An article from Forbes, August 4 edition, really struck a nerve with me. Joel Kotkin’s article, “Green Jobs Can’t Save the Economy” tries to make the point that promising that green jobs will help our ailing economy is just “grasping at straws,” and there is proof that this will not only not work, but will be harmful to our overall joblessness and the economy.

I always like to take a look at opposing viewpoints, so I was very interested in the sources that Kotkin provided for his opinion.

I started here by going over each of his sources of research or study and how he uses those in his piece to shape his argument:

1st Source – Kotkin states “Indeed a recent study by Sam Sherraden at the center-left New America Foundation finds that, for the most part, green jobs constitute a negligible factor in employment…”

This study is not about green job growth, but rather America’s “green trade deficit.” Meaning that America depends more on foreign production of green goods rather than producing green products ourselves.

This is a wholly different argument but one, in my opinion, that further illustrates the need for America to provide more green jobs  in the form of industry and manufacturing rather than outsourcing overseas.

I can say that in other articles, op-ed pieces and Fox News guest spots, Sherraden does come down on green economic recovery and job growth, but this is mostly opinion based on the fact that the U.S. has been outsourcing its manufacturing for many years, and therefore if it continues to do so, we will not see real job growth at all in the green sector.

Again, a slightly different argument than what we’re talking about here, but it must be said that, green recovery has been stated to come in part by the manufacturing of green goods in this country, as well as the selling and marketing of them.

2nd Source – Kotkin states that California is a perfect example of how the promise of economic recovery in the form of green job growth is nothing but hype, “One recent study found that the state was creating some 10,000 green jobs annually before recession.”

Before I respond to his source, I must say that it is highly misrepresentative for Kotkin to discuss California’s job loss in the last year as an indicator that green job growth will not be a factor in helping grow the economy.

California has been one of the states hardest hit by this recession and that is not the fault of green jobs, but rather a set of factors that have nothing to do with green jobs.

It is also way too soon for the recovery funds to show any sign of help right now and it has been forecasted that we will not see its effects to start until next year and not in full swing for another couple of years.

But to speak to his second source of reference to make his argument, the “study” Kotkin refers to is really nothing but an editorial piece where the author clearly states that his statements and conclusions are his opinion and this is not an actual study at all.

Despite this not being an actual study, Kotkin totally gets it wrong. In fact, in his commentary David Smith writes,

“The energy sector–green technology in particular–promises to be a significant job creator. The Pew Charitable Trust recently released a study that said the renewable energy industry has grown steadily over much of the past decade and added jobs at more than twice the national rate. Although there have been some failed ventures and layoffs, the Bureau of Labor statistics show oil and gas extraction jobs jumped 28 percent from 2003 to 2009.

Jobs connected in particular to green technology, energy innovation, refining and transportation will be high-growth areas. According to the Pew study, California led the nation in all green job categories measured. Before the recession, the California economy was adding more than 10,000 green jobs a year. I expect the pace to pick up and meet or exceed previous levels by mid-2011.”

Did Kotkin actually read this article?

To get a firmer understanding of the current recession and forecasts for the future, I downloaded the actual study that was put out by Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management (of which David Smith is Associate Dean) and Beacon Economics. You can download this yourself here.

You can read that in fact, in complete opposition to Kotkin’s statement on California, this study states that California’s economy has had considerable growth over the U.S. economy -

“Overall, the state economy outgrew
the U.S. economy by one full percentage point
annually — 3.6% to 2.7%. The state grew faster (or declined
slower) than the nation in almost every sector.”

It does not state, however that this growth is or is not due to green job creation.

Without offering a source, Kotkin moves on to say that companies are too intimidated by California laws to bring manufacturing for solar cells in the state. In fact, California has one of the highest, if not the highest, number of PV cell manufacturers in the country as listed by the Energy Source Guide.

This is also another misrepresentation because the idea is that green job creation is tied to funding more of these industries and therefore bring more of these jobs. So while there may not be sufficient numbers of these companies yet, the whole point is to bring about more green businesses to create more green jobs.

3rd Source - Using the study “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources” is perhaps the most cohesive reference Kotkin has used to make his argument.

This study uses Spain as an example of how it can all go wrong when renewable energy is funded by the government.

Tracey de Morsella from the Green Economy Post does a great job in arguing against this study here so I won’t attept to reinvent what she has done but rather refer you to this article for a very detailed and thoughtful debunking of this study, to include Spain’s official response in opposition to this study.

I come to the part of Kotkin’s article where I move away from any in-depth analysis of his sources because he moves away from green job creation helping our economy, to an argument against environmentalists.

While environmentalism and green job creation may not be mutually exclusive, they should not really be confused with one another.

We shouldn’t be talking about green job creation and the supposed exaggerations of global warming by environmentalists because they are really separate arguments. In confusing the two Kotkin relies on heated debates and scare tactics rather than the issue at hand – creating more jobs that will, in turn, create a better environment.

In this economy, is it really wise to turn people off of job creation – green or otherwise? In arguing against green job growth, Kotkin is arguing for the status quo.

And look where that has got us…