The latest ad is based on a set of mistruths about green jobs that have been widely debunked.

In the ad, AFP explains that “billions of taxpayer dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries,” and uses four examples that supposedly prove that Obama’s clean energy stimulus created foreign jobs instead of domestic ones.

All four examples are either mostly or completely false.

1. The ad claims that $1.2 billion is being used to create solar jobs in Mexico. This point was completely made up by a random conservative blogger and has been repeatedly called out as a lie. This $1.2 billion loan guarantee was issued for a large, first-of-its-kind solar plant in California being developed by NRG. However, the blogger falsely wrote that the money was being used to create manufacturing jobs in Mexico.

In reality, the jobs created in Mexico had absolutely nothing to do with the loan guarantee. The only connection to Mexico was that some of the solar panels would be coming from a manufacturing plant located there. And even though the source of the panels had nothing to do with the decision to issue the loan guarantee, the company providing the panels, SunPower, explained that most of the panels were coming from America anyway.

2. The ad claims that a loan guarantee for an electric vehicle manufacturer went to jobs in Finland. This is also a made up story pushed by Fox News and conservative bloggers. In fact, all of the money used through the loan guarantee went toward building a U.S. manufacturing facility.

There were some jobs created in Finland during final assembly of the vehicles, but that was announced up front in 2009 when the loan guarantee was issued. According to the Department of Energy, all of the money set aside for Fisker’s next-generation vehicle manufacturing was issued for American operations.

3. The ad claims that tens of millions of dollars went toward building traffic lights in China. This is another murky claim that doesn’t hold up. In 2010, because of the lack of domestic manufacturing, the Department of Energy allowed some LED lighting technologies for stimulus projects to be sourced from overseas companies:

Federal agencies may waive the “buy American” requirement if they determine that a needed item is not available from domestic sources in sufficient quantities, that it would inconsistent with the public interest to comply, or that the cost is unreasonable.

The agency says that all of the investments made for lighting projects followed the Buy America requirements established in the stimulus package. To make the spin worse, the ad implies that the stimulus money went to install traffic lights within China. That is totally false.

4. The ad claims that $2.3 billion in clean energy stimulus incentives went to overseas firms. This figure is based on a 2010 Washington Times piece borrowing from an investigative story from American University that found stimulus dollars going to foreign companies developing projects within the U.S. The piece raised questions about how many jobs were being created overseas to build the technologies being deployed in the U.S.

After publishing that piece, investigative reporter Russ Choma told FactCheck.org that the numbers showed more jobs being created in the U.S.:

It should be noted there were no farms that we could find that used turbines entirely built in China, so we can’t say for sure how much of this stimulus money went to create jobs in China. Some money definitely did, but it is safe to say more money went to creating jobs in the U.S. and Europe.

This latest ad brings the total amount spent by pro-fossil fuel groups to more than $24 million in just the first few months of 2012, based on a ThinkProgress analysis.

Jobs in green goods and services accounted for 3.1 million jobs in 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In addition, a study found that every dollar put into clean energy creates three-times as many jobs as investing in fossil fuels.

Watch AFP’s ad:

It’s time to take back the narrative about clean energy.

Since the bankruptcy of a few high-profile clean energy companies, political opponents and media pundits have tried to label the entire industry a failure. This is a gross distortion of the on-the-ground reality — and it shows how disconnected people are from what’s really happening in this sector.

The clean energy industry is extraordinarily diverse, ranging from small contractors to massive industrial manufacturers. Recognizing the local value these sectors provide, states around the country are putting policies in place to attract new businesses and large amounts of private capital. And it’s working.

Massachusetts is the perfect example. After signing the Green Communities Act into law in 2008, the commonwealth has seen an explosion of new companies. There are now 64,000 people employed in Massachusetts’ clean energy sector today.

I traveled to the commonwealth with Andrew Satter, our senior video producer at the Center for American Progress, and brought back this piece from the front lines of the clean energy economy.

by Abigail Ridley-Kerr, Jorge Madrid

When Earth Day celebrated its first year in 1970, the words “green” and “job” were disparate concepts. This weekend, however, on the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day, green jobs are remaking and transforming the economy to be less polluting, more efficient, and more equitable. In addition to helping the planet by reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, green jobs also provide economic opportunity for communities of color in urban centers that have felt the worst of the economic recession.

These jobs are on the rise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Green Goods and Services—defined as jobs in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources—accounted for 3.1 million U.S. jobs in 2010, or 2.4 percent of total employment that year. These jobs span a wide variety of sectors—including construction, manufacturing, professional services, and science- and research-related fields.

Nowhere has this growth been more striking than in America’s urban centers. According to a recent Brookings Institution report, green job growth outpaced traditional job growth at a rate of nearly 2-to-1 in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan centers from 2008 to 2010. Another study from the Apollo Alliance, the Initiative for a Competitive City, and Green for All found that inner-city green jobs grew at 10 times the rate of jobs overall in the last decade. It’s no surprise, then, that urban centers account for roughly two-thirds of green-job-sector employment.

