Bookmark and Share

Climate Policy in 2009!

Opinion Poll

  • Do you ... "an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" in 2009?
    strongly support
    somewhat support (I'd strongly support a carbon tax)
    somewhat support (I'm worried about the recession)
    somewhat support (some other reason)
    somewhat do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
    somewhat do not support (wait until after the recession)
    somewhat do not support (some other reason)
    strongly do not support (I'd support a carbon tax)
    strongly do not support (wait until after the recession)
    strongly do not support (some other reason)
      
    Free polls from Pollhost.com

The Answer Desk

  • GOT A QUESTION?
    Got a question about environmental economics? Why do economists like benefit-cost analysis? Tradeable permits? Ask an environmental economist at the Answer Desk.

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 05/2005

« Not so win-win: a consumer sovereignty example | Main | Picture of the Day »

January 06, 2009

An estimate of the cost of green jobs

From the 12/29 NYTimes (Focus on Weatherization is Shift on Energy Costs):

About 140,000 houses will be weatherized with public help this year, a total that President-elect Barack Obama has promised to raise to one million, to reduce energy consumption and cut energy costs for households and taxpayers, who often absorb those costs for the poor. This would represent a historic shift in emphasis for the federal and state governments, reducing poor people’s energy bills instead of helping to pay them.

Weatherizing a million homes annually would also create about 78,000 jobs for a year, according to the federal Energy Department’s weatherization project director, Gil Sperling.

The current 140,000 annual total creates about 8,000 jobs, Mr. Sperling said.

Although that is a tiny fraction of the five million green-collar jobs that Mr. Obama promised in the campaign, “it’s a decent number of jobs per dollar spent,” said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown and at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington. “The work is productive, and the jobs are at a mix of skill levels.”

Congress added $250 million to the weatherization budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Energy experts say that money could be effectively spent in low-income households and in households that have no need of public assistance.

Assuming the $250 million generates 8000 jobs, the cost of each green job is $31,250.

Comments

We have so much available to us in the way of technology hybrid plug in's and free energy solar and wind. We have been spending billions upon billions in bail outs. Why doesn't our nation see the need to bail our country out of it's dependence on foreign oil? It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to charge and drive an electric car. The electricity to charge the car could come from solar or wind generated electricity. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and suv’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Why don't we use some of the billions in bail out money to bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil? This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come. Why not invest in setting up some alternative energy projects on a national basis, create clean cheap electricity, create millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and get out from under our dependence on foreign oil. What a win -win situation that would be. There is a great new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in alternative energy. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com


The $31,250 is not the cost of a green job.

It is the cost of a green job plus the cost to improve energy efficiency, which is also a valuable result. If the efficiency nets a 20% reduction in energy costs, then the homeowners or school districts would spend the savings elsewhere.

Letting the local power companies delay or avoid the building of new plants would be, of course, another good. While a Smart Grid investment will be enough to cover growth, it is unlikely to be enough to cover growth plus growth in waste.

If what you are criticising is the foolish positioning of the proposal as a "jobs package", then more power to ya. As a criticism of the proposal itself, your dollar value calculation is equally misleading.

As a handout to poor people, it is less defensible than, say, weatherising schools, courhouses, police stations, etc. Those would reduce long-term public expenditures, allowing lower taxes. But, in either case, the value of the resulting efficiency improvement is not zero.

Eric,

I'm not criticizing the proposal.

Boy, I can't wait to get THAT green job.

i liked your thought on green, lets share it to more and more with the help of justmeans.... http://www.justmeans.com/ ... the only site to learn new stuff revolved with "Corporate Social Responsibility" "Green Jobs" "Waste Management" "Energy" "Ethical Consumption" "Politics and Governance" "Social Investment" "Social Media" and "Sustainable Business"

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blogads are good for you.

Search


  • Google



Google Ads



Stats





  • View My Stats

WSJ.com: Environmental Capital - WSJ.com

Common Tragedies

Environmental and Urban Economics

Globalisation and the Environment

Knowledge Problem