Green Jobs Can Bring Home Bigger Paychecks, Brookings Report Finds

Unemployment remains high. Fossil fuels are under increased scrutiny. Governments are looking to cut costs.

These underwhelming realities have shifted America's attention toward the employment potential of the green community. As local areas continue to ramp up their efforts to save energy, more metrics are becoming available on the people behind those initiatives.

The Brookings Institute released a study on Wednesday, profiling a multitude of national and regional trends within the United States' green workforce. Entitled "Sizing the Clean Economy," the study found that 2.7 million workers hold professions that qualify as "clean."

Outside of that national figure, Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program dove into the local scene. The report compiles statistics for several metro areas, looking at factors such as the quantity of clean jobs, the growth rate at which cities are adding clean jobs, and the wages for employees holding those positions.

Leading the way in terms of overall clean economy size was New York, with 152,034 green jobs. Newsday notes that the largest slice of that green pie was transportation, which accounted for nearly 40 percent of those employment positions.

In cities like Denver, green jobs are bringing home bigger paychecks. Workers in clean-energy posts within the Mile High City are netting $47,602 in annual pay, which is almost $4,000 more than the medium wage for others working in Colorado's capital.

While the Brookings report notes that the green economy "remains an enigma," these figures stand to be boosted by the Environmental Protection Agency's new financial backing of green jobs. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson introduced that vision on Tuesday, which includes $6.2 million in development and training grants.

Comments

[George Hanshaw]

02:53 PM on 07/15/2011

A nice attempt to put lipstick on a pig. A more reasonable assessment of the Brookings Report is available here:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578386/201107141854/The-Green-Economy-Withers.htm

It reveals that grren jobs significantly underperform the economy as a whole, appear almost totally dependent upon unsustainable government subsidies, and even then - to make the numbers - they have to count nuclear energy workers and public transit operators that use sources of energy that are not all that green (diesel or electricity derived from coal) or are only quasi-green (LPG or natural gas-generated electricity).

The 'green economy' as a road to economic salvation is a myth.

[OceanHunter]

08:40 PM on 07/14/2011

Oh man, are you kidding me?! Green jobs have been a disaster - Spain lost billions investing in this failed enterprise. The dream of green jobs is such a fallacy! It has been proven over and over to be an enormous waste of resources!

[Moose Luck 99]

03:24 PM on 07/14/2011

HEMP AS FOOD AND ENERGY!

Soybeans were supposed to be the fuel of the future.

http://www.mo.be/en/article/15-years-gm-soybeans-argentina

15 years of GM Soybeans in Argentina
The true cost of monoculture
7 June 2011
(
MO*
) —

Intoxication, massive clearing, loss of biodiversity, forced evictions, land concentration and murder. The dark sides of 15 years of soy monoculture, a model driven by businesses and governments.

CAS - Coping with High Energy Prices - Soy-Diesel versus Biodiesel
energy.cas.psu.edu/soydiesel.html - Cached
Apr 10, 2009 – In certain regions of the United States, soy-diesel refers to crude soybean oil that is filtered and maybe clarified. But in other region

U.S. soybeans 76.6 million acres

[Rory Canfield]

01:05 PM on 07/14/2011

The report ( Newsday ) that part of this article is based on, pins mass transit as being a green job along with waste management accounting for 51% of what they call green jobs. Out of the green jobs categories they listed out, I would only count conservation, environmental services and recycling as being green jobs. Mass transit and waste management are not new or green technology and shouldnt be included as such, I would say that only conservation and environmental services would truly fall under a high or green technology banner.
"Nearly 40 percent of the jobs, or 57,487, were in mass transit. Other big employers were waste management and treatment, 19,316 jobs; conservation, 10,733; professional environmental services, 10,312; and recycling and reuse, 9,131"
The Brooklands report also is a little misleading in that it also hits on the mass transit and waste management are prime green employers, both of which I wouldn't consider a truly green job.

[solar power guy]

11:24 AM on 07/14/2011

As a "green" company located just outside of Denver I can certainly back up this stories claim. Our website caters to homeowners and works with solar installers and manufacturers. So while a company that deals directly with hardware we are part of the ecosystem. And at 5 employees now we expect to keep growing and hiring. - http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com

[Rory Canfield]

01:09 PM on 07/14/2011

Unfortunatly, the stories claims are misleading. True green technologies account for a lot less than one would think based on this article, whereas mass transit and waste management are what they call green jobs and account for 50% of the jobs. Until it is further clarified what a green job actually is, no one can say for sure if bigger paychecks are indeed out there as this report implies.

[OceanHunter]

08:40 PM on 07/14/2011

Ummm...you won't. trust me. You won't.

