Stavins on green jobs
Environmental Capital on green jobs:
But it’s not at all clear that the number of jobs created by, say, an expanding solar industry would be greater than the number lost through, say, a shrinking coal-mining industry. Nor is it clear that a green economy would be any better at providing work for the chronically unemployed than our present, “gray” economy has been.
When I presented Jones’s arguments to Robert Stavins, a professor of business and government at Harvard who studies the economics of environmental regulation, he offered the following analogy: “Let’s say I want to have a dinner party. It’s important that I cook dinner, and I’d also like to take a shower before the guests arrive. You might think, Well, it would be really efficient for me to cook dinner in the shower. But it turns out that if I try that I’m not going to get very clean and it’s not going to be a very good dinner. And that is an illustration of the fact that it is not always best to try to address two challenges with what in the policy world we call a single-policy instrument.”
Win-win: Cooking dinner in the shower.
I'm not sure it has been addressed yet, so here's the question: won't these new, green jobs necessarily be mostly jobs for specialized technicians? I know labour is supposedly more mobile than capital, but we are talking about different kinds of labour here, and even if it was possible to employ some of the unemployed in the renewable energy sector, it's not straightforward they could do so quickly.
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 05, 2009 at 06:47 PM
I believe Kramer tried it.
Posted by: odograph | January 05, 2009 at 07:27 PM
The Environmental Capital article seems to pick from hearsay, and name rumored Obama programs which are also dumb. That's fine as far as it goes. Nothing wrong with calling out dumb projects.
Of course it might have more weight if the projects were real, or the only possible green jobs in the big wide world.
Posted by: odograph | January 05, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Odograph,
Remember the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, and how economists tried expanding the original formulation to include "human capital", so allowing them to add that sort of specialised labour to physical capital?
Same problem.
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 05, 2009 at 07:42 PM
Carlos, I don't actually see the tie-in from Heckscher-Ohlin to my comments.
What I'm really looking for, in universal claims about green jobs or win-wins, are universal flaws.
Would the capital intensity of all green jobs be similar? I don't think so. I'd think there could be characteristics across the board.
It's kind of sad that the env-econ motive is not to isolate the single best possibilities, of course.
Posted by: odograph | January 05, 2009 at 07:56 PM
It's also not at all clear that green jobs won't be greater than those from a shrinking coal industry, but since the coal industry is shrinking radically employment wise and green jobs are increasing, that might be the way to bet.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 05, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Odograph,
Just as the economists trying to expand the H-O model quickly realised they couldn't simply take specialised labour (human capital= and add it to physical capital - because it behaves like a different, third factor of production in reality - we can't expect labour to be shifted around for other areas, since the renewable energy sector will probably demand for specialised workers, not workers coming straight from the other sectors.
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 06, 2009 at 03:49 AM
Does it actually take more than a day's training to make an LED traffic light installer? ... maybe a day plus you put the new guy as junior man to an existing worker for a week or month.
Posted by: odograph | January 06, 2009 at 08:36 AM
I would hardly classify traffic light installers as green job creation. Wouldn't the LED be changed by the same people who, today, change the lamp bulbs? Same people, just new task. No job creation, just job description change.
I am taking green jobs as job creation. People doing new stuff. And, for that, you need people with new skills.
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 06, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I would hardly classify traffic light installers as green job creation. Wouldn't the LED be changed by the same people who, today, change the lamp bulbs? Same people, just new task. No job creation, just job description change.
I am taking green jobs as job creation. People doing new stuff. And, for that, you need people with new skills.
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 06, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Washing dishes in the shower on the other hand is a great policy. I think I will install a sink in my shower today...
Posted by: Praeloquor | January 07, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Just saw the "traffic light installers" question.
I'd think there would be a burst of activity if you go out to change lots of them. Of course if you change them only as the old ones fail, on the same schedule, you are right.
Posted by: odograph | January 07, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Green Jobs an ongoing debate pre and post Presidential election of USA. Lets get to know what the experts, green companies and individuals from US and other countries are saying on this, only on http://www.justmeans.com , JustMeans is the only platform for everyone to discuss green, social and environmental issues and educate everyone about the advantages related to these sectors. Many experts, energy environmental and social companies and individuals in these sectors share this site to express their thoughts and debate; they are using this site at large. Even in this recession I am able to find at least 40 to 50 new and quality green jobs on JustMeans site and if we compare with other sites then they have an update of only with 5 to 15 jobs a day. Also I would like to mention that JustMeans is a very simple & well designed platform, informative and very good in terms of usability.
Posted by: Sandeep Channa | January 09, 2009 at 10:26 AM