The green jobs challenge
While Australian politicians continue to take the slowly-slowly approach to tackling climate change, the lack of coordinated national policies to scale the clean energy industry to secure jobs, manufacturing capacity, and research and development, is setting us even further behind.
According to last month's Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan by Beyond Zero Emissions, Australia's shift to a low-carbon economy from 2010 to 2020 will create just over 80,000 jobs from installation of renewable energy infrastructure at the peak of construction, plus over 45,000 continuing jobs in operations and maintenance.
But do we have the capability and skill in Australia to deliver these projects?
A new report yet to be released from the Workplace Research Centre (WRC) in the faculty of economics and business in the University of Sydney has found more 'green collar' jobs are needed if key climate change challenges facing the Australian economy are to be met.
Commissioned by International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Skills for Green Jobs in Australia report, by Dr Mike Rafferty and Serena Yu, focuses on the potential employment impacts of moving to a low-carbon economy and considers (among other issues) supporting the emergence of new jobs in rising industries such as the renewable energy sector; and the 'greening' of established jobs.
The summary version of the report highlights the importance of regulatory certainty and consistency in driving market demand, the role of government incentives to drive behavioural and business change, the importance of industry and government collaboration to foster development and commercialisation of technologies, and of design and delivery of training courses – all, it says, are vital in ensuring that green collar jobs and skills continue to develop.
The research also finds that Australia is well positioned to take advantage of growth in lower-emission goods and services, particularly in the renewable energy and land and water resource management.
In Australia, however, there remains no agreed upon definition for ‘green’ occupations, which makes it very difficult to estimate what new and emerging occupations currently exist, or are likely to be created with various green economy plans.
Looking further afield, The United Nations Environment Program has defined a 'green job' as one that contributes substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality.
The United States Department of Labour has taken a unique and interesting approach by defining three main employment areas:
– Green Growth Occupation: Existing occupations expected to increase in demand due to the addition of greener processes. Some new skills are expected to be needed.
– Green Enhanced Occupation: Existing occupations that will experience significant change in work and worker skill requirements.
– Green New & Emerging Occupation: Unique new work and worker skill requirements. Will result in new occupations.
The debate around the creation and nurturing of green jobs has certainly had its fair share of media attention in the US. Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman, who is also chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee, called last week for the establishment of a federal Clean Energy Deployment Administration. In an op-ed on Politico.com, Bingaman argued that the US could not compete in the 'green race' using R&D and technological breakthroughs alone, and needed stronger policies to scale its clean energy industry through direct deployment and manufacturing, thus attracting more R&D in the long term.
In The New York Times, also last week, Thomas Friedman argued that China is doing a better job of securing clean energy jobs than the US due to stronger domestic demand arising from effective government policies.
And in July, Intel co-founder Andy Grove said in an interview with BusinessWeek that Asian countries "seem to understand that job creation must be the number one objective of state economic policy. The government plays a strategic role in setting the priorities and arraying the forces and organisation necessary to achieve this goal. The rapid development of the Asian economies provides numerous illustrations."
A report by the Australia Institute, meanwhile, says that what seems to be missing from the preoccupation with green jobs is an understanding that all economic activity creates jobs. Moving to a low-carbon economy may well involve reducing jobs in industries that produce fossil fuels, but it will also create them in renewable energy industries.
For Australia, a comprehensive taxonomy to capture and measure where we are at in the shift to a low-carbon economy, and where we need to be, would be a good start, to help implement more ambitious initiatives and meet our key climate and economic goals.
Lisa Tarry is managing director of sustainable recruitment agency Turning Green

Comments on this article
Yes-we can take the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report seriously
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol94/mono94-6A.pdf
Page 20 Chile peaked Sodium Nitrate production in 1930 at 3million tonnes per annum because Sodium Nitrate was replaced with Ammonia Nitrate for fertiliser. Current production is well below 1930 due to no demand for the product. The raw material resource in Chile is huge.
Yes-we can take the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report seriously
http://www.aipm.com.au/resource/0609-SA-OlympicDamSeminar.pdf
Page 12 - 26,500 truck movements per year under Olympic dam
Can we take the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report seriously?
The report referred to in the lead article has some serious flaws, so none of its conclusions can be taken seriously.
For example the solar component of the plan would require us to import around 20 million tonnes of this "salt" mixture. This would then need to be shipped out to 12 remote sites.
12 million tonnes of this mixture would be NaSO3. The world's largest producer, Chile, only exports around 0.8 million tonnes.
Each site would need around 1.6 million tonnes - around 64,000 truck loads.
There are other flaws as well.
The critique of the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan
Thanks for this Graham. I understand that the Zero Carbon team are also working on a critique of ABAREs Australian Energy Resource Assessment which will also be an interesting read.
Fallacy: 'bird kills are generally a serious problem'
The main human-induced threats to birds are habitat destruction, pet cats, buildings, motor vehicles and powerlines. Only two wind farms out of thousands around the world have been a serious probelm for birds, Altamont Pass in California and La Tarifa on the southern tip of Spain. In the US, typical bird death rates are two per turbine per year, and some European studies find about one tenth of this.
Good point to raise though Rod, since Australia has very limited experience with wind farms. So far, studies reveal an impact level even lower than predicted on the basis of Northern Hemisphere experience and lower too than levels approved by planning authorities prior to wind farm construction (due to Australia's geography and bird ecology differing to Northern Hemisphere - we don't experience the same concentrations of migrating birds). With modern wind turbines and careful siting, both bird and bat kills are rare. In comparison, on a single foggy night, about 3000 birds were killed when they collided with the chimneys of a thermal power station in Florida.
Green Jobs
I bet all those coal miners in Greg combet's electorate are looking forward to getting a job on the basic wage dusting solar panels and burying bats and birds killed by the wind turbines.
Rod Bates
Green jobs
Agree with the hypothesis that it may be appropiate at times for government to support the establishment of new industries that have long term potential. But as the European experience has shown, imposing higher energy costs on society in order to subsidise ineffective renewable energy technologies can result in a net employment loss. We must be careful to avoid making a priori assumptions that "green jobs" will create net employment growth as an article of faith, and carefully consider the big picture.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
The critique of the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan demonstrated just how expensive and ineffective large scale renewable plans can be when they ignore energy system fundamentals.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
Green Jobs
This article offers an excellent positioning of Australia and the path ahead toward a low-carbon economy. I particularly like the reference to 'all economic activity creates jobs'. Were rebadging to occur, all jobs could be classified as 'green' jobs, or just 'jobs', as establishing a sustainable economy becomes mainstream.
Brynnie Goodwill