Green Jobs Vs. Red Tape
Feb 18th, 2010 by David Anderson
by Shaun Fink
As this year unfolds, we will hear a lot of talk about creating new “green” jobs to contribute to our state economy. In advance of the cacophony, let’s examine exactly what we are talking about when we use the term “green” before the word “jobs”. As neat and packaged as the phrase seems to be, there is quite a bit of ambiguity surrounding the definition of green jobs. Generally, jobs related to renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, battery-powered or other alternatively fueled vehicles, and public transportation comprise most of what are currently considered green jobs. Beyond that general scope, however, it starts to get blurry.
For example, should jobs in the nuclear industry count as “green”? After all, nuclear plants generate electricity with virtually no air pollution or greenhouse gas. And yet, these positions are rarely considered worthy of such a lofty title. To make matters worse, many so-called green jobs are only considered so occasionally. What about workers who produce steel or cement? Think about this for a moment. Delaware Congressional candidate John Carney was promoting his involvement in the green energy field through a company called DelaWind. What has this business proposed to do? The main product of Carney’s company is supposedly going to be the steel structures that the wind turbines would sit on 12 miles out to sea in our very own offshore wind farm. Steel fabrication now counts as “green”? Well, it does when it is beneficial to do so. Funny how this same industry is considered harmful to the environment when in the process of building a coal-fired power plant.
To further confuse the point, the definition of green can change over time. Remember when ethanol was in high demand? Remember when Governor Minner insisted this was the way of the future? It followed suit that every job associated with this industry was considered green, including the corn production. Now, our environmental friends are having second thoughts about the merits of ethanol as an alternative fuel source, and those jobs are not quite so green anymore.
The truth of the matter is the definition of green jobs is much more a function of political correctness and fads then it is a process of a substantial matrix of well established criteria. In the end, it is a political shell game designed to hide the exorbitant costs involved in re-inventing our economy and way of life to fit some pre-conceived and misguided notion of purity and conformity. And now that federal money is involved, states without a firm sense of economic direction and lacking in fiscal responsibility and accountability are clamoring to eat at the table of Government Subsidy. How do you effectively vie for the money? Simple, label every job possible as “green”. In doing so you increase your take from the federal dole and get to serendipitously claim that you are closing the massive state budget deficit, while all along the only real accomplishment is an ever-increasing dependence on a centralized government for your well-being and sustenance. In case anyone has missed the subtle nuance, Delaware is one of those states. Why are we banking our economic future on government subsidized industries? And why is it being sold to us as job creation?
If this administration was truly concerned with creating jobs, it would step aside and acknowledge that the government is not the solution and cannot be the source of our prosperity. Allow those who own businesses to expand by offering substantial tax incentives for capital expenditures and new job hires. Incentivize entrepreneurs to create new businesses by proposing a system of pro-rated taxation for the early years of a start-up company where the first two years are practically tax free and gradually rise to the standard over a five year period. Help to assuage some of the risk involved in business growth by increasing the positive effect that an economic loss has on a tax return. Exempt certain small businesses from the ballooning costs of workmen’s compensation and do not require short-term disability insurance. These initiatives, or any combination of them, will help stimulate job creation by establishing a more conducive entrepreneurial environment. This will encourage a expansion of the tax base through more and bigger businesses. More business means more tax revenue; and amazingly enough the converse is true, as well. If we want to increase revenue, then let’s encourage growth. Allow the market place to determine where jobs should be created and we will all once again thrive in our communities and the state as a whole. And this time, once jobs are being created and the economy is roaring again, we might want to think about curbing our spending appetites.
Editor’s note: This is the final guest opinion from Mr. Fink. No more will be accepted. Don’t worry about missing his writing, he has been invited to be a regular contributor. Please welcome him.
The little green leaf is the new religious symbol for the left.
Slap that little green leaf on any product, and they go into a trance ,and start throwing their money at it.
The drama over Global Warming aside we should make renewable and alternative energy which works a priority. At the very least, we should pursue these sources to “cover” the energy needs required from economic growth (when we get some).
When I say renewable energy which works I remind you firewood is renewable but not viable.
A great first step would be energy audits which would carry a tax credit of $200. Find out where you are spilling the energy before we provide different sources.
Mike Protack
Hey…here’s a new idea…it’s called “free market energy production”. The way it works is that the government doesn’t subsidize ANYTHING. Then private markets develop energy sources as needed or desired. If the public sees a need or has a desire for a new source of energy then technology will advance to the ends it needs to in order to produce said needed or desired energy. The government should be doing almost nothing here. I can see the government regulating the security of the energy sources and ensuring the local community isn’t being genetically mutated or something but why should the federal government be involved with facilitating energy? Where is that right transferred to the federal government in our Constitution of explicit and defined powers of the federal government?
Mike,
Actually firewood is not renewable. After you burn a log, it is gone. Renewable infers that the resource is not consumed. Firewood is more like coal than wind and solar, just not as dirty.
