transition

Shifting from Defense to Green Jobs is Easy

Armand Biroonak — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:01:51 -0700

As progressives call for cuts to defense spending, a big challenge in doing so is addressing job losses that come with eliminating weapons programs. The number of jobs at stake can often be a powerful argument for defense supporters that cannot be ignored. The recent fight over the F-22 and its production in over 40 states is a clear example. But there is a remedy. By shifting defense jobs to the green energy sector, we can both save jobs and address climate change –and it is easier than we think.

To be sure, a sizeable number of jobs are at stake with a cut to defense programs. Case in point is the F-22. Although the numbers may be disputed, the jet’s production involves anywhere between 35,000 and 90,000 total jobs.

However, the majority of jobs in defense production are not actually defense specific. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, “Of all aerospace workers, 40 percent are employed in production; installation, maintenance, and repair; and transportation and material-moving occupations. Many of these jobs are not specific to aerospace and can be found in other manufacturing industries.” Also, other related production occupations include: rigging, systems assemblers, machinists, tool and die makers, inspectors, and sorters.

Compare defense manufacturing jobs to employment at a typical wind turbine company – they match up closely:

Source: Management Information Services, Inc., 2009.

Thus, the value of defense workers is not what they produce, but their skills in production.

Evidence of defense companies making the switch to green technology is occurring. For example, defense powerhouse Lockheed Martin has been moving forward with the research and production of solar and wave energy. In fact, by 2013 Lockheed will open the world’s largest solar energy plant in Arizona. And giant BAE Systems announced this year they will begin development of offshore deepwater wind technology.

So how can this transition occur?

Firstly, the federal government has the ability to redirect and prioritize investments. In 2008 alone, the top 100 defense contractors were paid over $315 billion for their products. With a shift in some of that funding to greater subsidies for green energy companies, boosting public investment and purchasing of green technology, we can speed up the transition to renewable energy.

Secondly, cooperation between government and the private sector can ensure that workers are not left out in the shift. From worker retraining programs both in-house and the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, reorientation of skills can be smooth. Moreover, federal programs to assist affected companies in the switch –similar to those after World War II –should be in place as well.

Overall, this is a win-win strategy. No longer investing in failed, unnecessary weaponry, retaining jobs and making critical investments in green energy, the U.S. again can be on the right track. And considering how military experts agree that climate change is the biggest national security threat, this shift can become a key component to a new 21st century defense policy.

nika b

nika b — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:39:17 -0800

Give Mayors a Role in the Obama Administration

Harry Moroz — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:58:28 -0700

This year's presidential campaign has not involved the "urban decline" rhetoric that rallied politicians - and policymakers - to the cause of cities in the mid 1960s and late 1970s. Instead, as Alex MacGillis pointed out in Sunday's WaPo, Senator Obama

"has adopted the framing increasingly favored by many mayors and urban-policy types - promoting America's cities based on their strengths, not their failings."

This framing involves a slight shift of perspective from urban cores to metro areas. In many ways, this optimistic view of cities as nestled within metros (which aren't as politically, or racially, charged as cities) is productive. Economics backs up the sunny view, as MacGillis notes, with the majority of the nation's GDP generated and of its population and jobs located in metro areas.

But the champions of the metro perspective fail to defend the political relationship - the partnership - that is necessary between the federal government and cities. In interviewing mayors from cities across the country, I have consistently heard that cities will not truly prosper until mayors are provided more substantive opportunities to influence federal policy. This influence would extend beyond calls for more funds for the CDBG and COPS programs to provide mayors and other parochial officials occasions to highlight model local policies and coordinate with state officers and, indeed, with other officials inside their metro area.

Mayors have already joined together in ad hoc groups to meet Kyoto Protocol targets and in official organizations like the Conference of Mayors, but they have little formal means to influence federal policy. If mayors are heard at all, they are heard to be begging for money; if they receive money, they often receive too little or are constrained in its use. Providing mayors a platform for influence, exchange, and coordination -similar to Senator Obama's White House Office of Urban Policy - would capitalize on the economic power of metro areas while restoring urban policy to its proper place in national discourse. At its best, this would mean strengthening the power and authority of mayors at the federal level--something that Obama's transition team should embrace.

In today's WSJ, June Kronholz points out that few mayors become president. They have often been overlooked when they should be empowered. Today, mayors nationwide overwhelmingly want the next presidential administration to reverse that trend.
A recent interview DMI's MayorTV did with Mayor Dannel Malloy of Stamford, CT explores the much-needed political partnership between cities and the federal government. Check it out.

For similar video interviews, visit MayorTV.