Image by Monica’s Dad via Flickr

There is no doubt that former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate on Wednesday but there were many instances where the Republican nominee played fast and loose with the figures. One very obvious example was his description of how a section of the stimulus bill was used to invest in green jobs over the 4 years that President Obama has been in office.

Specificially Romney aimed his fire at the green energy loan guarantee program which was designed to help boost job growth by providing loans to green energy businesses. The presidential candidate stated that half of those that had been invested in had “gone out of business”:

You put $90 billion into green jobs…And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business.”

It is not surprising to learn that this statement was nowhere the true percentage. Rather than the 50% failure rate described by Romney, it is actually only NINE PERCENT. In the 33 loans which have been granted bu the DOE 1705 program, only three have been given to companies which subsequently stopped trading. The three businesses in question were the much publicized Solyndra, as well as Beacon and Abound.

If you look at the amounts closely, these three companies could cost the government $600million, only 1 per cent of the total investment of $60billion in green energy. Romney backtracked on his 50% failure rate soon after the debate as Michael Grunwald tweeted that a member from the Romney camp said after the debate:

“Mitt didn’t mean to say half the stimulus-funded green firms failed.”

It begs the question then, what was Romney actually trying to say? His facts were certainly not well researched that’s all I will mention. Thanks to Mother Jones for these facts

Bright Green Talent is a valuable resource for green jobs. Find your green career on this website. We are dedicated to a healthy planet, healthy society and a healthier you.

Follow me on Google+ here: +Paul Hannam
Read more about Paul
Paul has also written lots of articles for Bright Green Leadership.

Image by Duke Energy via Flickr

A new piece of bipartisan legislation, supported by Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Jeff Bingaman and Benjamin Cardin, could lead to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries, according to both its authors and a number of industry conservation interest groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the US Green Building council. Section 179D of the tax code is a an already present tax deduction for energy efficient retrofits but when passed in 2005, the law made it very expensive for building owners to utilize it. The new legislation entitled the Commercial Building Modernization Act is designed to to rectify this. Jeffrey D. DeBoer, the president and CEO of Real Estate Roundtable stated:

“The Snowe-Bingaman legislation is exactly the type of forward-thinking policy America needs right now. Saving energy is cheaper than producing energy. Modest incentives such as a reformed 179D tax deduction give us great bang-for-the-buck in terms of creating jobs, saving businesses billions of dollars.”

In addition to saving businesses money, the act would raise private funds for tech neutral retrofits and allowing the pre-existing tax reduction to be used for more than partial building retrofits like it has done for the last seven years. The National Resources Defense Council’s associate director of government affairs Franz Matzner praised the plan:

“This is a win-win for the economy and the environment. This bill will give the right people the right tools they need to make our nation’s buildings more efficient, allowing building owners, architects and engineers and other stakeholders to help us reduce carbon pollution.”

As well as improving efficiency in energy, it will decrease dependence on oil and improve security too. The analysis done by the likes of the US Green Building Council (USGBC) think the legislation can help create as many as 77,000 new job opportunities in the service, construction and manufacturing sectors. The USGBC’s senior vice president for Global Policy and Law Roger Platt feels the Snowe-Bingaman Act could be just the beginning of a bright green energy future for the United States:

“This bipartisan legislation demonstrates how tax policy supporting energy efficiency and green building concepts in the places we live and work can create jobs and support innovation in the private sector. Saving money and creating better buildings makes good sense from any perspective, and the potential of 77,000 new jobs and billions in energy savings is just the tip of the iceberg.”

For more information on Green Jobs, look throught the Bright Green Talent website, an excellent resource for those interested in green careers.

Follow me on Google+ here: +Paul Hannam
Read more about Paul
Paul has also written lots of articles for Bright Green Leadership.

Image by Dominic’s pics via Flickr

With all the criticism surrounding the Obama’s administration’s focus on green job creation, I thought I would look at some of the many positives which detractors tend to forget about the green economy in the United States. Here are 5 reasons why people should be optimistic.

1. 3 times as many jobs are created in the green industry compared with the same amount of investment in the Fossil Fuel Industries. Only 5.3 jobs are created per million dollars spent on Fossil Fuels compared to an average of 16.7 jobs per million dollars in the green sector.

2. Trade balance is way in the positive for sectors of the green economy. In the solar power industry alone, components such as for solar heating and cooling have led to a trade surplus of $1.9billion with many being exported to China. You don’t have to look at the numbers for the oil industry to know the massive negative trade balance we possess from importing petroleum and related products.

