U.S. Chamber Chokes Green Jobs
by Nolan George and Gabriel Slaughter, April 6th, 2021
Marty Durbin, the President of the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, former Chief Strategist for the American Petroleum Institute
In order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, our economy must rapidly switch its energy mix: away from a fossil fuel dominated energy-mix to one powered by renewable energy. This transition would create a huge number of jobs. On the other hand, labor unions have legitimate concerns that these jobs tend to pay less, and offer less benefits than traditional, fossil fuel energy jobs.
How does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fit in? The US Chamber of Commerce is the largest and most influential business federation in the country. It could, and should, show leadership by lobbying for public policies that kill two birds with one stone by supporting the growing workforce in clean energy as well as helping our economy quickly transition to renewable energy.
On this complex issue however, the US Chamber has two answers: lobbying for fossil fuels, and lobbying against good jobs. We have already written a few times about how the Chamber lobbies for the fossil fuel industry, so here we will focus on jobs.
When assessing job growth and creation there are few industries that look more promising than renewable energy. For example, in 2019, renewable energy sources accounted for around 17.5% of total U.S. electricity generation. This is only set to increase. In 2019, renewable energy jobs outnumbered jobs in the fossil fuel sector by 3 to 1. Looking forward to 2028, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that two of the fastest growing jobs in the United States over the next seven years will be solar installers and wind technicians.
The US Chamber likes to talk about job growth and job creation. They often argue for or against policies on that basis. In an article recently published on the US Chamber’s website, new CEO Suzanne Clark writes, “the Chamber will lead the battle against the forces that threaten growth and job creation.” In another recent article, Clark says, “we [the Chamber] must create pathways to employment in the fastest growing industries.” Unfortunately, the actions don’t quite match the rhetoric.
The recent Keystone Pipeline XL is a case in point. The US Chamber slammed the Biden administration for canceling the pipeline (which coincidentally was designed to carry tar sands oil - one of the most polluting fossil fuels). Marty Durbin, president of the US Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, said, “[not constructing the pipeline] will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work” : in other words, Durbin supports the Keystone Pipeline XL because of the jobs it creates. Fox News followed the Chamber’s line, claiming that the pipeline’s cancellation destroyed thousands of jobs. The two companies hired to build Keystone, Precision Pipeline, LLC, and Michaels Corporation, said that they would hire 1,500 and 350 people respectively for the two-year construction period. Meanwhile, the actual running of the pipeline would create considerably less jobs. A State Department report from 2015 estimated that the pipeline would need 35 full-time staff to operate. Not so many thousands of jobs after all.
Are Marty Durbin and the US Chamber really concerned about the number of construction jobs? As Scott Carpenter, a reporter at Forbes, recently wrote:
“The wind and solar power industries employ a far larger share of people in construction than their fossil fuel peers. As many as 53 percent of workers in the solar industry are in construction and 33 percent in wind, versus only 17 percent of natural gas power workers and 11 percent of coal power workers.”
We, the writers of this article, are not economists, but these statistics suggest that the construction of renewable energy infrastructure is a ‘fast growing industry.’ There is a clear opportunity to create thousands of jobs and help mitigate climate change by shifting our energy mix.
The Chamber’s defense of the Keystone Pipeline on the basis of job creation is simply not credible. It is more likely that the Chamber was concerned about the interests of its fossil fuel industry donors, who are among its most generous and consistent benefactors. These companies need to keep building pipeline infrastructure across the country in order to do business. The cancellation of Keystone was a setback in a wider struggle that spans dozens of ongoing pipeline construction projects.
More sophisticated critics of the energy transition point out that many of these new jobs have lower pay and benefits. First of all, fewer employees are part of unions in renewable energy: the United Steelworkers represented nearly 18% of U.S. oil refining, pipeline transportation and pipeline construction employees in 2018, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Meanwhile, solar workers are unionized at a rate of 4% and wind sector workers at 6%, according to the 2020 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. Secondly, yearly pay in fossil-fuel power generation jobs range from $70,310 to $81,460, meanwhile for solar and wind generation the pay range is $46,850 to $64,330. These imbalances create obvious challenges to an equitable and rapid energy transition.
Jobs in renewable energy come with low pay and a low rate of unionization because these jobs were created in a low-pay and low-union economy. The US Chamber has played a key role in shaping this economy.
The Chamber has spent the last thirty years lobbying against employees’ rights to organize unions and collect better wages. Recently:
In 2021, it lobbied against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (S. 420/H.R. 842);
In 2020, it helped maintain the precariousness of the gig economy by lending legal muscle to gig-economy platforms Uber and Lyft in People v. Lyft, Inc. and People v. Uber Technologies, Inc;
It also promoted the California Ballot Proposition 22, which re-classified gig economy workers as “contractors” instead of “employees,” meaning lower pay and benefits;
In 2019, it lobbied against H.R. 582, the "Raise the Wage Act;"
In 2018, it funded think-tank “research” promoting the idea that unions are bad for the economy, and that Worker Centers (which allow employees to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits, or raise awareness about specific work issues) are bad for the economy; and
In 2016, it funded think tank “research” which argued that raising the minimum wage was bad for the economy.
Unfortunately, there are many more examples. The US Chamber has even intervened against workers’ interests in other countries. In 2006, for example, the US Chamber successfully killed a piece Chinese legislation that would have protected labor unions and cracked down on sweatshops.
Not only does the Chamber use its huge political influence to protect fossil fuels and block the urgently needed energy transition, but it also fights to keep wages and union membership-rates low. Unfortunately, the Chamber has been winning on both issues. The richest 1% of US households now hold 15 times more wealth than the poorest 50% of households, and we are on the brink of an irreversible and catastrophic climate crisis.