For his sake, letâ€™s hope that Bruce Arnold at the Congressional Budget Office doesnâ€™t get Gabriel Calzada treatment from the American Wind Energy Association and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
To freshen your memory, Gabriel Calzada is the economist at the King Juan Carlos University who got out his calculator and analyzed the green job situation in Spainâ€”the same Spain whose job-crushing subsidies are supposed to be a model for our green recovery. The professor found that subsidizing green energy costs more traditional jobs than are created in the green sector. More than two jobs were lost for every single green job created by subsidies.
Which takes us to Bruce Arnold. In his recent â€œCBO Economic and Budget Issue Brief: How Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Affect Employment,â€ Arnold points out the negative impact of CO2-cutting policies like cap and trade or carbon taxes,
In particular, job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemployment rate.â€
So the CBO says pretty much what Calzada said about the green stimulusâ€”there isnâ€™t one. Carbon cuts lead to net job losses. The CBO author, Arnold, goes further and notes that those who keep their jobs will get reduced pay,
The increases in prices caused by a tax or a cap-and-trade program would cause workersâ€™ real (inflation-adjusted) wages to be lower than they would otherwise be. Nearly all workers would choose to remain in the workforce and accept those wages.â€
This sounds like a twist on that old Lite Beer ad, â€œWhich is it: fewer jobs or less pay? Itâ€™s both!â€ No green job gain, no green stimulus. Of course, this is just what weâ€™ve been saying.