Advocates and analysts have tried to counter these models with an appeal to history. Last October, for example, a Berkeley economist published a widely reported study claiming that the state's energy efficiency policies had "created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007" in areas like the service sector and retail "while eliminating fewer than 25,000" in the electric power industry. But the empirical study had the same flaw as its theoretical counterparts: It assumed that consumer spending on products like efficient washing machines and home insulation hadn't diverted demand from other parts of the economy. That diversion is likely to have led to diffuse but real job losses somewhere else.
That's not to say that good energy-efficiency policies aren't net job creators—there's actually a strong argument that they are. Many efficiency measures (like adding home insulation or using better lights) more than pay off their initial costs in energy savings, and those savings can be reinvested in the economy to create more jobs. But we can't count on improvements in efficiency to address all of our energy and climate challenges. Many of the other steps we'll need to take—like moving away from traditional coal technology and electrifying the transportation system—will bear real costs.
For many environmental advocates, of course, these discussions are of secondary importance; what matters most is that green jobs will help the planet. They'd be wise to be careful there, too. Indeed, the most successful green jobs program to date is one that no environmentalist wants to brag about: the conversion to corn-based ethanol. A recent United Nations report estimated that the heavily subsidized U.S. ethanol industry provides employment for 154,000 Americans, about five times as many as the wind power industry and nearly 10 times as many as the solar industry. That goes a long way to explaining why, despite mounting evidence showing that corn ethanol is a failure (some would say a disaster) on the environmental front, U.S. policy appears to be on cruise control. At its base, corn ethanol is not a green policy so much as a jobs policy—and its success in that respect has made it almost impossible for the government to change course.
To be certain, there are times when opportunities to solve our energy and employment problems converge. The current recession and recent economic stimulus provided one such case—with capital and labor sitting idle, government can push green efforts without needing to worry so much about distorting the rest of the economy. That means that many of the green investments in the stimulus package will create jobs in the short term and hence accelerate a return to full employment and economic growth. But even that logic has limits. Most serious energy programs take a long time to implement; in its zeal to spend stimulus money on the green sector, Congress directed a significant amount of its limited resources to long-term efforts that won't maximize job creation when it's needed most.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't hope for a future replete with green jobs. Our economy is hurting, and our energy policy is broken. We need a broad-based economic policy that focuses on job creation and an ambitious energy policy that protects the planet and makes us more secure. But if we try to build both efforts around a single goal of creating green jobs, we may fail to deliver over the long term on either front. If we succeed independently on each, though, the green jobs will come.