The rapid expansion of green jobs is particularly significant in light of the country’s changing demographics. The top five urban regions of green job growth are also home to large concentrations of communities of color. According to data from the 2010 Census, people of color compose more than half the population in all five regions. (see table)

The burgeoning green jobs sector offers three economic advantages for urban communities of color:

• Green jobs are diverse. Jobs in the green sector run the gamut from research technology positions to construction and manufacturing positions, and 45 percent of all green jobs in the United States are held by workers with a high school diploma or less.  This diversity allows for greater entrance into the field—across traditional barriers like socioeconomic status and educational attainment.
• Green jobs provide quality, career-level opportunities. Brookings reports that 41 percent of the nation’s green jobs offer medium- to long-term career-building and training opportunities. This kind of upward mobility helps break cycles of poverty by promoting an effective alternative to low-paying service-sector jobs. Green for All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins explains, “Green jobs are revitalizing our economy and these well-paying careers are providing pathways out of poverty for a large number of historically under-served, under-employed people in communities across our nation.”
• Green jobs are concentrated in growth industries. Green jobs have outperformed the overall economy, and the industry is only beginning to show its potential for growth. Clean energy, a major sector of the green economy, is already valued at more than $246 billion globally and is expected to reach a market value of $385 billion in 2021, according to analysis by Clean Edge, a leading clean-tech research and consulting firm. According to a new report by the Pew Environment Group, 2011 clean energy investments in the United States experienced a 42 percent increase from the previous year.

All of this is great news for communities of color in urban areas, where opportunities in the green job sector are continuing to grow. Further, a commitment to investing in cleaner alternatives will yield even more job growth. Recent data from the Renewable Energy Policy Project and the Energy Information Administration indicates that if the United States provided enough new wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy to power 25 percent of our electricity, we could generate 1 million jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. These kinds of new investments will broaden the green jobs sector and directly benefit all Americans.

Green jobs are mutually beneficial for the planet and communities of color. The green economy has seen its largest jump in growth in America’s urban centers, providing communities of color with diverse, career-level employment options. With the right mix of policies and support, the green jobs sector can continue to provide a strong outlet for equitable and environmentally sustainable growth.

Abigail Ridley-Kerr is an intern with CAP’s Progress 2050 department and Jorge Madrid is a Research Associate with the Energy Policy team. This piece was originally published at the Center for American Progress for its Earth Day series.

Related Earth Day Posts:

• The Lasting Impact of Deepwater Horizon
• New EPA Rules Help Communities of Color Breathe Easier
• Top 5 American Treasures to Protect in 2012
• Environmental Standards Give the United States an Edge Over China

Those jobs — which accounted for 2.4 percent of nation-wide employment that year — represented a diverse range of opportunities in renewable energy, efficiency, pollution control, resource conservation and education.

But what kind of impact are those jobs having on the ground? In order to capture the importance of this emerging sector, various organizations are putting together documentary-style shorts on the environmental and economic value of green jobs.

Climate Solutions has put together a great Solutions Stories series. The Center for American Progress is working on its own profile of green jobs in key states (with more to be released soon). And Green For All has rolled out a series of stories from cities around the country. There’s activity happening everywhere — it’s nearly impossible to capture all of it.

This latest Green For All video from Kansas City shows how grassroots much of the activity is, creating real jobs that create direct local benefits:

by Jorge Madrid and Adam James

Green Goods and Services (GGS) accounted for 2.4 percent of total U.S. employment in 2010, with almost a third of all jobs supporting the badly hit construction and manufacturing sector, says a new analysis released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The vast majority of these jobs were in the private sector (2.3 million) while the public sector accounted for 860,300. While the GGS sector certainly got a boost in 2010 from the stimulus, considered the “Most Important Energy Bill in American History,” a similar analysis of the clean economy by the Brookings Institution finds that this snapshot is part of a wider trend showing green jobs is on the rise.

The BLS has also taken a stab at defining green jobs:

• Jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. Green goods and services fall into one or more of five groups: energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency, pollution reduction and removal, natural resources conservation, and environmental compliance, training, and public awareness.
• Jobs in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources. These workers research, develop, or use technologies and practices to lessen the environmental impact of their establishment, or train the establishment’s workers or contractors in these technologies and practices. These technologies and practices fall into one or more of four groups: energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency, pollution reduction and removal, and natural resource confirmation.

The BLS spent over a year analyzing and accounting these figures, at times fighting through bitter criticism and resistance from political opponents and their supporters from Big Oil.  We suspect that we have not heard the last from them.

But for now, while many interesting storylines can be fleshed out from this new data, here are our top 5 takeaways:

1.    Green Jobs Are Supporting Two of the Nation’s Hardest Hit Industries:  At the peak of the recession in 2009, construction and manufacturing sectors reported unemployment rates of 19 percent and 12.1 percent respectively.  Collapse in these industries put massive numbers of hardworking Americans out of work, and bolstering them should be high priority for economic recovery.  We’ve see that green building accounted for 25 percent of all new construction ventures in 2010, including energy efficiency retrofits which create jobs at 3 times the rate of oil and gas investments.  Likewise, we know that 50 percent of parts for wind turbines are American-made, along with 90% percent of energy efficiency materials like HVAC systems, siding, and refrigerators.

