Hopes for Obama's wave of green jobs fades to gray
November 10, 2010 by Andrew Beatty
President Barack Obama chats with workers during a tour of the Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Company in 2009 in Bedford Heights, Ohio. Obama has put the government's weight and dollars behind a push for green jobs, but in the US heartland there are doubts his drive can revive manufacturing's glory days.
President Barack Obama has put the government's weight and dollars behind a push for green jobs, but in the US heartland there are doubts his drive can revive manufacturing's glory days.
Economic malaise is nothing new to northern Ohio, the recession-blighted region that was once a showcase for American manufacturing splendor.
Pummeled by decades of industrial decline and jobs being shipped overseas, the region's biggest city, Cleveland, has seen its population of nearly a million in 1950 more than halve.
Cruelly dubbed the "mistake by the lake," the now half-empty city received another hammer blow during the recent downturn, which shuttered even more factories and sent unemployment soaring.
"We have seen pretty big declines in manufacturing-sector employment," said Guhan Venkatu, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, in describing a lost decade for the state.
"Some of the jobs will come back as we get deeper into the recovery, but most of them won't."
Yet throughout the latest crisis there has been one beam of hope: That the global race to develop green technology could help resuscitate the region.
With Obama investing billions to help stimulate the green economy, local authorities in Ohio have wagered that a skills base honed over decades could be tapped in that quest.
Lisa Patt-McDaniel, director of the Ohio Department of Development, spends her days trying to help the young shoots of Ohio's green economy break through its ash-laden soil.
The effort is about "investing in future technology that will build on the manufacturing strengths that we already have in the state," she said.
As a result, glass factories that once pumped out products for the auto industry are now focused on making solar panels, while shop floors that produced gears now crank out parts for wind turbines.
According to Patt-McDaniel, one green-tinged technology drive called the "third frontier" has created 9,000 jobs directly and about 45,000 secondary jobs in the eight years it has been in existence.
Still, despite this success, Obama's hopes of ushering in a tidal wave of green-collar jobs to rescue the languishing manufacturing sector are facing strong crosscurrents.
Computerized numerical lathe operator Don Marks (L) shows President Barack Obama how he makes large bolts used for bridge construction during a tour of Cardinal Fasteners & Specialty Company in 2009. Obama has put the government's weight and dollars behind a push for green jobs, but in the US heartland there are doubts his drive can revive manufacturing's glory days.
The Cleveland Fed's Venkatu argues the destruction of manufacturing jobs was caused by a range of factors, many of which apply equally to green manufacturing."It is not simply about the geographic pattern of production, of production moving offshore," said Venkatu.
"It would be very difficult to regain what has been lost in part because these are being driven by economic factors, increasing globalization and improvements in technology."
Between 2000 and 2005 technology advances meant output per manufacturing worker increased around 30 percent, he said.
That increased productivity means companies can employ fewer workers to do the same of work.
It is a trend also seen by John Colm, the head of WIRE-Net -- a nonprofit group that helps manufacturing firms in Cleveland.
"Regions would formerly hope to get a big auto plant because it would put a lot of people to work with only a high school education -- that equation just does not work anymore," he said.
Because Ohio has lost 400,000 jobs in the last four years and continues to lose jobs at a rate of around 17,000 per month, even Patt-McDaniel is careful not to overstate the impact green jobs, or the government, can have.
"I don't think that the third frontier is going to replace all the jobs that are no longer manufacturing jobs in the state," she said.
But that does not mean it is not worth trying.
"You are always creating jobs, and jobs are being let go. The game is trying to create more jobs than are being abolished. That is what we are aiming for."
Colm agreed: "If we still have the firms and they are organized and they are bringing wealth into a region, then that is healthy, that is good. It might be a smaller, leaner company in terms of employment, but that is the new reality."
(c) 2010 AFP
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
28 comments
-
Every black hole contains a new universe: A physicist presents a solution to present-day cosmic mysteries,
216 comments
-
New silicon memory chip developed,
16 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
41 comments
-
length of wire in a coil of known dimensions?
5 hours ago
-
India Engineering Powerhouse
13 hours ago
-
electromagnet core dereference between hard and soft iron
14 hours ago
-
Measuring water pressure in an open tank
May 24, 2012
-
Question from a non-engineer: Pulley Systems
May 24, 2012
-
Formula to calculate psi required to deliver gpm through nozzel
May 23, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Engineering
More news stories
Yahoo kills 'Livestand' just 6 months after debut
(AP) -- Yahoo is killing a tablet magazine called Livestand just six months its debut on the iPad.
