In recent weeks, attacks on green jobs have reached new heights. Or sunk to new lows, depending on how you look at it.
When U.S. solar darling Solyndra was forced to declare bankruptcy, detractors of green jobs seized upon it and made hay. Thankfully, some pundits have rallied to the defence of green jobs in the U.S. Most recently perhaps is James Surowiecki, who in the current New Yorker points out that government subsidies have played a key role in the energy industry since the 19th century, and although Solyndra's story is a cautionary tale, all in all, the U.S. program has been characterized by success. Surowiecki argues that one failure is not an indictment of industrial policy.
The attacks have been equally heated here in Ontario, despite the fact that Ontario-based businesses have not gone bankrupt. To be sure, there have been some hiccups in the province's bid to green the grid and create tens of thousands of jobs, but international experts continue to hold Ontario up as the gold standard, and prescribe patience.
A lot has been said on this issue, yet as the Program Manger of Blue Green Canada, I think I can offer an interesting perspective.
First, if you haven't heard of Blue Green Canada, we are a strategic alliance between Environmental Defence and the United Steelworkers (USW), and the Canadian affiliate of the U.S.-based Blue Green Alliance. We came together around the shared notion that we cannot choose between good jobs and a clean environment. We need both.
I think the environmental case for renewable energy is pretty well established. If you're not up on it though, visit Environmental Defence's website. So instead of reiterating what most people already know, I'm going to focus on the case made by labour, the other half of the alliance.
The Steelworkers are among those unions that see their role extending far beyond putting money in their members' pockets, with an emphasis on advancing a broader social agenda in the interests of all working families. The USW sees that there's a lot of work to be done to retool our economy and deal with climate change. Done right, this will lead to more jobs, not just in manufacturing, but in construction and an array of support services.
Also, greening our economy and attracting green manufacturing sets us up to supply goods that will almost certainly be in demand in the future. Solar and wind power and other clean tech sectors are growing at a furious rate. Even the OECD says nations must look to the green economy for new jobs and growth. Furthermore, greening existing businesses helps them align with the tastes of increasingly eco-savvy consumers and helps these businesses with their bottom line, saving on energy and materials costs and reducing waste. The short story is, greening our economy is key to future competitiveness, which is key to job creation and retention.
Another key function of unions is to advocate for good jobs, meaning decent wages and safe work conditions. Green jobs are both of these. They pay better than other jobs requiring comparable levels of education. And clean tech workplaces are also very often clean themselves, and that level of cleanliness is one of the things that workers highlight when talking about their jobs.
A further point is that unions understand the environmental crisis in a very concrete way. Many of our members have worked in coal mines, or smelters or in other polluted environments. They have suffered health impacts or known someone who has, and they have seen entire communities suffer too. For many, the environmental crisis is a lived experience.
For decades, people have argued that we must choose between good work and a clean environment. But that argument just doesn't hold up anymore. We need a functioning economy with good jobs, and a clean environment, which is what is meant by the term green economy.
The green economy strives to align our economy with the environment. It is a global push that is well underway, and gaining momentum by the day. For example, according to a recent report, 3.5 million people are now employed in renewable energy worldwide. China's renewable energy industries employ over half a million people, and Germany, the country Ontario's feed-in tariff is modeled after, now boasts over 370,000 renewable energy jobs.
The green economy is getting off the ground here in Ontario too. In the last two years, some 40 firms have announced their intention to build green manufacturing facilities in the province, and many are already in production, creating thousands of jobs.
All of this is to say, green jobs are not a hoax, and they're not just good PR. They are real, and they are in existence here in Ontario.
Follow Keith Brooks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithdbrooks
Ontario Election Debate Hub: Ontarians Need Less Hollywood, More Main Street
Donnie Fowler: Solyndra Aftermath: Top Ten Reasons Why Renewable Energy Wins
Andrew Reeves: Ontario Green Vote Projected to Drop
Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals
Obama “fake” green jobs program slammed in Congressional report
Conventional nuclear is the greenest form of energy we have now, LFTR would be greener, safer, cheaper and produce less then 1% of the wastes.
You can create lotsa jobs building windmills/solar panels but the the massive increase in energy costs will so devastate the rest of the economy, that jobs will be lost at a two to one rate. Our competitors will still be using dirt cheap coal and clean and green 3 cent a kwh nukes.
Building a export industry based on converting fossil fuel to nuclear power at 40% rate of return on investment, would by contrast be a massive job producer.
It's nukes that have a 50% default rates, and 30 cents per KWH electricity, not including waste, disaster, proliferation and terrorism. It's nukes that will bankrupt us and cause massive cancers.
