Green Jobs: Blue-Collar or White Coat?

From the Wall Street Journal | Jan 11, 2010 | By Keith Johnson

The idea that America's clean-energy push has become, first and foremost, a jobs push is now indisputable. The White House announcement
Friday of an additional $2.3 billion in clean-energy manufacturing tax
credits was specifically touted as a vehicle for jobs creation first
and a way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, second.

Associated Press

President Obama unveils his latest green jobs push last Friday

The link between jobs and energy has been with Team Obama since the
presidential campaign; and given the recession and 10% unemployment,
it's probably the only way to advance environmental legislation at all,
as Jeff Ball notes today in The Wall Street Journal.

That doesn't mean there's not plenty to be wary about in the latest White House announcement.

For starters, the $2.3 billion is expected to help create about 17,000 jobs. That works out to roughly $135,000 per job-and remember,
a "job" is defined as one year of employment. (To be fair,
private-sector clean-energy job-creation may not be a lot cheaper. The
White House estimates the new tax credits will spur an additional $5.4
billion in private investment, creating 41,000 jobs at a cost of
$131,000 a head.)

The latest green-jobs push is also confusing in its timing. Some of
the projects eligible for tax credits, the White House notes, are
already up and running-suggesting they don't necessarily need federal
money to make a go of things. Other projects that won't be completed
until 2013 are also eligible for the tax credits-hardly a short-term
stimulus to tackle double-digit unemployment.

But the bigger question, it seems, is whether clean-tech
manufacturing is really the best way for America to jump on the green
bandwagon. Manufacturing jobs in all sectors have for decades been
fleeing to countries with lower costs for labor, energy, and raw
materials. Why should clean energy be any different?

China, for instance, in the space of a few years has become a global
leader in the manufacture of equipment for solar- and wind-power. It's
also making heady inroads in other areas, from batteries for electric
cars to gear for the smart grid.

Granted, Chinese equipment still faces plenty of technological
challenges. The country is a huge producer of wind turbines, for
example, but has yet to start exporting them at a large scale.

But even Tom Friedman, a tireless cheerleader for a clean-energy
revolution in the U.S., recognizes that America isn't going to win a
workshop battle with China to build clean-tech gear. Instead, he envisions a partnership,
"with the U.S. specializing in energy research and innovation, at which
China is still weak, as well as in venture investing and servicing of
new clean technologies, and with China specializing in mass production."

Which raises the question: Should the billions being poured into
American factories be steered toward American laboratories instead?