1 hour ago |
not rated yet |
0
Yahoo! ditches digital newsstand for iPads
Yahoo! shuttered its fledgling digital newsstand for iPads on Friday in what it said was the start of a product purge intended to make the floundering Internet pioneer more nimble.
2 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Facebook IPO debacle raises investor dander
The spate of complaints and investigations over the Facebook stock offering suggests big institutions had an edge over small investors, raising questions about the process.
3 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Shareholders vote to take China's Alibaba unit private
Minority shareholders of Alibaba.com on Friday voted in favour of a proposal by its parent Alibaba Group Holding to take the Hong Kong-listed online trading unit private, the company said.
3 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
Computers excel at identifying smiles of frustration (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US have trained computers to recognize smiles, and they have turned out to be more adept at recognizing smiles of frustration ...
It's in the genes: Research pinpoints how plants know when to flower
Scientists believe they've pinpointed the last crucial piece of the 80-year-old puzzle of how plants "know" when to flower.
Tongue analysis software uses ancient Chinese medicine to warn of disease
For 5,000 years, the Chinese have used a system of medicine based on the flow and balance of positive and negative energies in the body. In this system, the appearance of the tongue is one of the measures used to classify ...
Dragon makes history with space station docking
The private company SpaceX made history Friday with the docking of its Dragon capsule to the International Space Station, the most impressive feat yet in turning routine spaceflight over to the commercial ...
Most occupational injury and illness costs are paid by the government and private payers
UC Davis researchers have found that workers' compensation insurance is not used nearly as much as it should be to cover the nation's multi-billion dollar price tag for workplace illnesses and injuries. Instead, almost 80 ...
High-speed method to aid search for solar energy storage catalysts
Eons ago, nature solved the problem of converting solar energy to fuels by inventing the process of photosynthesis.
Researchers solve structure of human protein critical for silencing genes
In a study published in the journal Cell on May 24, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) scientists describe the three-dimensional atomic structure of a human protein bound to a piece of RNA that "guides" the pr ...

Nov 10, 2010
Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
let's move on and get over it, his ideas were nothing but dreams while his actions have been nothing but nightmares.
Nov 10, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (8)
You can't expect Obama to wave a wand and instantly clean up the mess that Bush left behind.
Nov 11, 2010
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (6)
In fact, robotic manufacturing plants have come such a long way in the past decade that we're getting to the point that even the slave labour in China isn't cheaper than a robotic plant in Oklahoma. The company my dad works for opted to build a robotic plant in OK with 8 people working at it rather than a human powered manufacturing and assembly plant in China that would have required hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. Know why? Cause it saved them money. Humans are expensive, and robots are getting cheaper every day.
That's 8 jobs rather than hundreds. Those assembly line jobs aren't coming back folks. Ever.
Nov 11, 2010
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (6)
Putting part A into part B just won't cut it anymore.
Nov 11, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (9)
Even if that's what you said you'd do...
Nov 11, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (8)
Nov 12, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Nov 14, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (4)
Making paying jobs for them to do won't make them go back to work if they don't want to.
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
You're effectively complaining about money being spent to create jobs in the US.
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
http://www.rff.or...icy.aspx
The world is lining up to get as much as they can from the American taxpayer and if you have been following the debate just a little you would had known this but just must want to ignore it to keep from calling to much attention to it, and no doubt agree with such a transfer.
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Read the spot where it talks about technology transfer. You've proved my statements correct.
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Nov 15, 2010
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
There are several different competing technologies for solar energy right now: many various types of photovoltaics, artificial photosynthisis, heated liquid salts, solar to hydrogen, algea farming, just to name a few. None of them are really ready for mass market yet, since they can't compete with fosile fuel, nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal on a dollars per kWh basis. Pure market forces will allow the best to rise to the top. If the government subsidies could be set up to favor the most competitive ones in stead of being set up to favor the least competitive ones as it is now, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. They are giving the largest subsidies to the worst performers because that's the only way to get people to buy them. That doesn't encourage innovation or risk taking. It encourages the very stagnation you mentioned in your post.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Mine would be nuclear. The people who profit off energy would recommend coal and gas because it is cheaper to produce.
Market forces don't favor the best, they favor the least expensive.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
For energy production that's currently coal. That's why so much of the world runs on coal power.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Why would I try to create a startup company that makes a good but non-subsidized green technology, if I know that government subsidies for my competition provide them an unfair market advantage?