That aside, your mention of “covering” energy needs to meet economic growth can be argued to be counterproductive. It would depend on the funding source for the renewables. If it is a private company investing in the future return of energy savings once they reach the top of the curve and start realizing an ROI, more power to them (although, the dirty little secret is that once you pay the system off, it usually needs to be refurbished and maintenance costs throw your curve off once again).
But, if we are talking about my tax dollars paying for someone else’s benefit, then the notion of wealth transfer becomes a concern. At that point how can we say that we are helping our economy if we believe in the free market.
Now, the other side of the equation is that it should not cost $30,000 to install a 10K residential wind turbine. That is not a true cost of the product and installation. Why does it cost so much? Because the gov’t is paying the subsidy bill. If renewable energy is ever to survive, let alone thrive in America, it will have to be market viable and competitive in nature. That can only happen if we remove the gov’t installed training wheels and see if the industry can stand on its own.
Allow the marketplace to determine where jobs should be created…
That, I believe, is the situation now. Credits, grants, privileged tax treatment all are interventions designed to alter the market dynamics to induce investment of money or manpower in a desired direction. They are lures, not mandates. The business owner makes the call.
Of course, the owner is free to hire without such incentives if he views the market to be favorable. Right now, way too many do not. The government has tried to jump-start a stalled marketplace; perhaps poorly.
As I read the laws that incentivize — prod — toward “green” energy futures, they are rather specific about what qualifies — wind, solar, geo, nuke, even coal gassification or sequestration.
The targeting of a group of incentives in the energy bill to “green” production methods also is designed to help level the playing field with older methods that have been subsidized heavily by gvernment in the past, particularly coal and oil and natural gas, all of which have ongoing price advantages due in part to privileged tax treatment, transportation subsidies and long-banked gains from eminent domain takings.
This, it is thought, will protect seedlings that can become substantial and unsubsidized producers for decades, employing many and helping to reduce the massive flow of dollars overseas. There also are clear benefits in cleaner air to breathe, and impact on global warming, if you subscribe to that.
That may be poor policy, for it may be incentivizing the wrong thing. That’s a political discussion. But you seem to be criticizing this somewhat “rifle-shot” incentive program — the “dole” in your words — and then calling for a much more wide-ranging and “shotgun” approach with tax breaks of certainly substantial size to any new venture.
Why is that more efficient or wise than a break for a DuPont, which is throwing considerable sums of its own earnings back into cellulosic ethanol and photovoltaic materals? Encouraged in this by matching government grants, yes, but a reasoned corporate investment in a potentially large future marketplace. That’s “green” — so is it bad?
I sense more opposition to the architect in your arguments than with the schematics. Not helpful.
Not at all. As I have said in one reply already, let the industry rise or fall. If renewables are market worthy, then l am all for it. I do have a problem with the government deciding that we need a particular product and giving that product an unfair advantage. Green is not bad. Why shouldn’t we have a concern for being better stewards; especially if it saves us some expense on an energy bill? But, like anything else, I think the cost ought to shouldered by the consumer and not spread it out among everyone.
For that matter, I do not oppose the government giving incentives to “jump start” the industry. I look at it like this. Say I had never eaten a hot dog, and someone offered to buy me one because they thought I would like them if only I tried one. Then, say I did like the hot dog. Is that person now obligated to buy me another hot dog the next time I want one, or is it up to me? What about my friends and family members who had never eaten a hot dog either? Is my benefactor responsible for buying them hot dogs for the hope that they will like them as well?
More than that, what if my friend bought me the hot dog and I did not want to try it? Can he force me to try it? What if I eat it and don’t like it? Do I have to keep eating them?
And, let’s not lose focus on what I actually wrote about. It was not the green industry that I am concerned with; rather the consideration of green jobs. Green jobs are being touted as the salvation of our economy. The truth is they will destroy our economy because they rely on fed and state subsidizes. Do we want our future to depend on the government “dole”? I understand that you may not like that word, but I cannot think of a better one. Fisker Motors is getting some $300 million from DC, DelaWind was asking for almost half a million from Dover, the SEU is using tax dollars to green us up. If I want an energy audit, then why should my neighbor pay for it? We are simply transacting a wholesale transfer of power and control over to government.
This is not a concern over personalities or individual people. The problem is not with who is making decisions, rather the decisions being made. Are we to continue in this new economy, all pitching in for the common good? Or should we remember that it was the free-market that allowed us to rise in power and stature as the world’s leader? I for one am not ashamed to be living in the greatest nation ever known and desire to maintain the economic system that is responsible for getting us there.
If renewables are market worthy, then l am all for it.
Except that the market is rigged in favor of carbon. The market does not account for the full cost of carbon fuels in its pricing, because regulators do not require them to (yet). To restore a fair market you need to either tax carbon, subsidize recyclables, or both.
When oil and coal produces and consumers become accountable for the full cost of their products, then we will have a fair chance to see which is more market worthy.