Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Oh, those 90,000 jobs

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 17, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Gov. Bill Ritter made the startling claim this week that "the renewable energy industry is creating directly or indirectly 90,000 jobs" in Colorado - in other words, 20,000 more than the estimated employment associated with the booming oil and gas industry.

Is that possible?

Probably not, even if the figure does eventually appear in a study scheduled for release in a few weeks by the American Solar Energy Society in Boulder. Ritter got a sneak preview of the results - little wonder, as his office co-commissioned the research - which reinforced his New Energy Economy theme. So he started trumpeting the findings.

Let's put the figure of 90,000 jobs in perspective. It's nearly twice the number of cops, firefighters, security guards and prison guards in Colorado - combined. It's more than the combined total of every teacher in K-12 schools together with every lawyer and paralegal. Ninety thousand is twice the waiters and waitresses in this state, twice the number of fast-food workers, and only 10,000 or so less than the total for all major health-care occupations (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the occupational employment totals).

Here's another reality check: After the legislature increased the renewable energy standard for utilities last year from 10 percent to 20 percent for 2020, the League of Conservation Voters - not known for soft-pedaling the impact of green energy - told its members that the measure would create a grand total of 4,100 jobs.

So what's up with the 90,000 claim?

For a clue, go to the American Solar Energy Society Web site and review a report called Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century. The first thing you'll realize is that Ritter defined the industry more narrowly than the study apparently will. It will measure jobs not only in renewable energy but in the "energy efficiency" industry, too - which casts a very wide net.

The report admits that the energy efficiency business is "much more nebulous and difficult to define" than renewables, but that doesn't stop it from trying. For openers, its definition includes "partial segments of large industries such as vehicles [those considered energy efficient], buildings, lighting, appliances, etc." And don't sneer at that "etc." because it covers a lot of ground, too, including "insulation sales" and the recycling industry.

Never mind that people have been blowing insulation into walls for decades: That activity has now been drafted into the New Energy Economy, where it can be displayed by politicians as a trophy of their economic leadership.

According to the solar energy society, "one in four jobs in 2030" could be in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industries. One in four! You could be an autoworker, plumber, architect, welder, bureaucrat, furnace salesperson - you name it - and apparently be counted.

"Do you have a green job?" the society asks. "You will."

Now, there is always a certain amount of stretching and reaching in a study whose purpose is to magnify the importance of a particular activity. If the authors become too greedy, though, the exercise begins to take on the features of a farce. Maybe there are 500 renewable-energy companies in Jefferson County, as the governor also said - three times the number of public schools - but it's going to be interesting to see just what that list includes.

Who knows, maybe you're in charge of one and didn't even know it.

Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • October 17, 2008

    6:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    eoj writes:

    Can Average People Afford the Real Cost of Solar Power?

    Recently, DOE announced their Washington DC Headquarters building solar power system. It cost $30 Million, with electric power savings projected of $26,000 per year. Their system will generate 200 MW hours of electricity per year. Its panels have an expected life of 25 years, so $26,000 times 25 years equals $650,000. Now divide $30 Million by $650,000. That equals 46 times what electricity from the grid would have cost. By not calculating and publicizing real energy costs, U.S. utilities are going down this same path. It’s embarrassing that DOE can’t do the simple math that says this pilot example is a pathetic looser. As a country, can't we do better than this?

    We need reasonable electric power costs. When political minds forget that energy solutions must be cost-effective, we move farther away from what we really need - low cost power from private industry. Business must assess the true costs with cost/benefit analysis. Congress and every American should consider the logical conclusions continuing down this expensive path: high cost power provided by Congress. Is that really what we want, need – or can afford?

    If our media cannot put the story together, who can?
    U.S. DOE Headquarters to Get $30 M Solar PV System
    February 14, 2007

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/r...

    September 9, 2008

    U.S. Energy Department Turns on Headquarters’ Solar Energy System

    http://www.energy.gov/news/6521.htm

  • October 17, 2008

    8:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    The governor is just grasping at straws trying to make his one and only term not seem so bad. It's going to take a lot more than paying for an exaggerated report to get people to vote for him again.

  • October 17, 2008

    8:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    It is simple for the government to create jobs with mandates and subsidies. The renewable energy industry (wind, solar, and bio fuels) is almost entirely a result of massive mandates and subsidies. The subsidies that matter are the operating subsidies, not the research and development subsidies. The jobs created in these industries are easy to count. The jobs in Colorado are far less than 90,000 as the editorial indicates. A fair number of these jobs are in government such as the Renewable Energy Lab. We have also have wind and solar manufacturing as well as private sector R&D development.

    The difficult part is to count the cost of creating these jobs. The cost is vital to count because this industry has been created and maintained throug massive subsidies and mandates. The industry products are not economically viable today. Otherwise, mandates and subsidies would not be necessary. The costs of these mandates and subsidies will be much higher energy costs and energy shortages. The resulting loss of jobs and economic activity will be potentially devasting.

    The problem is that the jobs created are visible and easily counted but the cost of the jobs is difficult to measure. The cost will be delayed because there is a substantial time lag for the full effects of the higher energy costs to be realized.

  • October 17, 2008

    11:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    surferon writes:

    There's liars, damn liars, statisticians and of course politicians.

    I love how people can twist numbers around and make the worst situation seem great.