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The subsidy competition aspect hasn't stopped innovation. It has only driven up taxation. ie: oil and coal subsidies are huge. If we removed those, these green technologies would take hold very rapidly, but the economy would crash out due to how deeply oil infiltrates every sector of commerce.
You have to pick your poison on this argument, neither truly serves your stance.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"If we removed those, these green technologies would take hold very rapidly"
So, the answer is to start another industry falsly supported by government subsidies? Let's make green energy as inefficient and unprofitable as we possibly can, so that it ends up being the new railroads?
I say let the government fund research and keep its fingers out of the market this time. Reward the people trying to innovate by funding the cost of innovation and research. That will create more jobs in the long run, and those jobs will actually create more wealth, not more taxes.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The big opponents to "green jobs" are political opponents. If you look at the majority of the house and senate, the bill killers come from oil and coal states (alaska, tenn, ky, etc.) The conversion process from fossil to renewable or even nuclear would be one large omelette, meaning several eggs, or in this case, job sectors, will be cracked. The difficulty in getting to green jobs is the fact you can't shotgun through the process without really screwing over the people who depend on coal and oil money. To them, "green jobs" are comming from California, Utah, and other states.
So far no one has been able to articulate a plan to go from one to the other without screwing these people over, and until someone can, I don't see the conversion happening, even though we desperately need it. No, it's to make gasoline cost $23 a gallon like it should. But it will take time or we're all screwed
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
We both want to see an end to subsidies, but ending subsidies on all energy sectors will bankrupt the people of the country. So what's the fix? I'm not sure, it's a little out of my depth to comment on it with any authority, but I can speak to what I've done.
I moved into my house with an oil burner and 400 gal tank. Brutally expensive each winter, NH gets damn cold.
So I banked up about 20k and went with a geothermal system for my hot water. Works well, but the initial outlay was huge. Now I pay effectively nothing for hot water, which also heats my house. So that 20k was well invested. For electricity I went with solar. That was another 20k investment. I'm not entirely off the grid but I've cut my utilization down to about $5 a month and I'm not chasing around the wife and kids to shutoff lights and so forth. That's not really affordable to most. And that's the problem.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 2 / 5 (12)
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
If we gave people the ability to afford this 40k outlay and had them pay it back through the tax system over a decade or two, we'd cut our consumption drastically, and we'd revitalize American manufacturing and engineering. The trade debt reduction wouldn't be too shabby either.
Going with a short term subsidy on green tech, while reducing the subsidy on oil and coal will really do a lot of good for the country.
But the temporary subsidy and taxes attached would have to be very well written and not subject to arbitrary modification. That's what I'd like to see. Subsidy to get the prices down, then incentizisation for adoption followed by removal of the subsidy and minor increase in taxation.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 2 / 5 (12)
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (10)
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
If you subsidize the consumer, you have already given a reason for the producer to produce, and now to keep up with demand they have to innovate, and hire more people. That's where the government gets the taxes to pay for the subsidies. Gotta invest in the people, not the companies.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
I'll agree with that. I could make a comment about the difference between Bush and Obama in that regard, but you probably wouldn't like it.
Skeptic, we aren't on the same page here. I'm not talking about pidly little solar panels on top of homes. I'm talking about major energy consumers like office buildings, manufacturing, municipal water systems, agricultural irrigation, etc. I'm talking about renewable energy ON the grid, not off the grid. I'm talking about renewable energy on a comercial scale.
In regard to the above article, the dream of 'green jobs' is a myth. Explain to me how any of the green energy ideas will create American jobs. If it replaces an already existing job it doesn't count as job creation.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
But that's exactly what SH is talking about when he says this,
Subsidies are required to unwind the costs of early adoption of oil and coal without causing too much pain to those who now rely on those technologies.
Nov 16, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Nov 17, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
So you want to talk scale? The conversation doesn't change, simply the timeline for conversion. The difference here is the fact that the energy magnates already own the grid. PSNH won't let me start a solar company and attach it to their grid. I'd have to run all new lines, which would take probably a century to get done for a single state. It's monopoly
Nov 17, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Effectively you're arguing in MaBell's corner, except she's MaCoal/Oil now.
We had to demolish the phone companies in the 80's to even start competition on digital communication. Verizon has re-established dominance and you can already see our infrastructure going to shit when compared to the rest of the world in telecommunications.
The lines need to be taken away from the grid companies or the regulations allowing free use need to be installed. Otherwise the change won't happen until there's no more coal, and no more oil, or they become so expensive that they're unusable. Do you disagree?
Nov 17, 2010
Rank: not rated yet