GREEN JOBS? Maybe, But Not the Way You Think

June 1st, 2010
feature photo
Print
x

Send to a Friend:










Email Larger Smaller

I’ve argued elsewhere that the “millions of green jobs via cleantech” argument is largely hot air. Most of the new “green jobs” identified by the dozens of studies of this tired subject will be technology-driven replacements for jobs that are already being done in a less green way.

By Graham Russell, Executive Director, CORE

 The endless green jobs debate largely misses the essential point about how “green” will drive innovation, competitive advantage, economic development, and SOME new jobs. This recent Newsweek item articulates it well:

The REAL driver for a new, green economy is the fact that the very largest global corporations have recognized the massive competitive advantage they can secure using sustainability thinking as a central driver of their corporate strategy. This isn’t about “saving the planet” and it isn’t mainly about image-building - see this recent statement
by Lee Scott, Wal-Mart Chairman.

It’s a dollar-driven motivation that takes advantage of the need to use our world’s resources more efficiently and wisely. (Anything wrong with that by the way?)

The key point is that the sustainability-driven initiatives being undertaken by Wal-Mart and thousands of major corporations like it will drive the need for new products, services and…YES, clean technologies…. that will be required to meet their needs. Are the jobs created by those who provide these new products and services “green” or not? Who cares? Are they cleantech jobs? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? The point is that THIS is how the new, clean, green economy is going to be created. Every single company has an opportunity to participate and to benefit.

As a tax-paying citizen, I’d personally rather put my money into the stock of Wal-Mart, MillerCoors, S C Johnson, HP, ABB, Proctor & Gamble or other major corporations that will use sustainability thinking to create MARKET drivers for clean, green products, services and technologies than have it allocated through grants, tax credits and other subsidies by government agencies to a miscellaneous array of cleantech technologies, most of which will never generate a plastic nickel.

 


Filed Under: ARCHIVES • Cleantech • Insight

Tags: • •

Get Colorado Energy News and alerts as they happen:
Enter Email:

There Are 3 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by Hiro on 3 June 2010:

    I agree with you up to the point that “green jobs” are the substitute of jobs that weren’t as green in the past. I even agree that in net, it may not provide so much of jub “creation” as it was in the 90’s. But then you go all wrong

    First of all, you are comparing your money and tax, which is like comparing apple to orange. Return on investment on your money is one thing. It is your choice where you put your money in investment. Be my guest to invest in Wal-Mart that may have low but secure ROI. Imagine tax money is given to Wal-Mart for the hope of making them things greener!. No way it is going to happen.

    The way Federal Government is spending tax dollars is that they are spending more than you paid in right now. That is the point. It is a shock therapy of the economy and for that, where do “you” want it to be spent? Helping BP or helping Wal-Mart expand their wealth? There is no guarantee that they will expand the total demand of the country. As a matter of fact, the money will just go into their owner’s bank account and it will stay there. The economy is such that the only way to create demand is by government spending. It better be at good spending, good sector, that needs to be created and grow. Clean energy. Infrastructure, and new economy.

    So while you may want your money invested in Wal Mart, it is just not feasible for Wal Mart to revitalize the economy. Tax cut is the worst idea right now. Sorry

  2. Comment by Dave on 4 June 2010:

    Interesting thoughts, Graham. You argue that “The REAL driver for a new, green economy is the fact that the very largest global corporations have recognized the massive competitive advantage they can secure using sustainability thinking as a central driver of their corporate strategy”. But isn’t that exactly what you want it to be? Government mandates and handouts will not drive sector growth nearly as much as corporations realizing that they can either make money or save money by being green. And if those jobs are really less green jobs now turning into green jobs, isn’t that also the goal? The fear is that many jobs are lost in a bad economy. If those jobs instead take on a green look to them and sustain the job market, that’s a positive thing.

    Like you, I strongly prefer that the growth of green come from corporations who can capitalize on green as a way of saving money, than try and have another failed government program pushing green because “it is good for us”.

  3. Comment by cogeo on 7 June 2010:

    Absolutely spot on, Graham. If a greening economy needs to happen, let it be driven by private money and federal tax incentives, not continued government spending. The fact of the matter is that when the government takes $100 for a program, the administration of that program devours $90 of it. The government doesn’t fuel new ideas so much as it creates growth for itself. If we only learn one thing in our current situation I hope it is that the money the government spends MUST be paid back, and we have to do that. As the deficit grows, the impetus to raise taxes becomes greater. Once in place, few taxes actually go away. Privatization of the green sector must ultimately occur if it is to prove sustainable in a profit sense, it is far better than it never relies on the government for profitability.

Post a Response