Basic facts: 1. Canada - Air Quality - Best in the world. 2. Ontario - Surplus Energy Generation for at least the next 3-4 years - longer depending on the global recession. 3. Ontario - Use of Coal Generated Electricity - continuing to decrease towards zero (without Wind Energy). 4. Canada - Average Lifespan continuing to increase - in top 5% of ALL countries in the world. 5. Ontario Energy generation - nearly 75% emission free - one of the top jurisdictions for minimal GHG emissions from the energy sector in the world (without any Green Energy). 6. Economical and nearby supply of emission-free hydroelectricity from Quebec and Manitoba - available as required with minimal investment in infrastructure. So once again, exactly why do we need to send $20B+ to a South Korean company to jumpstart their entry into the wind turbine business? What exactly happens to Ontario in the next 20 years if we don't pay that money to Samsung?
Our "leadership" in Green Energy is actually our global leadership in the price we are willing to pay to other countries' vendors of Wind Energy. That's why there is a feeding frenzy in Ontario - because we're paying more than anyone else. We are not building a globally competitive green energy industry, we are paying for the build of a retail & distribution network for Iberola, Vesta, etc.
In terms of barrels of oil equivalent (or BOE , for short) it's costs dont measure up either.
For example : in terms of capital costs:
Non Conv. Natural gas - $4 -6, conv. Oil $10 -15 , Electricity (Nat. gas) $8-12 , Electr. O/S Wind $145 Electr. Solar $400
In terms of Net operating costs :
Non Conv Natural gas $1- 2, conv. oil $18-22, Electr.(nat Gas) $60, Electr. O/S Wind $15
Solar $10 .
In other words, take away all the government subsidies, then wind and solar wind would never be economically viable. In addition, both wind and solar are highly dependent on fossil fuel fired back up power, because the sun don't shine , at night, and the wind dies down, constantly.
And green jobs can be created in other sectors as well ,such as expansion of public transportation; conservation and restoration to save the fishing , wilderness, and tourism industry; and initiatives to educate individuals in home gardens, water conservation, and making homes and vehicles more energy efficient. We also have to create more, made in North American products, using "homegrown" material like North American cotton and steel, with a cradle to grave focus to further reduce transportation costs and become more self sufficient. People need to see how green jobs can create something of value .
The $200K figure includes a bunch of stuff that "brown (fossil fuel) jobs do not:
1) All start up costs - oil and gas exploration gets amortized over decades. Why does a "solar" job need to carry all the R&D, plant construction and other startup costs as "current"? Silly.
2) Actual "source" costs - I'm pretty sure that we have never had to invest TRILLIONS of dollars for access to the sun or the wind the way we have for what amounts to less than 20% of our nation's appetite for oil. Add all of that (to be fair, along with all its associated military, contractor, & medical "jobs") to the "cost per worker" equation.
3) Renewable energy doesn't need to replace ALL of our needs to make a difference. It's a vital ingedient in the mix that also includes curbing the "appetite" - What about changing energy consumption behaviors? Our residential and commercial buildings use 40% of our total energy. A 20% overall improvement in energy effectiveness would cut our energy use by almost half of out TOTAL energy imports. Transportation accounts for 34%. 20% more efficient vehicles picks up half of what's left. If green technology solutions like solar and wind can produce only 5% of our total energy needs, we can achieve energy independence.
Unitl this country decides that all people should have free and open acess to the grid to sell their excess clean energy production, there will only be tepid growth in the clean energy sector in the U.S.. Instead of talking about the coalitions being formed, you should be spreading the gospel of Jeremy Rifkins "The Third Industrial Revolution" that combines an open and accessible grid with energy conservation and energy efficiency as demonstrated in Europe. You can form all of the coalitions you want, but it won't make a dent in bringing clean energy to America on an unprecendented scale.
Providing this access along with small producers being paid a monthly check at market rates for their excess capacity sold into the grid will unleash a nation of energy entrepreneurs. In addition to unleashing this mighty entrepreneurial force, they will practice energy efficiency and energy conservation to maximize their profits. Not only will the environment benefit, but high tech and union jobs will surge at an unprecedented rate.
The investor owned, guaranteed rate of return utility model is the main obstacle to unleashing a nations of energy entrepreneurs. They control the grid, write the grid interconnection rules and thus determine who gets access and how little they get paid for their clean energy. It is a rigged system against clean energy. I am surpirsed you didn't realize this by now.
See the Aesop Institute website to understand why and how.
Without realizing it, the nation is playing Russian Roulette with 71 nuclear plants that could meltdown in a short time frame. Anyone for 71 Fukushima's here at home?
Mobilizing to protect the nation is an urgent task and will inherently generate millions of jobs.
Start a PR Lobby group , pushing the benefits of for profit alternate energy development.
You will see huge growth through funding by industry interest fro all over the globe and governments requiring more lobby groups pushing their agenda to privatize our Ontario power system.
Public Relations Lobby groups ..make sure it has an Enivronmental sounding name.