the ME to China though

add

Your assertion the alt industry is growing ignores the mandates to buy it and the large subsidies directed to them.....anything will grow if it is mandated and subsidized(see Obamacare)

it is unsustainable unless you fix the economy....which domestic fossil fuel development does to some degree.

[Bang]

I recognize it will be a weaning process, and I don't think we'll ever be completely free of all fossil fuel use, at least in my lifetime.

But we've got to initiate the change full scale.

This change presents opportunity, and opportunity creates wealth and jobs. Committing to this could cause a boom.

~Bang