At the height of its construction this past summer, the largest solar plant in the United States employed 400 workers. Now that it’s complete, the DeSoto Solar Center in Arcadia, Florida, stakes claim to two – yes two – full time “green jobs.”
The plant’s parts were almost exclusively manufactured abroad — solar panels from the Philippines, steel mountings in Canada, electrical boxes in Germany.
If national policy continues to subsidize and mandate expensive, inefficient and unreliable energy sources, this is only the beginning.
We hear a lot these days about the millions of jobs “green” and “clean” energy will bring. Politicians of all political stripes talk about “green jobs” as a way to jumpstart the economy.
Yet, these jobs take huge amounts of taxpayer funds to create — and even more hard-earned funds to sustain. In fact, most “green jobs” would simply not exist without sustained taxpayer subsidies and government mandates.
Through no fault of any one individual or any single policy, America is facing historic levels of unemployment. Nearly one in ten Americans are out of work. This 26-year high is the reason President Obama and a host of business and labor leaders, academics and elected officials gather today in Washington for a Jobs Summit.
The president and the coalition should be commended for working to craft solutions that will help put Americans back to work. However, promoting even further government spending and mandates is not a commonsense answer toward putting our economy on a path to recovery and prosperity.
According to the White House, the summit will take a deeper look at “green jobs.” The term “green job” is often used by policymakers and the media to describe jobs in the heavily subsidized renewable energy sector — namely jobs in the wind and solar areas.
If government provides significant subsidies and guaranteed market share to renewable power sources, the thinking goes, capital will ultimately support renewable energy technologies. As a result, proponents claim, this will create millions of “green” and “clean” energy jobs.
To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with a “green job.” However, if we rely on jobs that are wholly dependent upon taxpayer subsidies, consumers, taxpayers, the economy and our nation’s ability to compete in the global marketplace will suffer.
Policymakers in Washington often cite Europe’s experience with “green jobs” as a blueprint to follow. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has conducted extensive research to examine three of the most frequently referenced countries – Spain, Denmark and Germany. In each case, massive taxpayer subsidies created few jobs, but at a very high price.
Since 2000, Spain has committed more than $750,000 for each “green job” it’s created. In Denmark, each wind energy related job cost Danish taxpayers between $90,000 and $140,000.
The German government has directed $240,000 in public funds per solar power worker.
But are these jobs sustainable without the implicit backing of the government?
Spain scaled back its subsidies for solar energy and the entire industry collapsed. The study also found that only one in 10 “green jobs” were permanent.
In Germany, the central government is now undergoing a complete review of renewable energy subsidies based on their skyrocketing price tag and the financial commitment required to sustain its solar industry.
Sound familiar? A similar scenario unfolded in Arcadia, Florida.
Government spending – the taxes you pay – can create temporary jobs. The question is: At what cost? If Spain, Denmark and Germany are any indication, the “greening” of the U.S. economy will come at a very high price, only prolonging this current economic downturn and increasing energy prices across the board for struggling families, seniors and small businesses.
Thomas J. Pyle is president of the Institute for Energy Research, a Washington, DC market-based energy think tank.
