With Labor Day on the horizon, it was another grim week in green-job news, as a solar panel manufacturer in California’s Silicon Valley shut down and laid off 1,100 workers.
Fremont-based Solyndra, which received a controversial $535-million Energy Department loan guarantee as part of the federal government’s $787-billion economic stimulus package, announced Wednesday that it is closing its factory and filing for bankruptcy protection.
The closure is “a blow to the Obama administration’s effort to create green jobs [and] a high-profile failure for a federal stimulus program that gives loan guarantees to green-tech manufacturers,” the San Francisco Chronicle’s David Baker reported. Plus, two other American solar companies, Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt, sought bankruptcy protection in August.
Solyndra’s demise is an opportunity to revisit an article I criticized last week, and to explore more fully the shortcomings in too much of the press coverage of the green-jobs story—namely, there’s far too much bickering about the numbers and not enough exploration of the various reasons why the US is not creating as many green jobs as advocates, both within government and in the private sector, think is possible.
Last week, I addressed a piece by the San-Francisco based Bay Citizen, which ran in The New York Times under the headline, “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.” The piece called the green employment targets presented by President Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown “a pipe dream.”
I faulted the Bay Citizen for cherry picking gloomy details from a recent assessment of the “clean economy” in metropolitan areas nationwide and ignoring some of its relatively optimistic findings. On the other hand, I also faulted other critics of the article for characterizing the assessment as rosier than it was. The report, by the Brookings Institute and Battelle’s Technology Partnership Practice, said that growth in the clean-energy sector was, in particular, “torrid.” Yet strong annual growth rates among small companies belie the small number of total positions generated. Overall, the clean economy created half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, which is not fast enough to meet Obama and Brown’s targets.
The problem with The Bay Citizen’s article was that it oversold the nut, arguing not that green-job creation will be arduous, but that it is impossible. One can see what looks like The New York Times’s effort to temper that argument in its decision to change the headline from the original, “Green Jobs Predictions Proving a Pipe Dream,” to, “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.”
Whatever the case, Aaron Glantz, who wrote the piece, penned a blog post for The Bay Citizen’s website responding to his critics, which contained a lot of the nuance that his story didn’t (apparently his editors cut a lot). For instance, he presented additional quotes from one of his sources, Obama’s former green-jobs advisor, Van Jones. In the article, Jones came off sounding like he’d grown frustrated by the clean economy’s lack of growth. In fact, he’d grown frustrated with Republicans thwarting progress, by blocking a mandatory limit on climate-changing greenhouse-gas emissions, for example.
But Glantz also pointed out that his article did, in fact, explore a “variety of factors that have prevented the [clean-tech] sector from delivering broad-based employment.” In one case, he noted, “a $186 million weatherization program paid for by the stimulus has been slowed by federal prevailing wage provisions and delivered the equivalent of only 538 jobs in the last quarter.”
A deeper exploration of those confounding factors, bureaucratic or otherwise, is important. It’s fine for journalists to report that green jobs have failed to meet expectations. That’s newsworthy enough. But what really matters is why they have failed. Answering that question lets readers know whether the barriers are simply high, or truly insurmountable.