[Masonx]

10:19 AM on 07/14/2011

All new technology brings higher paying jobs because the lack of supply of trained workers in that technology. Nothing new there. However, new technology is also form of niche markets. Like all niche markets they are ephemeral, and as soon as training catches up, so does demand and competition lowers those same paychecks to average or below. There is one more obvious insight here - new technology inherently means less labor required - which means fewer jobs overall and over time.

This new paradigm of technology accomplishing the work once provided by human workers is something we humans (and most especially economic theorist) have not learned to deal with yet. The end point is rather obvious however. Our future is one where human labor will be ever reduced by technology. A future where population growth flattens and or shrinks as the non-renewable basis of human food peaks (think peak petroleum and peak phosphate fertilizers) and shrinks. Capitalism has been our civilization's engine of success, but it depends on growth in product demand, markets and in consumer populations. We are coming to the end of that period where that kind growth is physically possible - any competent mass balance analysis shows this.

Anyone know how to make capitalism work in shrinking markets with declining numbers of consumers? Well, you aren't alone because no major economist is coming forward with any bright plan B's. We have literally grown ourselves into the proverbial corner.

[FrankLuchan]

12:17 AM on 07/14/2011

Those 'green' energy jobs are fleeting and will discontinue as the cost of 'green energy' continues to 'necessarily skyrocket'.

[rooks]

08:13 AM on 07/14/2011

Where is the science behind this comment? Change subsidies, change the world.

[FrankLuchan]

11:48 AM on 07/14/2011

Wow. Where is the economic snese behind this comment.

The ignorance of reality behind this post is monumental.

Your 'subsidies' still 'necessarily skyrockets' the cost of energy which CRUSHES jobs.

[OceanHunter]

08:42 PM on 07/14/2011

Sorry - the burden of proof is upon the green jobs investment of billions of dollars which have been proven to be senseless and wasteful. YOUR science is flawed.

[solar power guy]

11:28 AM on 07/14/2011

Makes no sense. If anything the cost of green energy keeps plummeting. Solar is 1/4 of what it was 5 years ago. Effeciencies in the manufacturing and installation keep occurring and research will soon make these competitive with dirty fossil fuels. Why the ignorant pessimism? Own a coal mine or something?

[FrankLuchan]

11:45 AM on 07/14/2011

Annnndddddd........

I still need as much GAS/Coal/Nuclear base load power generation for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

So you have done NOTHING other than to 'necessarily skyrocket' the cost of base load power generation.

So why the ignorant ignorance?

[Rory Canfield]

01:13 PM on 07/14/2011

Until solar and the battery technology to go with it are further advanced and priced to where joe consumer can really take advantage of it, we are just spinning our wheels. I priced up a solar system that would take me fully off the grid and it was close to a quarter the price of the home itself. Putting "affordable" green technology into the hands of average home owners, drivers is the only way we will get into a better place, but with subsidies, rebates keeping prices artificially high it will be a long time coming.

[Brer Orabbit]

12:02 AM on 07/14/2011

Ecoterrorist: Eat your own greens.

[Kenz300]

10:55 PM on 07/13/2011

It is time to move to distributed energy, with local energy, generated with local workers.

Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste can all be generated locally. There is a lot of waste generated every day. If every county dump had a trash to energy plant we could produce both fuel and energy while providing local jobs.

[Masonx]

10:31 AM on 07/14/2011

Solar related is undoubtedly the most feasible source for future energy, is somewhat limited by site and currently economically limited by inadequate storage technologies. Geothermal has been brought into questions because of destabilization of local strata (read potential earth quakes).

Mass balance analysis of biofuels by MIT and U. of Kansas show that biofuels are non-starters as primary energy producers because of their dependence on peak petroleum and peak phosphate fertilizers - and compete directly with our food production for those fertilizers.

Studies show that only about 3% of wastes are logistically, climatically and economically feasible for conversion to energy and while they could be very site specifically successful - waste conversion will not realistically contribute significantly to our energy needs without a major re-design of our national infrastructure with waste utilization planned into it. Since even our most basic infrastructure isn't being currently maintained, it isn't realistically to expect a major redesign in our life time or under the current political system where politics is always the highest priority.

[Moose Luck 99]

10:39 PM on 07/13/2011

Car Repair & Maintenance : How to Convert a Car to Run on Alcohol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE--Ng49zPM

[WESmith]

08:09 AM on 07/14/2011

Back in the 70s, there were DYI articles in magazines on how to make hybrid cars, electric cars and methane generators running on homemade methane.

[Masonx]

10:32 AM on 07/14/2011

They are still around - and all over the internet.

