The Dirty Jobs Myth

Sunil Sharan, formerly of GE's smart grid program, wrote in the Washington Post today to let the world know that green jobs are a mirage because a smart grid would eliminate meter-reading jobs. Yes, really, that's his argument. I can't decide whether it's worse that his point is unhelpful or that it's misleading.

It's unhelpful for the reason that nothing kills positive action like guilt, and there's no way to read this article as anything but another of the massive attempted guilt trips being run by fossil and nuclear energy interests to portray next generation energy sources as destructive of employment.

Because it isn't like the phenomenon of cutting jobs through automation is limited to renewable energy. For example, I wouldn't recommend blaming environmental sentiments for my local drugstore's decision to install automated checkout lanes and cut staff hours. Which is why it's entirely misleading to look at this narrow segment of a clean energy strategy as if it were representative of the whole.

Indeed, the smart metering systems Sharan is talking about could be, and are being, adopted right now by regular, fossil energy-burning electricity companies that aren't even being forced to do it.

Having worked from 2000 to 2006 at Echelon, another smart metering technology firm, Sharan knows that we aren't talking about some brand new, science fiction device being pushed by greens on an unwilling marketplace. Cutting overhead by reducing headcount isn't a regrettable flaw, it's part of the sales pitch for his product. The desirability of firing people as a business objective is why a mainstream company like GE is in the smart metering business in the first place--they know there's a ready market for it. The adoption of smart metering will continue for exactly that reason even if every environmental activist in the country suddenly starts cracking pointless Al Gore jokes and not giving a damn.

Consider again Sharan's assumption that most of the manufacturing will be done overseas. Who decided that? Not me, not you, not anyone sitting in Congress right now, not Al Gore. GE has apparently made this decision already for the reason that they don't care how many jobs get created in the United States and I doubt they're above attempting a misdirection strategy to shift blame elsewhere. This, too, is not unique to the energy industry, nor any part of the energy industry, not even the part of it that might improve the US' carbon footprint.

Yet in spite of the fact that a remake of the energy system would probably shut down some jobs that were no longer necessary, it would create a lot more jobs all over the country than the status quo, and save money for everyone through energy efficiency:

... Similarly, a study by the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts economics department looked at the combined effects of the House-passed climate control bill and last year's economic stimulus law. The latter included tens of billions to encourage alternative energy investment.

Around 2.5 million new jobs would be created, this study concluded. But with a projected 800,000 jobs lost in connection with the declining use of fossil fuels, there would be a net 1.7 million new jobs, it said. ...

Then while many studies over a number of years have concluded that the clean energy sector has a higher labor intensity overall, increased automation has already cut jobs in the coal sector. ZOMG! Even our beloved coal sector, which generates the dirtiest energy possible, cuts jobs without anyone asking them to! Real breaking news, that is.

And let's talk about coal. The choice isn't between clean electricity and nothing, it's between clean electricity and (mostly) coal, or less abundant natural gas. Any coal vein is eventually going to run out, like any other finite, fossil energy source, but wind and sunlight are going to be around for the long haul. Consider the case of Coal River Mountain, which Massey Energy wants to level for the coal underneath it, while others want to keep the mountain and put a wind installation on top of it:

... Mining the area could produce nearly 200 direct jobs and several hundred more spinoff positions. But those jobs would disappear when the coal is mined out in about 17 years, according to the report prepared by Downstream Strategies, a Morgantown-based environmental consulting firm.

Construction of a windmill operation would generate more than 275 temporary construction jobs, but then create 40 direct and more than 30 indirect jobs that could essentially last indefinitely, according to the report.

"After this construction phase, mountaintop removal jobs will surpass local industry wind scenario jobs for a short time," the report concludes. "Then, only eight years after the mountaintop removal mines close and in all successive years, the cumulative number of wind-related jobs will exceed mountaintop removal jobs." ...

As mentioned farther down in the article, locating production facilities in the local town for clean energy equipment would further improve the job outlook for wind. Also, and this is important, the health and well-being of the community would be far better served with an intact mountain and a wind industry. Coal costs more than it earns in terms of health and natural resource destruction, though the costs are spread throughout a community among people who often have less political power than the few wealthy individuals that profit from it.

Let me put that another way: Producing electricity from coal, which we do right now, steals from often poor coal-mining (or coal burning) communities in order to line the pockets of greedy energy company executives.

And while coal mining is limited to regions where there are coal deposits, next generation energy technology can be produced more or less anywhere. Even in places where there's coal, or where there used to be coal, and now there's just a town with a hole in the ground and no good jobs left.

It is important to keep track of what types of jobs are created vs. lost (pdf) (via) so retraining efforts are applied to best effect, there are more jobs per MW (pdf) in renewable electricity. Though tracking such information and adjusting policy accordingly is just responsible governance. It should go without saying that the government should be responsible about retraining and stimulating replacement industries, even if it often doesn't, for reasons having nothing to do with smart grids. In the same way, many companies often cut jobs through automation or offshoring, also for reasons having nothing to do with smart grids.

In the end, the biggest myth Sharan perpetuates is that the high employment path is the do-nothing option, in which we now consider it good news when the economy loses jobs more slowly.

Rather, the path to more jobs is in creating new industries that will help us avoid the limits and harms of fossil fuels. Which should be obvious, because creating new industries is the way the US economy has gained most of its jobs before. Using innuendo to steer the country away from one of the most promising of new global industries is a grave disservice.

Update: Edited to reflect that Mr. Sharan is no longer with GE, and that GE deals in more energy industry sectors than nuclear.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future