Juliet Eilperin’s October 28th Washington post story Economics of Climate Change in Forefront reports:

In June, the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute predicted that a $150 billion annual public and private investment in clean energy would produce a net increase every year of 1.7 million jobs.

It’s true, CAP did release such a “study” in June of this year. But they also released a very similar study in September of 2008 showing that $100 billion in annual spending on clean energy would produce 2 million jobs. That is a 76% spike in the cost of each new job created in just one year.

More importantly though, the new June study suffers from the same fundamental flaw that the old September study did: it relies on a completely fictional policy choice to produce the desired job creation headlines. The study author’s give this away when they write:

Our key finding is that clean-energy investments generate roughly three times more jobs than an equivalent amount of money spent on carbon-based fuels.

Nobody in Washington is suggesting the federal government enact $150 billion in new subsidies for fossil fuels. This CAP study lives in a cost free world where $150 billion in new energy spending can just be assumed out of thin air. If we are going to just create $150 billion spending with no adverse consequences, why stop there?

An inquisitive reporter might ask if since there are 15 million unemployed people in America right now, why don’t we just assume we $1.3 trillion and give them all green jobs.