2.    Green Jobs Out-Number Fossil Fuel Jobs 4 to 1:  CAP analysis of 2010 BLS figures found 575,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector, including extraction, refining, and other support activities – even with oil and gas production reaching an 8-year high under the Obama Administration.  Adding mining and related activities to the mix brings 2010 fossil fuel jobs to 783,000, nearly 4 times smaller than the total Green Goods and Services category.  According analysis by the Brookings Institution, green jobs outpaced the job growth in the greater economy by a factor of 2 to 1 during the peak of the recession (2008-2010), and pay an average of $7,000 more than other jobs across the greater economy.

3.    Green Jobs are Diverse:  While construction and manufacturing account for the majority of all private-sector jobs in the GGS category, there are also other diverse sectors that include professional scientific services, recycling and waste reduction, administration, and mass transportation activities.  In contrast, more than one-third of all 2010 jobs in the oil and gas sector were in support services, including gas station attendants.  According to projection from the American Petroleum Institute (API), nearly half of all oil jobs will be in gas stations by 2030.

4.    Green jobs are Regional Economic Drivers: In every geographic region, green jobs represented an increasing percentage of total employment growth. In the South, Alabama and Missouri saw 44,288 and 65,205 jobs added in 2010- representing 2.4% and 2.5% of total employment. On the west coast, California and Oregon added 338,445 and 54,953 jobs- representing 2.3% and 3.4% of total employment. The Midwest saw phenomenal growth, with 22,192 green jobs constituting 3.7% of their total employment — and a whopping 126,855 jobs in Ohio making up 2.6% of total growth. On the east coast New York added 248,526 green jobs, accounting for 3% of new employment. There were 26,941 green jobs added in Washington, DC, which was 3.9% of total employment. No matter what corner of this country you travel to, green jobs are putting Americans back to work.

5.    Green jobs are the Future: The truly exciting trend is that these jobs are being created across all economic sectors and a diverse set of employment categories.  These are concrete changes that we can see in our own communities. Green jobs are transforming the economy to be more efficient, less polluting, and more competitive in new technologies and global industries like clean energy. America has always been on the cutting edge of innovation and we are already seeing our investments in the clean economy paying dividends. We need the right policies and bold political will to continue this solid growth.

Click here to find out how many green jobs are in your state.

Jorge Madrid is a research associate for the energy policy team at the Center for American Progress. Adam James is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

The numbers, which don’t even account for the massive boom in renewables development in 2011, show a 25% increase in employment between 2009 and 2010, bringing documented jobs in the renewable energy sector throughout Europe to 1,144,000.

The boost in activity in 2010 represented about €127 billion ($166 Billion) in economic value, a 15% increase over 2009.

Unlike some reports documenting green jobs in the United States, these figures only include renewable fuels, heat and electricity. They do not include jobs in mass transportation, recycling, and green building design.

They show a very healthy diversity in Europe’s renewable energy sector. According to the 2010 figures, the top three sectors for employment were biomass (273,000), solar PV (268,110), and wind (253,145). The next largest were biogas (52,810) and solar thermal (49,845). Behind those sectors were ground source heat pumps, waste-to-energy, small hydro, and geothermal.

The increase in jobs corresponded with an increase in consumption of renewable energy. In 2010, renewables accounted for 12.4% of final energy consumption in Europe — up from 11.5% in 2009 and 10.5% in 2008.

And last year saw even stronger growth, particularly in the renewable electricity sector, where 68% of new capacity in Europe came from wind and solar.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the wind industry faces an expiration of short-term tax credits that threatens up to 37,000 manufacturing, installation and maintenance jobs. Will American politicians work to create one million jobs in renewable energy for people like Nathan Crawford documented in the video below?

Or will we allow other regions create millions more while we look backward?

by Jorge Madrid

Another week, another misguided attack on green jobs.

This week, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is going after the Department of Labor’s green jobs training program. The program, which was signed into law by fellow Republican George W. Bush, was funded for the first time under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Issa says the program has produced “abysmal results” and failed to meet its goal of placing 52,762 American workers into green jobs. As of June 2011, the program had placed 8,035 workers into jobs, about 10 percent of the final goal. While this placement ratio is indeed disappointing, it reflects deeper issues within the larger economy, and is also based on some premature and misleading analysis.

His attacks have been nicely debunked by both the Center for American Progress and Green for All, but it is worth revisiting the top reasons why Issa’s attacks miss both the point, and the facts, about green jobs.

1. Green Policy + Green Investment = Green Jobs

Jobs are created when the economy demands goods and services; and investment from the private sector flows to the market when policy “TLC” (transparency, longevity, and certainty) is strong.  The United States has not met either of those requirements when it comes to green jobs, and we largely have our Republican representatives and their rich patrons in the fossil fuel industry to thank for that.

For one, the 111^th Congress failed to put a price on carbon pollution, which would have sent a clear market signal to invest in low-carbon goods and services like solar, wind, and energy efficiency. For another, Republicans and the fossil fuel lobby have vehemently opposed nearly every policy that would signal increased demand to green employers, including a national renewable energy standard, and strengthening clean air standards on coal-fired power plants.

