'Green' jobs could employ 14 million, report says
A 'green' economy could provide new, improved opportunities for 14 million workers, according to a report released Tuesday by progressive environmental and labor groups.
For now, a quick look at any employment ad Web site turns up few opportunities in hands-on, "green" trades, such as installing solar panels. However, the 2007 U.S. Energy Act approved $125 million in funding for workforce training through the Green Jobs Act.
What might the new jobs look like?
Revamped professions, from agricultural inspecting to welding, would cover 9 percent of the U.S. workforce, according to authors Robert Pollin and Jeannette Wicks-Lim, economics professors at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
They determined six major areas of job growth: retrofitting buildings, mass transit, efficient cars, wind power, solar power, and cellulosic biomass fuels.
And a green economy would enlist skills honed by blue-collar professionals. For instance, sheet metal workers could apply their skills to building wind power farms. Factory machine operators could help to build greener cars and blend biofuels. Carpenters and roofers could install solar panels. Rail track layers could build the infrastructure for high-speed trains.
Researchers examined average wages of potentially affected occupations in 12 states, as well as national employment data.
They concluded that demand for sheet metal workers, electrical engineers, and welders to design and install solar and wind systems; as well as for truck drivers to move materials from coast to coast, could lead to higher wages and better job security.
The study reviewed opportunities in Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The report was released in partnership with groups including the Sierra Club, United Steelworkers, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
A March study by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin at Madison came up with some similar results, as did a 2007 study by McKinsey and Company.
The latest report didn't make projections for job growth in particular areas, or address potentially negative outcomes. A joint study with the Center for American Progress set for this summer will forecast the growth of various green professions.
Environmental activists, labor advocates, clean-tech CEOs, and politicians around the world continue to amplify their call to rescue the suffering blue-collar sector and reduce carbon emissions with hands-on jobs in renewable energy and other growing, green areas.
- Topics:
-
Solar,
-
Wind,
-
Policy,
-
Green buildings,
-
Transportation
- Tags:
-
green tech,
-
jobs,
-
solar,
-
wind,
-
energy
- Share:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
What better way to use tax dollars than to subsidize inefficient technology and "create jobs" in the name of a false recession and a false man-made climate change premise? How about not spending them at all. If there really is money in such a market, and above groups are so salivating over it growing (aside from the politicos) then it would grow. Without tax increases and subsidies, technologies such as these won't get off the ground in their current state. It's not up to citizens to fund their development. If that many people believe in the efficacy of such products or their development, let them back them with private funds, not public.
Here's an idea: how about we create those jobs by drilling for and refining oil from our trillions upon trillions of barrels' worth of available resources here on mainland USA, to say nothing the vast amounts right there off our coast. Just as soon as pandering congressman and women get out of the way, Americans can get back to business.
For those of you who throw up the "what about carbon question," keep in mind the following memos you've missed:
? Carbon dioxide is a negligible component of our atmosphere (10s of ppm) and is not the real green house gas- water vapor is.
? The amount of CO2 humans put out, even now is in the single digits of percentage points compared to what comes off the OCEANS, so even if it were a factor, we do next to nothing to effect global levels.
? CO2 levels are a FOLLOWING FACTOR that rise AFTER global temperatures rise, not the reverse. They couldn't be a CAUSE of GW.
? For the last 10 years, we've been in a period of global COOLING, despite vast increases in man-made CO2 output. Don't believe me? Go Google "sun spots" and "global temperature," and you'll find a decades old, impeccably accurate forecast method.
Articles and advocacy like these are written by people with vested interests in perpetuating the MMGW fallacy. Take a look beyond the purported "consensus," and you'll find out just how much is hype.