3. In an economy where there hasn’t been a great deal of growth, the green economy is one of the few bright spots, and now employs nearly 3million people across the United States. Other subsidized industries such as the fossil fuel energy sector are not showing anywhere near as much job growth. In addition, the requirement for higher standards in cars and trucks set out by the Federal government will mean that there will be a greater requirement for skilled workers, above the 150,000 workers employed in green car production already in the US.

4. Career prospects are a great deal higher in green industries. 41% of green jobs in this country have at least medium term career or training opportunities, and a larger percentage of them (26%) are in skilled manufacturing jobs in contrast to the economy at large (9%). As well as career considerations, wages are 13% higher than the average in the rest of the US economy, with median wages at $46,343, nearly $8000 above the country’s average. They are not all going to highly educated workers either with half of all green jobs hiring those who have spent less than four years at college getting a degree.

5. Lastly, green jobs benefit small businesses as there is a high percentage (91%) of small firms with fewer than twenty workers, taking part in construction projects associated with energy efficiency retrofits.

Find out more about how you can get a green job at Bright Green Talent, a great resource for careers in the green sector.

Follow me on Google+ here: +Paul Hannam
Read more about Paul
Paul has also written lots of articles for Bright Green Leadership.

Image by Ojie Paloma via Flickr

It seems quite astonishing to me that one of the major sectors of industry in the US which is seeing growth is being attacked and undermined by certain special interests. These special interests have a massive influence over congressman and women and have led to the green energy sector being in a situation it should not see itself in.

Despite having record profits, the fossil fuel energy companies have no doubt been behind many of the attempts to undermine clean energy as they see the industry as a threat in the future. The congressmen and women pedalling their line of argument and proposing bills like the “No More Solyndras Act” know they won’t be successful in passing legislation but they are trying to plant a seed of doubt in people’s minds.

They know that public opinion is against them with some recent polls suggesting that as many as 60 percent of the electorate would like congress to look at more ways of encouraging efficiency in energy and more subsidies for clean energy. For certain politicians to be listening to special interests on this matter then, it is politically very risky.

The fact is as well, clean energy has evidently been very beneficial for the US economy and trying to stunt growth in an industry which is growing fast is contrary to the interests of the United States. Remember there are 3 million US citizens who rely on the green indistry for work now and this is only going to increase in years to come.

Still, the attack on green energy seems to go on unabated with wind subsidies seemingly at risk because of the political machinations in Washington. The American Wind Energy Institute believes that as many as 37,000 jobs, both directly and indirectly connected to the wind energy industry, could be lost if the energy tax credit is not renewed.

In a time where every job is precious and the economy is still recovering slowly, to take away growth in one sector because of politics would really be devastating.

If you are interested in working in the green sector but don’t know where to start, check out Bright Green Talent’s job list, we are a high class resource for green sector employment and dedicated to a healthier planet, healthier society and a healthy you.

Follow me on Google+ here: +Paul Hannam
Read more about Paul
Paul has also written lots of articles for Bright Green Leadership.

Image by United Nations Photo via Flickr

The California Public Utilities Commission has said that the state of California has saved approximately 5,900 gigawatt-hours of electricity for the fiscal year 2010-11. The consequence of a vast array of energy conservation programs approved by the commission, the amount is the equivalent of the power that could be created by 2 sizeable power plants and the amount of energy used by at least 600,000 homes over a year.

The report by the commission uses estimates from the investor owned utilities and states that the savings amounted to a cut in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 3.8 tons, which the commission described as the same as taking 700,000 automobiles off the road in California.

Breaking down the numbers further, one of the most notable statistics is how the majority of the savings came through more energy efficient lighting. 59% of the amount of energy saved came from this one action alone. In terms of economic sectors, 34% of the savings came from residential districts, 12% of electricity saved was in the industrial and agricultural sectors but by far the most energy efficient was the commercial sector, with 55% of the reductions.  The head of the California Public Utilities Commission, president Michael Peevey stated about the report:

“Through our energy efficiency efforts, California has avoided the need to build two new power plants and has helped green our golden state. The state’s consumers should applaud themselves for embracing energy efficiency, which helps to lower energy bills and also benefits the environment.”

Again, it shows what really can be done if states and governments can focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. California has set an example for many other states, and countries for that matter, in how to tackle the issue of climate change. Read more on Bright Green Talent to find out how to get a career in the green sector, we are a prime resource for green jobs. This website aims for a healthy planet, healthy society and a healthy you.

Follow me on Google+ here: +Paul Hannam
Read more about Paul
Paul has also written lots of articles for Bright Green Leadership.