Without some TLC and strong policies in place, clean energy businesses will continue to face major market uncertainty; workers will continue to find it difficult to get good jobs in the green economy; and our country will continue to fall behind in the global clean energy race.

Issa and his Republican colleagues slashed the tires of our automobile and are now complaining that the car is moving too slow.

2. Job Training Does Not Necessarily Mean Job Creation

While job training is critical for growth and competitiveness, it does not create jobs or hedge against a deep economic recession.  If we consider the fact that a record 14 million Americans are unemployed, only half of all recent college graduates are finding work that fits their education, and a labor market where there are five applicants for every available job, it should come as no surprise that nearly all sectors are struggling to match workers with jobs.

The construction and manufacturing trades, which have traditionally been the hub of job training and placement for blue-collar workers, are also reporting dismal unemployment rates.

3. Snapshot Assessments and Shoddy Analysis of Training Programs

The attacks on the green jobs training program are premature. For one, the report Issa cites focuses on only those workers who have been fully trained, not those who are currently going through training programs or who are about to enter into programs funded by the Department of Labor grants.

In addition, these numbers are from June of 2011 — barely a year after most green jobs programs even began training workers.  Because this program was funded for the first time in 2009, it understandably took some time to scale up, develop curriculum, attract and enroll students, and actually train them.

It is also important to remember that nearly 40 percent of those trained through these programs are incumbent workers, meaning they already had jobs but were receiving additional training to become more skilled. Looking at new job placements alone ignores those critical workers.

Also, let’s not forget that 8,000 people did find jobs as a result of the green job training programs. As the Chief Economist of the American Petroleum Institute said in the Washington Post, “Anybody dismissing any kind of a job is silly.”

4. Job Training is Critical for Economic Growth

Broadly speaking, these types of programs are absolutely critical for preparing the American workforce for the range of skilled jobs emerging in the clean energy economy.

Employers want to set up shop in locations with an adequate labor pool of skilled workers. However, we know that the U.S. is lagging behind as 44 percent of American workers do not have any education beyond a high school diploma.  By 2018, only 36 percent of jobs will be open to workers with a high school diploma, while 30 percent of jobs will require some form of postsecondary education and 33 percent of jobs will require at least a bachelor’s degree.

High-tech companies “say the challenge in setting up U.S. plants is finding a technical work force,” explained Martin Schmidt, associate provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a recent New York Times article.

Companies say they need engineers with more than a high school school diploma, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree. Americans at that skill level are hard to find. “They’re good jobs, but the country doesn’t have enough to feed the demand,” Mr. Schmidt said.

The Department of Labor’s training program is designed to fill that gap.

5. “It’s Still the [Green] Economy”

America needs jobs and economic growth, and the clean energy sectors of the green economy grew at twice the rate of the broader economy during the peak of the recession. Former President Bill Clinton has laid out a 14-point plan to recover all or most of America’s lost jobs, and six of them are related to the green economy.

The trends in clean energy should have us all paying attention.

Solar power has experienced “ferocious” cost reductions in the past two years and is market competitive with new forms of generation in many parts of the country.

In 2010, America was a $1.9 billion exporter of solar products. During that year, the U.S. solar industry grew 100%. Last year it grew another 100%, making it perhaps the “fastest growing” industry in America. Meanwhile, wind power has seen tremendous market penetration and accounted for 26 percent of all new energy generation in 2010. The technology is expected to provide a third of new U.S. energy production in the next quarter century.

In spite of all these promising trends, Issa has called green jobs “propaganda” and frequently uses his authority as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to call for skewed hearings with titles like “How Obama’s Green-Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs.”  Of course, we know that Issa “was for green jobs before [he] was against them” requesting millions of dollars from the DOE back in 2009 for projects that he said would create a modern “green collar” U.S. workforce.

Most importantly, we must not lose sight of the important clean energy transition underway today. If America is going to compete in this next great global industry, we need our workers to be equipped with the proper skills. Railing against this program makes good political theater, but it does nothing to help us build a new economic future.

Jorge Madrid is a research associate on the energy team at the Center for American Progress.

Hemlock Semiconductor employee Pete Van Sumeren gets green job training at Delta College.

Kate Gordon, the vice president of energy policy at the Center for American Progress, responded to the IG report and its promotion in the Wall Street Journal last October. Her response is just as valid today.

The President promised that if America would take strong actions to move the economy from a volatile, fossil fuel-driven path to a low-carbon energy path – actions including passing an economy-wide cap and trade program, implementing a national renewable energy standard, and investing $15 billion/year over ten years – we could create five million jobs in the clean energy sector. The problem? We haven’t passed any of those critical policies, meaning that carbon still doesn’t have a price, and so low-carbon technologies are competing on a playing field heavily skewed toward “cheap” and dirty resources.

Oh, and by the way, ten years hasn’t passed yet.

The Inspector General report identifies only those workers that have already been fully trained, not those who are currently going through training programs or who are about to enter into programs funded by the DOL grants. The proper question to ask is how much of the funding for this program has been obligated, not how much has already been spent, and then how many workers will be trained through all the programs receiving funds.