  • October 17, 2008

    3:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    windbourne writes:

    eoj is about half right along with the dems. The real question is can we afford solar power VIA Photovoltiac? The answer is, not at this time. It is VERY expensive. A typical home would have 30K worth of panels and it would generate less electricity than that.
    OTH, the question shoud be:
    can we afford solar power VIA Thermal?
    Not only can we, but we should be encouraging it, by putting in a long-term tax credit. Right now, coal is more subsidized than is ALL OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. Likewise, the same is true of Oil AND so are nukes. Even with those monster subsidies, Solar Thermal is just above the costs of coal. It has the advantage of not only being inexpensive, but being able to cheaply store via salts. That would allow a plant to store heat for several days. Even allowing for a week of no sun, the peak power plants can be brought on-line at night to heat up the salt units.
    In addition, we should be pushing geo-thermal. The good news is that California with Schwarzenegger, NM with Richardson, and several major investors including Google (esp. via potter drilling), have more sense than either the feds or Ritter.

  • October 17, 2008

    3:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

    I was at the event this Tuesday where the Governor made his claim of 90,000 jobs and you should have seen the jaws drop even among this very pro-renewable energy audience. People were simply stunned how he came up with this number.

    I guess if the renewable energy industry is to include "insulation sales" and the recycling industry that would include every clerk at Home Depot and Lowe's - because conceivably they could sell insulation as well as every employee of rubbish collection companies because they, directly or indirectly, have jobs in the recycling industry.

    Let's face it, Gov. Ritter really overreached and embarrased himself. Somebody on his Staff should be called on the carpet. It reminds me of Pres. Reagan's USDA trying to reclassify ketchup and pickle relish from condiments to a vegetable for purposes of the child-nutrition requirements.

    Neither pass the straight face test. The Governor should swallow his pride and correct the record.

  • October 17, 2008

    4:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    RainbowWarrior writes:

    There are far more job descriptions that can fall under the "green" catagory than some of you are willing to admit. For solar as an example, there is more than just photovoltaic applications; passive solar allows sunlight to pass through a glazing surface and heat a thermal mass such as flooring or wall and retains the heat to be released during the night, active solar is used for domestic hot water and looks similar to PV on a roof... this leads to jobs that most people would consider to be plumbing, tile setting, window sales, metal fabricators that make the mounting units and things electricians do, but still very GREEN! Insulation is a huge green catagory as well as; low VOC paints/painters, zeroscape/nurseries and garden stores, orgainc cotton which then leads to the products produced from this (farmers) source to the people who do the marketing (sales reps) and retail those products (clerks). Please do not take things out of context to make a cheap shot and a point. The source intention of a product or service with a "GREEN" bias and satifies the criteria is "GREEN".

    I would be the first to condemn GREEN WASHING, which is laying claim to a green product or service that does not meet the criteria just to look good... but credit should be given to all products and services that see the so called light and are moving in the GREEN direction.

    To only see what you want to see hurts you more than any adversary. Don't let your own bias make a fool of you. Open your eyes and consider what is happening around you and why. Then ask yourself if you are part of the problem or part of the solution...

    I know this is impossible for some of you, because you won't change your ways or thinking no matter how many facts or good reasons are presented to you. That just leaves more opportunity for those of us that get it, and it breaks my heart that it will be at your expense... but hey, we are taught at an early age that there will always be winners and loosers.

    I would suggest that Ritter misunderestimated, so in your face you bunch of backward wackos!

  • October 17, 2008

    6:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    enginerd writes:

    "According to the solar energy society, "one in four jobs in 2030" could be in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industries"

    If this becomes true, it means we will all be spending more than a quarter of our gross income on energy. That is a huge cost - several times as much I currently spend on it.

    If you think health care is expensive today, wait until the "new energy economy" hits your wallet.

  • October 17, 2008

    8:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    windbourne,

    Coal and oil are not subsidized. These industries are taxed and regulated at every stage of production. The oil industry has tried to obtain permission to explore offshore, ANWR, and the Rocky Mountains. They are blocked at every turn.

    The left is trying to put these industries out of business by imposing windflall profit taxes and Draconian new regulations. One major purpose of CO2 regulations is to drive up the cost of coal power generation.

    I do not buy your claim about solar thermal. If it is a great technology, subsidies and mandates will not be needed. If you are such a strong supporter, please invest in this technology. I will be impressed when investors put their money on the line without subsidies and mandates.

    The approval process and endless litigation drive the cost of nuclear power. It is almost impossible to build a nuclear power plant.

  • October 17, 2008

    11:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EXrepublican writes:

    mmannino,
    and yet Iol and gas enjoys record profits with huge tax subsidies... excuse me tax CUTS. while not creating any new jobs, to explore and exploit the leases they already have. (all cleared environmentally)

  • October 18, 2008

    12:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Garip writes:

    Hey, if Vince Carroll can call himself a journalist and get away with it, what's the big deal with Ritter claiming that 90,000 directly OR indirectly, will be green?

  • October 19, 2008

    12:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    Garip, Vince Carroll works on the editorial pages....... the OPINION pages, get it?

    Ritter works for us taxpayers and we should have the right to expect the TRUTH from him, not a spin or an opinion. There's a big difference between the two, try to get that.

  • October 21, 2008

    7:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    prk166 writes:

    RainbowWarrior, thank you for demonstrating to us exactly why we need to take any green claims with an extremely large grain of salt.

    However you want to categorize a job as green or not green isn't the point. We have plenty of people already employed installing insulation and marketing products. Shifting them from doing it for a "non-green" company to a "green" company isn't productive; it won't make America more wealthy.