Image by Cain and Todd Benson via Flickr

The US Election campaign has been characterized by the two sides exchanging verbal volleys in regards to the economy and the pros and cons of the green business sector. With green jobs and the lack of growth being a particular favorite of the Romney campaign, it is slightly ironic that the highest growth figures for jobs in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors came in Red states or swing states.

The report “Clean Economy,” (which I have talked about in a previous blog post) written up by DBL Investors in San Francisco, SolarCity and BrightSource, shows statistics of the top ten states in the United States which are showing the greatest growth in the green sector. Out of the ten, only two are Blue states, or traditionally Democrat voting, while 4 out of the ten are Red states that normally vote Republican in election years. The 4 remaining states were technically swing states. It shows again that the debate over green jobs is very much election posturing and that in the main local and state authorities really don’t share the same views as their compatriots on Capitol Hill. The report makes out that people should be focusing much less what is going on in Washington and more on the positive jobs growth on the state and local level:

“We need to hear less from Capital Hill, and more from Main Street.”

More interesting statistics in the report show even greater affiliation between the Republican states and green jobs. If we go by workforce alone in each states, 6 out of the top ten states with the biggest green workforces are Republican, with merely 3 being Democrat and the final one a swing state, although it must be noted that the biggest workforces are in states with the largest populations in general. Nearly half of the fastest growing states for green jobs are in swing states (7 out of 17)

So why are politicians making such a big issue of it when it can clearly be seen that many states, regardless of affiliations to one party one another, are trying to create jobs in all areas? Conservative governors such as New Jersey’s Chris Christie and even Texas’s Rick Perry are extolling the virtues of green jobs simply because they are jobs, the more that are created in any sector the better for the overall economy.

Image by seier+seier via Flickr

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using increasingly sophisticated methods to study how green jobs are rising in a vast array of different industries in the United States. By classifying jobs that are environmentally friendly in their practices as well as in producing green goods and services (GGS), the bureau can very precisely monitor the rise of green jobs in certain industiral sectors.

The BLS separated industries into four categories including environmental education and training, energy efficiency, conservation/pollution reduction and renewable energy generation. In a wide ranging report set out by the BLS, studying over a decade of green jobs growth, it had noted that the construction industry had one of the highest percentage of green jobs in the country.

By 2009, a significant 38% of the sector had jobs related to green goods and services (or GGS), which is approximately 820,700 different establishments across the US. Certainly, green building construction is something which is both environmentally friendly and cost effective and that is why there has been so many green jobs created in this industry. Energy efficiency has a big role in why construction has considered green options more than other sectors. For example, one company McGraw-Hill construction, have published estimates of US green non-residential building construction:

Image by Jeremy Levine Design via Flickr

I do get a bit sick and tired of people going on about the lack of growth in green jobs. What I always do when I am asked about the issue is to refer back to the Brookings Institution and Battelle’s Technology Partnership Practice report of July 2011, entitled the Sizing the Clean Economy” which outlines how between 2003 and 2010, there has been remarkable growth in the green energy sector in particular.

The report focused on the areas of solar, fuel cell, smart grid, battery, wind and biofuel companies across the US, and it shows pretty clearly that green jobs grew far faster than any other sector of the economy between 2003 and 2010. The two most significant numbers from the report come from the solar and wind energy sectors. During the seven year period, solar saw a 18.4% rise in jobs while wind had an equally impressive rate of growth at 14.9%

Throughout the report there are signficant statistics that show that green sectors which had very few jobs in 2003, had grown enormously even during the recession which followed the credit crunch. In fact the”clean economy” as a whole grew as much as 8.3% between 2008 and 2009 during the most diffuclt times for the US economy.

This massive growth means that by July 2011, there were 2.7million jobs in the clean economy which takes into account a whole range of industry sectors including clean energy, waste disposal, automobile manufacturing, conservation and agriculture. They also have great financial rewards for workers too as wages in clean energy are 13% higher than the national average. As an example of the benefits of the green sector, three energy efficiency programs alone hired nearly 25,000 US workers, including many who worked in construction which is an industry in desperate need of support.

I think it is disingenuous for people to argue that the focus on green jobs by the Obama administratrion isn’t paying off, especially when the benefits for the economy go well beyond the green sector. Other areas of the economy at large have also benefited from the focus on green jobs and going forward the benefits for the economy are very clear to see.

Follow me on Google+ here: +Paul Hannam
Read more about Paul
Paul has also written lots of articles for Bright Green Leadership.

Bright Green Talent is a fantastic resource for green jobs. Search on our website today.