It is also important to remember that nearly 40 percent of those trained through these programs were incumbent workers, meaning workers who already had jobs but who were receiving additional training to become more skilled, and therefore more valuable in the labor market. Looking at placements alone ignores those critical workers.

Finally and most important, the report ignores a central fact that must be mentioned whenever we talk about any job training program: We are in a severe economic slowdown and 14 million people are still out of work! If there were jobs to be had, perhaps these trained individuals could be hired to fill them.

Let’s not forget that 8,000 people did find jobs as a result of the green job training programs. That’s 8,000 people who did not have a job before they were trained. As the Chief Economist of the American Petroleum Institute said in the Washington Post, “Anybody dismissing any kind of a job is silly.”

The bottom line is that we haven’t done the work, as a country, to pass the policies and programs that will put us on a focused path toward cleaner electricity and fuels. Until we commit to that path, clean energy businesses will continue to face major market uncertainty; workers will continue to try and fail to find good jobs in the green economy; and our country will continue to fall behind in the global clean energy race.

Sources: Department of Energy, EPA 12/21, Washington Post 12/14,

Forget a top-10 list, we’re jumping straight to a top-20 list for job creation in 2012 – and clean energy, environmental standards and efficiency dominate the list. This list was not compiled by Climate Progress. It was compiled by the editorial team at the Center for American Progress. Many of the ideas are extensions of CAP’s “Meeting the Jobs Challenge” initiative launched in 2009. — Stephen Lacey

20 Ways to Create Jobs

1. Upgrade our nation’s roads, bridges, and other basic infrastructure: 18,000 new jobs for every $1 billion invested.

2. Launch a rehab-to-rent program to turn tens of thousands of government-owned foreclosed homes into affordable rental housing, stabilize neighborhoods, and put construction workers back on the job: 20,000 new jobs a year.

3. Implement new EPA rules governing toxic emissions from power plants: 40,000 new direct jobs.

4. Protect health care reform, which will reduce health insurance premiums, expand coverage, and create jobs: 250,000 to 400,000 new jobs a year for the next decade.

5. Retrofit for energy efficiency just 40 percent of the nation’s residential and commercial building stock and unleash massive demand for domestic labor: more than 625,000 new jobs over a decade.

6. Extend emergency unemployment benefits to long-term unemployed workers hurt by the economic downturn: more than 700,000 jobs.

7. Expand the payroll tax cut for employees and extend it to employers through 2012: more than 1 million jobs.

8. Extend national service programs to provide young people with full-time positions in AmeriCorps, VISTA, YouthBuild, and the youth service and conservation corps: 60,000 new jobs.

9. Pass Home Star, Building Star, and Rural Star legislation to make homes and buildings energy efficient while supporting the hard-hit construction industry: 250,000 new jobs a year.

10. Reduce the nation’s dropout rate by half to add $9.6 billion in economic growth and $713 million in increased tax revenue: 54,000 new jobs.

11. Convert offshore wind power to electricity: 20 direct jobs for each megawatt produced in the United States.

12. Protect funding for community health centers over the next five years to provide health and related services at clinics and in the local business communities: 300,000 new jobs.

13. Protect the National Park Service from budget cuts, corporate interests, and antigovernment rhetoric to support jobs in outdoor recreation across the country: 247,000 jobs.

14. Increase freight rail capital investment: 7,800 direct and indirect jobs for every $1 billion invested.

15. Create a $10 billion trial-employment program with potential to help an estimated 1 million small businesses and startups hire long-term unemployed workers: 2 million new job opportunities.

16. Construct new power transmission lines to reshape our electric transmission grid and create new employment: Generating 20 percent of power with wind can create more than 500,000 jobs.

17. Expand the federal “jobs accelerator” program: Just $200 million in funding could result in 1,800 new businesses employing thousands of workers.

18. Reject a federal proposal to mandate employer use of the E-Verify eligibility verification system and protect 770,000 American jobs.

19. Revamp small-business financial assistance programs to better serve the needs of innovative, high-growth potential startup firms.

20. Create a “common application” for federal programs that foster the growth of small businesses.

Related Post:

• ‘Job-Killing’ EPA Regulations for Chesapeake Bay Will Create 35 Times as Many Jobs as Keystone XL Pipeline

By Maria Gallucci, excerpted from InsideClimate News

The state of Massachusetts is quietly reaping the benefits of cap and trade, the much-maligned process for curbing greenhouse gas emissions that federal lawmakers and many state governments resoundingly rejected in recent years. According to a recent study, cap and trade has created 3,800 jobs and nearly $500 million in economic activity for Massachusetts since 2008.

Massachusetts belongs to theRegional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the first and only mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme in America. A report analyzing data from the first three years of the effort found that of the 10 participating Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, Massachusetts benefited most economically, because it used the bulk of its money to help fund its aggressive energy efficiency agenda.

