The Government's "Green" Jobs


Jonathan A. Lester, president of Continental Economics Inc., has written an insightful critique of artificial stimulus to wind power and the like (“Gresham’s Law of Green Energy,” in the Cato Institute’s journal Regulation, Winter 2010–2011, pp. 12–18). Like similar critiques, however, it could benefit from better placement of emphasis.

Lester laments the wasteful diversion of resources into uses that would otherwise not pay (waste, that is, barring untypically sound “externality” arguments). Furthermore, as for jobs created by subsidy- or regulation-based spending on green energy, the money so spent would have to come from somewhere. It would necessarily be diverted from spending on other public or private activities, where jobs otherwise created or maintained would be lost.

Such arguments put too much emphasis on spending itself relative to the allocation of real resources, including labor. Would the workers newly drawn into green jobs come from elsewhere, or would they have otherwise remained unemployed? Do green subsidies, tax breaks, and regulations really remedy economy-wide unemployment exceeding the frictional unemployment of normal times?

Unemployment in a recession reflects discoordination. Mutually advantageous transactions among workers, employers, and consumers are somehow frustrated. That is what needs attention. Putting emphasis on spending and its destinations is superficial. As W.H. Hutt used to say, spending is a measure of transactions accomplished; it is not what drives transactions.

Now, what impedes transactions in a recession? Usually or often it is a deficient quantity of money in relation to desires to hold it at the prevailing price and wage level. Sometimes (as now, apparently) the demand to hold money has increased, even if only passively or by default, because individuals and firms are especially uncertain about what transactions would be worthwhile. Adding to the usual uncertainty about business is uncertainty about taxation, government deficits and debt, complicated and costly regulations, and other government interventions, including unintended consequences of earlier ones.  This is what needs attention, not the allocation of spending between green and other employments.

Recession is not something to be remedied by shifting resources around. Besides channeling resources into relatively inefficient uses, artificially favoring green energy obscures the true nature of recession.

Share This



re this: "Recession is not something to be remedied by shifting resources around."

Actually, one remedy for recession IS to shift resources around -- to places where there is a market demand. If there is pent-up demand for, say, machine tools, and a glut of relatively cheap energy, then diverting the resources that could be used to produce machine tools into producing high-priced "green" energy will make a recession worse.

Expecting politicians, who don't understand economics and who are following their political self-interest, to shift resources around to where they are most needed and do so better than a free market is to fail to engage with reality.

Ed Burley

Truth be told, there is no reason to "develop" alternative energy since we've had both for at least 4 decades. I remember here in Michigan solar panels back in the 70s, supplemented by wood-burning stoves.

I just read an article about a family who bought their own windmill, placed it on top of a 120 ft. tower, and are supplying enough power for all their needs. So, if there's a market for windmills that are that efficient, why would the government need to subsidize this industry?

I'll tell you why; so that the PUBLIC UTILITIES can try to utilize what is a limited, personal, residential source of power and exploit it into a Corporately controlled resource.

I say, let the market decide, and let each individual determine the best source of energy for their needs - solar, wind, wood, natural gas, LP gas, fuel oil, hot-water, etc. Keep the gov't out of it. They'll just muck it up anyway.

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.