Three weeks ago, US President Barack Obama stood in front of a sea of gleaming solar panels in Boulder City, Nevada, to celebrate his administration’s efforts to promote “green energy.”
Stretching row upon row into the desert, the Copper Mountain Solar Project not far from Las Vegas provided an impressive backdrop for the president.
Built on public land, the facility is the largest of its kind in the US. Its 1 million solar panels provide enough energy to power 17,000 homes.
However, it employs just 10 people.
Three years after Obama launched a push to build a job-creating “green” economy, the White House can say that more than 1 million drafty homes have been retrofitted to lower heating and cooling costs, while energy generation from renewable sources such as wind and solar has nearly doubled since 2008.
However, the millions of “green jobs” Obama promised have been slow to sprout, disappointing many who had hoped that the US$90 billion earmarked for clean-energy efforts in the recession-fighting federal stimulus package would ease unemployment — still above 8 percent last month. Supporters say the administration over-promised on the jobs front and worry that a backlash could undermine support for clean-energy policies in general.
“All of this stuff is extraordinarily worthy for driving long-term economic transformation, but extremely inappropriate to sell as a short-term job program,” said Mark Muro, a clean-energy specialist at the Brookings Institution.
Others say the green-jobs push has crowded out less fashionable efforts that would have put people back to work quickly.
“From my perspective it makes more sense for us to arm our clients with the basic skills, rather than saying, ‘By golly, you will do something in the green economy or you won’t work,’” said Janet Blumen, the head of the Foundation for an Independent Tomorrow, a Las Vegas job-training organization that has seen positions in trucking and accounting go unfilled because training money had been earmarked for green efforts.
A US$500 million job-training program has so far helped fewer than 20,000 people find work, far short of its goal.
Republicans, meanwhile, have seized on the failure of solar panel maker Solyndra, which received a US$535 million loan guarantee, to argue that White House allies have been the only ones who have benefited from the green jobs push.
“He handed out tens of billions of dollars to green energy companies, including his friends and campaign contributors at companies like Solyndra that are now bankrupt,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on April 4.
Backers of the notion of a “green collar” work force argue that earth-friendly energy is a promising growth sector that could create a bounty of stable, middle-class jobs and fill the gap left by manufacturing work that has moved overseas.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama promised that a US$150 billion investment would generate 5 million jobs over 10 years.
Obama included US$90 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to weatherize drafty buildings, fund electric-car makers and encourage other clean-energy efforts.
“We’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings, and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs,” he said at a wind-turbine plant in Ohio the day before he took office.
In December 2009, US Vice President Joe Biden said the effort would create 722,000 green jobs.
The White House said in November 2010 that its clean-energy efforts had generated work for 225,000 people and would ultimately create a total of 827,000 “job years” — implying average annual employment of around 200,000 over the four years of Obama’s presidential term.
White House officials stand by that estimate and say job creation is only one aspect of the clean-energy push.
“We have a record of success that has created tens of thousands of jobs and is ensuring that America is not ceding these industries to countries like China,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said. “Thanks to the investments we’ve made, these industries will continue to grow, along with the jobs they create.”
One problem is that, unlike other elements of the Recovery Act that injected money into the economy quickly, efforts to develop high-speed rail or electric-car batteries Obama also promoted could take a decade or longer to yield dividends.
Gains in the sector do not necessarily lead to wider employment.
The wind industry, for example, has shed 10,000 jobs since 2009 even as the energy capacity of wind farms has nearly doubled, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has added 75,000 jobs since Obama took office, according to Labor Department statistics.
US federal agencies also have struggled to get stimulus money out the door in a timely manner, even for prosaic efforts that help local governments reduce energy costs.
The rush of funding encouraged private-sector participants to inflate their job-creation projections as they angled for a piece of the action, insiders say.
“They were obviously just guessing,” said Robert Pollin, a University of Massachusetts professor and green-energy supporter who helped the Energy Department sort through loan applications. “If an undergraduate gave me a paper of that quality I would have probably given them a C or a C-plus.”
The high-profile failures of companies that have benefited from federal backing, such as Solyndra and Beacon Power Corp, have given ammunition to Republicans who paint the effort as a costly boondoggle.
They also have targeted the US$500 million job-training program that aims to train workers for skills they would need in a new “green economy.”
The program’s initial results were so poor that the Labor Department’s inspector general recommended last fall that the agency should return the US$327 million that remained unspent.
The numbers have improved somewhat since then, but the department remains far short of its goal of placing 80,000 workers into green jobs by next year.
By the end of last year, about 16,092 participants had found new work in a “green” field, according to the Labor Department — roughly one-fifth of its target. The program also helped employed workers upgrade their skills.
Republican Senator Charles Grassley said the program had reached too few workers to be deemed a success.
“The green jobs-training program just didn’t work. It was a poor investment of tax dollars,” Grassley said in a prepared statement.
The effort has been complicated by confusion over what exactly constitutes a green job.
Last month, the Labor Department estimated there were 3.1 million green jobs in the US as of 2010, using a broad definition that included everything from nuclear power-plant workers to regulators, lobbyists and park rangers.
The Recovery Act used a narrower definition, focusing on wind, solar and other renewable-energy industries and energy-efficiency efforts aimed at reducing consumption.
Using a definition similar to the Labor Department’s, the Brookings Institution estimated that the Las Vegas region that includes the vast solar fields sprouting around Boulder City supported 9,797 “clean jobs” in 2010, accounting for 1.2 percent of the region’s employment.
Local officials do not expect that figure to grow much.
“Will it add a significant number of jobs, enough to make a real dent in our unemployment? No, I don’t see that happening,” Darren said.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past