“Energy efficiency investments have a much bigger multiplier effect than any other category of spending,” said Paul Hibbard, vice president of the Analysis Group, the Boston-based consulting firm that prepared the report. When homeowners and businesses used RGGI dollars to retrofit and weatherize buildings, they not only ended up saving on energy costs and spending money elsewhere in the economy—they also put contractors and installers to work.

RGGI “is a very successful program … and we look forward to continue achieving those results,” Mark Sylvia, commissioner of Massachusetts’ Department of Energy Resources, told InsideClimate News.

All the RGGI states saw a net economic benefit from the program, the report found, despite increased compliance costs for power plant operators and subsequent electricity rate hikes, largely thanks to energy conservation measures that reduced electric bills. Regionally, $912 million in total auction proceeds spurred $1.6 billion in economic value and created 16,000 jobs, the report found.

The states used their RGGI proceeds in a variety of ways, including patching state budget gaps, paying utility bills for low-income residents, and funding renewable energy projects. The other RGGI members include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont….

How RGGI Works

Under RGGI, fossil fuel power plants must curb the amount of CO2 they emit each year to a pre-determined level, initially set at 188 million tons of CO2 across the ten-state region.

Operators of fossil fuel plants with at least 25 megawatts in capacity hold “carbon allowances” for every ton of CO2 emissions their plants give off. Plants that exceed their allowances must either reduce their emissions, or buy spare allowances from within the market, with the price determined by how many allowances are up for sale and how many are needed. Private financial firms can also buy and sell carbon allowances in the quarterly auctions run by RGGI Inc., a nonprofit organization that then transfers the proceeds to the states.

In Massachusetts, at least 80 percent of RGGI proceeds must be used for green building and energy-saving programs. In practice, however, the state sent 94 percent of its proceeds from the last 13 auctions—or $134 million—to efficiency efforts, according to Analysis Group.

Hibbard said the study proves that cap-and-trade programs can work and can deliver economic benefits, especially when funding is steered toward energy efficiency.

“It would be impossible to not have that be a key takeaway,” particularly after seeing the economic impact in Massachusetts, he said.

The Massachusetts Experiment

Massachusetts wasn’t always the RGGI proponent it is today. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, now a GOP presidential candidate, championed RGGI in 2005, when it was in its early stages. But he pulled Massachusetts out of RGGI after he failed to get a limit placed on the amount of money power plants would be charged for exceeding their emissions limits.

When Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick took office in 2007, he set out to make energy efficiency the “first fuel” for Massachusetts’ power plants. Rejoining RGGI was among Patrick’s earliest steps as governor, because he saw it as a strong vehicle to help realize that goal, said Sylvia, the state’s energy resources commissioner.

In 2008, Patrick passed a set of ambitious policies to curb energy consumption, driving down electricity costs and slashing greenhouse gas emissions. First among them was the Green Communities Act, which requires gas and electric companies to exhaust all cost-effective energy efficiency measures before building new plants or procuring more power.

By 2020, Massachusetts aims to meet about 30 percent of its energy needs through these energy efficiency measures. Already it has leapfrogged California as the most energy-efficient state, according to an October ranking by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit.

Although Massachusetts’ $143 million in total RGGI auction proceeds account for only a fraction of the $2 billion the state plans to invest in energy efficiency programs from 2010 to 2012, Sylvia said RGGI money is still a critical source of funding.

RGGI dollars provided electric utilities with about $30 million in 2010, or 11 percent of total utility program budgets, according to afirst-year report from the state’s Energy Efficiency Advisory Council. They also provided $18 million in grants to nearly 75 municipal efficiency programs.

Aside from funding specific programs, RGGI has helped fuel an economic engine that is creating jobs across the state.

In 2010, some 33,800 people in Massachusetts—20 percent more than in 2003—worked in the broad field of energy efficiency, including providing home energy assessments, creating energy-saving lighting and appliances, and renovating and upgrading green buildings, according to a green jobs count by the Brookings Institution….

– Maria Gallucci.  For the full piece, go to InsideClimate News

Related Post:

• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Adds 16,000 Jobs and $1.6 Billion in Value to Northeast Economies, Study Finds

Today over 100 economists from top universities, economic firms, counties, and other groups sent a letter to President Obama urging him to protect more national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas. The signatories make the case that because the western United States is shifting from a resource extraction-based economy to one founded in tourism and the migration of Americans wanting to live close to wide open spaces, protected places are valuable economically.

As the letter stated, “protected public lands are significant contributors to economic growth.” Ray Rasker, the executive director of Headwaters Economics, who holds a Ph.D from Oregon State University, further explained that:

In the last 40 years, the fastest growth in the West has been in communities that are adjacent to protected public lands. It’s one of the West’s competitive advantages, it’s one of the strengths of the West, and investing in these sorts of public lands—the wilderness areas, the national monuments, the national parks—is a way to protect the competitive advantage of the west. This is what is creating jobs currently, and at a time when we have high unemployment, we need policies that create jobs.

Watch it:

There is a wide variety of jobs created from protecting public lands, many of which are detailed in the Center for American Progress’ recent report, “The Jobs Case for Conservation.” These include outdoor guides, construction workers restoring trails and forests, manufacturers of outdoor goods like skis and hunting equipment, engineers, and park rangers, to name just a few. The Outdoor Industry Association notes that the outdoor recreation industry supports 6.5 million jobs and $730 billion in economic growth every year.

