“There is no widely accepted standard definition of ‘‘green jobs.’’
Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 16, 2010

As policymakers and the public discuss ways to help stimulate our economy, the effort to create green jobs has been getting a lot of attention.

But what exactly does it mean to be green? The government has been trying to create a definition that will guide funding for green jobs, but this is still up for debate.

In March, the Department of Labor sought comments on how the government should define and quantify green jobs – after the Administration set aside stimulus funding for them. The Department of Commerce, in an April 2010 report titled Measuring the Green Economy, took it a step further by creating two definitions – broad (which included jobs in “used merchandise stores” and zoos) and narrow (which counted “solar energy collectors” and the manufacturing of passenger and freight train cars). A green job could effectively be anything one wants it to be.

While there may be disagreement or confusion over the definition, there seems to be a basic consensus that, at least for the foreseeable future, green job creation and sustenance would rely on government assistance.

Here’s what one organization that supports green jobs initiatives had to say: “Many of the companies in the green economy benefit directly or indirectly from taxpayer dollars in the form of economic development incentives, government contracts, and other subsidies provided by local, state and federal governments.”   In other words, government assistance is required for many green jobs to remain competitive with good pay.  Another report concluded that “[n]ew taxes, increased public borrowing, and government subsidies will be needed to support green jobs programs.”

In my view, federal job creation programs should be driven by the need to create employment opportunities that are sustainable in the marketplace without perpetual government assistance. By picking winners and losers in specific sectors, and by focusing on the color of the job rather than its economic viability, I think we’re overlooking more immediate solutions to our economic and environmental challenges.

Take, for instance, jobs in the natural gas sector. Many advocates of green jobs may not classify a job producing or selling natural gas as “green” because natural gas is a fossil fuel. But natural gas emits about 60 percent fewer emissions compared to coal, the main fuel used for power generation in the U.S. and around the world. Considering that estimates indicate we have a 100-year supply of natural gas in the U.S., that’s a lot of potential for more jobs and fewer emissions in this sector alone – and without the need for government subsidies.

Could blue – the symbolic color of natural gas – be the new green?