Image by Caveman Chuck Coker via Flickr

The political policy issue of ‘Tax Credits’ for renewable technologies has been making its rounds in Washington again. Given the significant increase in wind generation recently, the two sides of the political spectrum have been passionately arguing their case. The conservatives hold dearly to their principle of allowing the free market to decide the rise and fall of different developing renewable technologies, where as President Obama has been using the jobs created by increased wind generation, to highlight the overall benefits of the evolving green economy.

The irony of talking about a level playing field (i.e. no tax credits for renewables) can be put in perspective, by highlighting the fact that conventional fossil based technologies, and expensive renewable technologies do not compete on a level playing field in the first place. One of the reasons that explain (partially) such high costs of renewable electricity generation is that we do not include the negative environmental effects (economists call it ’Negative Externalities’) of electricity generation from coal and natural gas. Specifically, due to the absence of a robust carbon market on a national scale, the monetary value of the green attribute (low carbon) of renewable technologies are not integrated with their generational cost. If both fossil based and renewable technologies are analyzed under a true cost (generation and carbon externality) framework, the difference in costs between both options will reduce. Hence, there clearly is no level playing field between fossil and renewable technologies under the current framework, which significantly affects the deployment of renewables in the future.

Moreover, tax credits are available for wind and photovoltaic technologies in a number of states inside the country. Tax credits (at a consistent rate) do not distinguish among the different types of renewable technologies, and hence from a free market perspective they present the more preferable option. A generic tax credit structure is better than Carve Outs and Banded Renewable Markets, when one compares the political ideologies of policy structures. There are carve outs for certain renewable technologies (e.g. solar) in many states, which regulates that a certain amount of energy must be generated from a specific resource. States with such carve outs need to comply with the regulation, sometimes at the expense of economic efficiency.

In the renewable market, each Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) represents a mega-watt hour (MWh) of electricity, and it is awarded to renewable generators in many states. At times, to increase the generation from a specific resource, two REC’s are awarded to one mega-watt hour of electricity from specific resources. Such a structure is called a ‘Banded REC’ structure, where particular technologies are favored over others (by awarding them additional certificates, and more compensation). The ‘Tax Credits’ are neither the carveout nor the banded REC in their working, and they rather present a generic financial incentive structure without favoring one renewable technology over other similar options.

Besides the number the jobs the green revolution helps create, the benefits of long term energy security derived from increased renewable generation – clearly present a compelling case to increase wind generation. Among the many renewable technologies in the market today, wind is by far the most deployed, and has a much higher potential to be economically competitive with the conventional grid resources. In many parts of the country, wind already is economically competitive with grid resources, providing a pathway for the sustainability of electricity generation in the impending future.

There is nothing wrong with the policy structure of tax credits.

Author: Dr. Deepak Sivaraman (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)

Bright Green Talent is a fantastic resource for green jobs. Search on our website today.

Image by eXtension Farm Energy via Flickr

Designed to capitalize on the Romney campaign’s blunder on suggesting that wind energy credits should not be extended, Barack Obama’s campaign released a new video online today using the owner of a small business in Michigan as an example of how green jobs are being created successfully and are revitalizing the economy.

The video profiled a Michigan man who owned a small wind farming business which is prospering, and it was utilized as a demonstration to see that such renewable energy programs could very well improve job growth in certain areas of the United States. It is no coincidence that wind was the renewable energy source used for the video as Romney had been criticized even by his own Republicans for suggesting that tax credits for wind power should not be extended beyond the end of the year.

Senator Chuck Grassley and Governor of the State Terry Brandstad have stated they wre hoping Romney’s campaign team were mistaken in suggesting that the Republican nominee did not back continuing with the wind tax credit scheme. This belief was however blown out of the water when a statement from Romney’s campaign reiterated the former governor of Massachussetts stance on the matter. They said they would:

“Allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits.”

For Obama, this is obviously the biggest political open goal he could hope for and his ad today is demonstrative of the fact he wants to take full advantage in the state of Iowa which is truly up for grabs in November. Using Obama’s green energy loan program as the reason for his success, Steve Smiley, the wind power business owner said:

“The loan we’ve got helped us sustain 8 to 10 people plus probably half a dozen sub-suppliers.”

Obama’s campaign team then released a statement to say why the President’s green energy policy was so important to the United States economy:

“President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy is making America more energy independent by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and investing in renewable oil.”

This is an ad obviously trying to appeal to those both on the right and on the left of the political spectrum, courting left wingers with the green policy initiative while promoting energy independence to those on the right. It looks a pretty shrewd piece of political manouvering to me.

Follow me on Google+ here: +David Tully
Read more about David and green jobs
David has also written lots of articles for Best Website Builder HQ.