ThinkProgress recently reported that a handful of House Republicans, such as Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), have denied that protecting the West’s special places has positive economic impacts. At a hearing last month, Bishop stated, “Contrary to claims by the administration and others, the designation of national monuments and wilderness are not a boon to local economies, but rather a detriment in most scenarios.”

Additionally, members of the Congressional Western Caucus — a group made up entirely of Republicans — labeled the designation of national monuments and wilderness expansion as “job-killing” policies in a report last year.

Jessica Goad is Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. This post was originally published at Think Progress Green.

“A lot of people say California is a failed state,” Brown said. “Well, they’re wrong, and here’s another example of how California is on the move.” Brown also explained how government regulations, so often pilloried by the right, are what created the markets for this job-creating industry:

This is the state of innovation. It’s the place where things happen, from the gold rush, to those oil wells in . Lots of new stuff happens. Yes, we’ve got regulations. Some of these regulations are why car companies and the solar industry is expanding here in California. So you need some rules.

Watch Brown’s speech, recorded by ThinkProgress Green:

Brown praised the former Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, for pushing clean energy. The state’s success doesn’t depend on one party, Brown said, but on “the creativity of the people that come to California.”

Brown cautioned that the state budget is going to be harsh, as he tries to rein in the state’s deficits, but that key investments in the future must be made. “In the midst of austerity, we also need dynamic innovation,” he said. “Even as we tuck in our belts, we’ll expand our imagination.”

There’s a lot of people still out there, and they want to work. And they need jobs. And this is a great start.

Watch it:

“It’s a step to the future,” Herrera concludes, enthused not only about finding a job but also about being part of the greater mission to repower our nation.

Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) taking credit for a solar program funded by the stimulus and other Obama programs.

Bucking the trend, at least for a day, Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) participated in a publicity event on Monday to celebrate the success of a government-backed solar energy initiative. Gibson spoke at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at the University of Albany to announce a deal to keep 17 solar energy research jobs. The research center hopes to boost an effort to develop “thin-film” solar cells to be built in a 18,000-square-foot manufacturing facility near the campus. Speaking at the event, Gibson applauded the investment, but failed to credit how much of the money was authorized:

“Today’s announcement continues our region’s growth as the next place for 21st Century technology. This facility will preserve existing jobs and ensure that our area remains at the forefront of research into clean energy technologies that are so vital for our future. I applaud CNSE’s efforts to invest in our local communities and look forward to continuing to work with them to expand public-private partnerships here in Tech Valley.”

Earlier this year, the research center received a $5 million grant made possible in part by President Obama’s Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus. During the election last year, Gibson made the stimulus a campaign issue and blasted his Democratic opponent for supporting such a “failed” policy.

The solar jobs are also made possible by the SunShot Initiative, a Department of Energy program started by the Obama administration to spur solar energy technological developments.

A recent ThinkProgress investigation found at least 60 Republicans writing letters to Secretary Steven Chu to request clean energy grants and loans for favored companies.

In an op-ed in the Orange County Register published yesterday, Romney regurgitates GOP talking points on loan guarantees to Solyndra and Fisker Automotive, two stories that have turned leading conservative politicians and media pundits into a pack of scandalmongers — even while many of those politicians supported the same government investments for companies in their own districts.

Romney has officially joined the herd, calling green jobs “illusory.”

First, the good news: President Barack Obama has finally created some “green jobs.” Now for the bad news: They are not in the United States, but in Finland.

The creation of environmentally friendly jobs has been at the top of Barack Obama’s policy agenda since coming into office. With the first of his now many jobs plans, the President set out to fulfill his campaign promise of spending $150 billion to create ten million green jobs. Alas, things didn’t quite work out as planned.

…So far, approximately 100 workers are employed by Fisker in Wilmington, Del., while an additional 500 are actually assembling the cars in Finland.

…Even these few jobs may be illusory: studies of Europe’s green job experiments have found that each new green job destroys several other jobs elsewhere in the economy.

There are numerous gaping holes in Romney’s piece. But here’s the biggest one: There are now 64,000 green jobs in his home state of Massachusetts alone, according to a report released earlier this month by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Hard to call that “illusory.”

Due to making green jobs a “clear economic development priority, supported by the passage of various legislative and policy initiatives,” on the state and federal level, MassCEC reports that the state’s green jobs workforce grew by 6.7% from July of 2010 to July of 2011 — smashing the average 1% growth of other industries in Massachusetts. Employers surveyed expect to see upwards of 15% growth in the next year alone. From the report:

Not only is it is clear that clean energy is one of our Commonwealth’s marquee industries, but this report affirms that this sector has played a key role in helping the Commonwealth fare the recession better than many other states.

The Massachusetts experience reflects growth in the clean energy sector broadly, which saw 8.3% growth nationally between 2009 and 2010. According to the Brookings Institution, the sector is creating jobs with median wages that are more than $7,700 above jobs in the broader economy.