[Moose Luck 99]

10:17 PM on 07/13/2011

6% OF US LAND PLANTED WITH HEMP WILL REPLACE ALL COAL AND OIL USE!!

Jack famously guaranteed that devoting 6% of continental US land to growing Hemp could replace all our country’s energy usage. This study supports Jack Herer’s research. Links to a synopsis of the study, and to Jack Herer’s energy-and-climate research overview page follow below. Jack passed away a few months ago, and so is not here with us today to enjoy the triumph in new hope for our planet, but he knew it would come, if we activists pushed hard enough. Clean energy for all of Earth and an end to Global Warming are now within our grasp. We must keep pushing, and we must pause to assess and celebrate our progress.

http://my.firedoglake.com/normanb/2010/11/11/breakthrough-swedish-hemp-energy-study-corroborates-hemp-emperor-herer/

[Masonx]

10:34 AM on 07/14/2011

He didn't know "jack" about mass balance analysis. Even hemp requires peak petroleum and peak phosphate fertilizer to produce significant quantities of energy. Like other biofuels hemp's dependence on non-renewable peak fertilizers competes directly with human food production.

[Moose Luck 99]

02:23 PM on 07/14/2011

Hemp 6X the BTUS of corn.

U.S. soybeans 76.6 million acres

U.S. corn 90 million acres

Half of the acres 83.3 million acres

Hemp yields an average of nine dry tons per acre
(more in southern areas)

749 million tons hemp fiber

Bio-diesel Hempoline can be made from leaves and stalks.

You would also have the hemp seeds as a food source too.

[Moose Luck 99]

10:10 PM on 07/13/2011

How to make cellulosic ethanol from hemp fiber!

Cellulosic ethanol was 3 months and 5 steps.
Mascoma Energy turns it into 5 weeks 3 steps!

http://www.mascoma.com/pages/sub_cellethanol.php

[Yota Daga]

09:58 PM on 07/13/2011

Solar Prices keep declining, and most of it is being driven globally, not even republican obstructionism can stop it. In China and most of the developing world Solar is already at Grid Parity. Look for prices to decline more than 50% in the next two years with Increased competition, economies of scale, cheaper silicon, and several disruptive technologies coming online

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/06/261550/solar-pv-system-cost-reductions/#more-261550

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37882/?mod=chthumb

[Masonx]

10:36 AM on 07/14/2011

While this realistically the best alternative energy information we have, its still limited from mass use by suitable storage technologies.

[Rory Canfield]

01:19 PM on 07/14/2011

Sorry Yota, it has a long way to go in order for it to be priced so that joe homeowner can take advantage of it in ways that will truly be of benefit. Not to mention the issues with battery backup when the sun doesn't shine, systems can easily be more than a quarter of the price of the home itself.

[LMPE]

09:07 PM on 07/13/2011

Switching to a green economy would be the greatest event in US history.

[WESmith]

07:49 AM on 07/14/2011

We tried it in the early 80s. No one was interested. We couldn't find customers. Millions of us lost our jobs and homes. I was lucky in a way. I kept my job, but it lost it's "green." 75% of the homes in my subdivision were foreclosed on. My home was worth 20% of what I owed @ 15.5% interest. I was so proud when I got that green job in 1980. Everyone in America was proud. We were going to be oil- free by the end of the century.

[dashley3565]

12:06 PM on 07/14/2011

We tired "what" in the 80's ? Ronald Reagan put the kibosh on all things green. No subsidies on any thing green and it ( green tech.) was in it's infancy. in the city of Garland Texas many homes in the eighties were set up with Solar hot water heaters , solar plate/ cell to an traditional hot water heater. after the subsidies were removed this practice stopped, it would cost a fraction of what it did then. if the U.S. Govt. gave a $900 tax credit( i can go to home depot and get a new hot water heater and installed for $500, which would be included in the package deal im talking about) or check or what ever govt.incentive ( which should be right up front) to install this on every american home"when replacing in an existing home or new-home construction. There are plenty of small things out there right now that could be implemented from the ground up . As opposed to giant wind mills, but there are very few true tax incentive for this .
But i am sorry about the job.

[rooks]

08:14 AM on 07/14/2011

Yes! F & F for the earth.

[Yota Daga]

08:55 PM on 07/13/2011

Here's a new one, GreenTech employs more people than Fossil Fuels
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-clean-economy-employs-more-workers-than-fossil-fuels/

[Rory Canfield]

01:21 PM on 07/14/2011

Sorry Yota, the data in the report is a little flawed. Would you consider a city bus driver a green worker? How about your local trash man? Those 2 jobs alone account for over 50% of what the Brookland report and the Newsday article consider green jobs. Sorry, they are not.