Apparently, Romney didn’t get the memo.

But that’s not surprising, considering he’s citing a green jobs study from 2009 that has been so thoroughly vetted and debunked, it’s a wonder anyone outside of Fox News refers to it anymore.

And that Fisker Automotive story he refers to? That’s actually a re-hashed story from 2009 too. For anyone not up on the latest “scandal,” ABC claims it has conducted an “investigation” showing that a loan guarantee for plug-in electric vehicle manufacturer Fisker Automotive is creating jobs in Finland, rather than the U.S.

In fact, when Fisker first closed the loan guarantee in 2009, officials publicly explained that the company would be doing final assembly of its first model in Finland while it ramped up a factory in Delaware. According to Fisker, none of the DOE funds have been used to support jobs in Finland — all the money has been used for building new facilities in the U.S. to develop its next EV model. The company only began hiring workers for U.S. operations in June.

Unsurprisingly, Fox News and other outlets are running with the story and inaccurately claiming that the company is using federal money to create jobs in Finland. And now the Romney campaign is spreading the disinformation too.

It appears that Romney’s version of the “facts” are the only illusory item in his op-ed.

Want updates from Climate Progress? You can follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or subscribe to our RSS Feed.

According to McGraw Hill, more than one third of architects, engineers and contractors in the U.S. say they have “green” jobs. That’s 661,000 jobs, a number that is expected to climb to more than 900,000 jobs in the next three years.

That’s in line with the $71 billion American green building market, which represented 25% of all new U.S. construction activity in 2010. The value of that activity is on track to reach $145 billion in 2015.

Say what? I thought that green jobs weren’t real?

I went to the Greenbuild conference in Toronto last week to talk to some of the leading experts in green building for this story.  It became apparent very quickly why this story isn’t getting out. So-called “green” building practices are a natural progression of the conventional building industry, with many of the same companies participating in both sectors. As firms in this industry adopt new technologies and techniques, it’s difficult to determine the precise employment impact.

“These jobs are very hard to track. There are a lot of new jobs being created and there are a lot of jobs transitioning as well. It’s a mix and the numbers aren’t easy to follow,” explained Janet Milkman, executive director of the Delaware Valley Green Building Council, in an interview with Climate Progress.

That is the story of tracking green jobs generally.

Clearly, there’s a lot of value in the sector. More than 40% of the industry representatives surveyed for the McGraw Hill study said that having “green” credentials to meet changes in the market mean better career advancement and new job opportunities. With the conventional construction industry floundering, new construction in the green building space grew by 50% in 2009 and 2010, according to McGraw Hill.

Rather than talk about job creation — a conversation that has turned very political — people in the industry would rather talk about value creation: saving money, raising health standards and increasing worker productivity.

“With zero hesitation, this is a business opportunity,” said Rick Fedrizzi, President and CEO of the U.S. Green Building Council, when asked by Climate Progress how the industry how the industry messages its goals in the face of so much political negativity.

There are more than 10,000 certified green commercial buildings in the U.S. today. According to Fedrizzi, the USGBC certifies 1.5 million square feet of buildings in 129 countries around the world every week — the equivalent of three Empire State Buildings.

“I learned a while ago that we are not going backwards ever again. I don’t care how much money popped up on the scene tomorrow, people will never go back to building inefficient buildings that deprive humans of daylight and superior health opportunities,” Fedrizzi said.

That’s what this is about — value creation. Rather than simply bean counting jobs, we need to focus on the broad-based environmental and economic value of a particular technology or industry.

“The vast majority of our projects are about solving a problem. It’s all about the value proposition — lowering energy bills, helping improve the functionality of a space, and maybe there’s sustainability value for some customers,” explained John Van Dine, Founder and CEO of SAGE Electrochromics, in an interview with Climate Progress.

SAGE produces windows that can be electronically tinted — blocking sunlight while still allowing building occupants to see out the windows. The company recently signed an $80 million partnership with the large building-materials company Saint Gobain and is currently constructing a facility that could produce 4 million square feet of electrochromic glass per year at full capacity.

“We come in and solve specific problems like glare and heat, thus reducing energy. We are a solution. We try not to pay attention to all the other stuff,” said Van Dine, referring to the politics around green jobs and sustainability.

When those solutions are clearly communicated and executed, the jobs fall in line. And so far, even with the green building sector at a relatively early stage, more than 660,000 people are supported by the “green” sector in some way in the U.S. alone.

John Williams, a sustainability expert with HDR, asks the media to question the value those jobs are creating.

“Tell me about the jobs, tell me about the social benefits, the environmental benefits, the economic benefits. Tell me about resiliency benefits, and tell me about how that investment will enhance competition,” explained Williams to Climate Progress.

“The more questions we answer, the better off we’ll all be.”

Related Greenbuild 2011 Posts:

• Communicating Green Jobs: “If You Translate the Value of Those Jobs With The Other Benefits, You’ve Got to Win”
• United Steel Workers: “Of Course” Green Jobs Exist, “We Can See the Benefits”
• Babylon Steps up the PACE of Green Jobs: “For Energy Savings, Carbon Reduction and Job Creation.”