The problem with the green U.K. economy, and its associated destruction of the hydrocarbon environment, is that there are very few jobs being created. The few remaining ‘workers’ in the ruling Labour party are starting to rumble all the luxury boondoggles that are set to further decimate well-paid jobs in their communities. The figures compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), trying to estimate the actual number of green jobs, are always a highly creative hoot, and the latest batch are no exception. Many jobs identified are simply displacement activity, with one repair or maintenance occupation taking over from another. Around 6% of the total are to be found in ‘environmental charities’, an interesting way to describe elite billionaire political funding to push the Net Zero fantasy. Such is the seeming desperation to rustle up a green job, the ONS even includes repairing home appliances, controlling forest fires and separating hydrogen by carbon dioxide-producing electrolysis.
The latest ‘estimates’ from the ONS cover 2021 and 2022, and they are said to show an increase in both years. But as the graph below reveals, the rises are pitiful over a decade, and the 2022 estimate of 639,000 is less than 2% of jobs in the economy as a whole.
As can be seen, environmental charities employ 40,000 people, almost as many as the 47,000 that work in renewable energy. But the charities figure does not include all those make-work jobs in environmental consultancy and education or what is described as in-house environmental activities. If all the displacement, invented or re-badged jobs in repair, electric vehicles, waste disposal, water treatment, energy efficiency, Net Zero promotion, teaching and the ubiquitous bureaucracy are rightly ignored, it is unlikely that more than 150,000 new jobs have been created. Fairly small pickings, it might be thought, from all the cash sprayed at subsidy-hunting chancers over at least two decades. Even worse, any new jobs are easily offset by the occupations being destroyed in steel making, refining hydrocarbons, coal mining and oil and gas exploration. Fracking for gas would transform a number of deprived areas in the U.K. at little environmental cost, as it has done in the U.S. Energy security would likely be achieved, and the tax take would be considerable. But fracking is anathema to the major political parties in the U.K., except the emerging Reform party.
Last week saw some real push back on the madness of Net Zero and the so-called green economy. The boss of GMB, the third largest trade union in the country, told the annual Labour party conference that its plans to decarbonise the energy network by 2030 will cost up to one million jobs, decimate working communities and push up bills for the poorest. According to Smith, Government’s plans for Net Zero were “bonkers” and “fundamentally dishonest”. In a week when it was revealed that British consumers, both industrial and private, had some of the highest electricity prices in the developed world, he charged that current energy policy amounted to virtue signalling by politicians. He accused them of exporting jobs and importing virtue because the jobs were being created abroad rather than in the U.K.
Meanwhile, a recent paper published in Science came to a damning conclusion that will not surprise sceptics, namely that 96% of climate policies over the last 25 years, ultimately designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, have been a waste of money. “That’s where green spin has got us,” writes George Monbiot, although these days the Guardian’s extremist-in-chief seems to have given up on all life enhancing processes that run the risk of disturbing anything on the planet. “Finally, 15 years and a trillion dollars too late, George Monbiot says what sceptics have been saying all along,” observes the sceptical journalist Jo Nova. “Nearly every single carbon reduction scheme is a useless make-work machination that creates the illusion that the government is doing something,” she says.
As we can see, the ONS survey is full of these make-work schemes providing jobs that can only exist by rigging free markets and providing eye-watering subsidies from consumers and taxpayers. As the more concerned trade unionists can see, much of the cost of these fantasy ventures falls on the poorest members of society forced to pay higher prices for many of the basic essentials of life. In addition, as we have observed, most green schemes make mugs of the wider investing public, with the RENIXX, a stock capitalisation global index of the 30 largest renewable industrial companies, showing near zero growth since it was started in 2006. None of this matters, of course, to the Mad Miliband and his weird wonks at the U.K. Department of Energy, who are ramping up ideological plans to hose cash at daft ideas like carbon capture, battery energy storage and hydrogen production.
But all is not lost on the jobs front – opportunities must be taken when they occur. Earlier this year, Gary Smith was able to point to some new employment clearing away the animal casualties of wind farm blades. “It’s usually a man in a rowing boat, sweeping up the dead birds,” he observed.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

So they May Have created 150,000 (450,000?) “New Jobs” in what might be Green functions.
How many jobs have been lost in translation?
Manufacturing jobs that have been off shored…
…Auto Manufacturing
…Ore Processing
…Electronics Manufacturing
Energy Production…
…Gas Generation
…Coal Generation
…Nuclear Generation
How many Long Term (30+ year) Green Career jobs have actually been created.
Likely Zero as most green jobs seem to be transient lasting less than 10 years.
It’s even worse than you think. The net zero nonsense has increased energy costs in Britain. One of the basic laws of economics is that if you increase the cost of energy, the rate of economic growth declines from what would have been achieved with flat energy prices. This affects all economic activity in the economy to a smaller or greater extent, not just industrial companies. This is one of the reasons why European economic performance has been so poor over the last decade.
Gotta leave room for “Worse” … “Worser” and “Worsest” too, otherwise those triplets get even More Worser until they’re the Most Worsest
There will be good employment when the wind turbines and solar panels need removing (at taxpayer expense, of course)….
New land fill sites etc will need digging, crushing factories, dismantlers to extract all the copper etc.
There’s no reason that that particular low skill, dirty, and dangerous work should go to English-speaking, documented workers, is there?
Portugal identified the ratio years ago. You lose three real jobs for every makework “green job” you “create.”
But I imagine that is only the beginning.
Brown jobs are the new green jobs. Collecting human wastes off the streets of San Francisco is surprisingly well paying.
I realize you were trying to introduce some humor to your comments. Sadly, it is very real. The Obama Administration took great pride in reporting the number of green jobs created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. They stopped reporting as it became obvious that not only were far fewer green jobs being created than was promised, garbage collectors accounted for the largest number.
There’s clearly been a huge increase in positions in the security guard profession. Just look at Whole Foods stores in or close to city centers. At my local safeway, some of the guards are wearing bulletproof vests. Well done democrats. You’re so so clever.
Would you take that job?
It’s a sorry state of affairs when I have to agree with the unions.
But they have left it very late to realise that (any) Government rhetoric on net-zero costs more jobs than it creates.
Many have seen this happening for years as energy intensive jobs get offshored.
Waiting to see how long before that last functioning coal power station is blown up for more politician green photo shoots.
UK hasn’t even mothballed them, just demolished them.
That’ll be a costly mistake in the end!
Remember the street prophets holding up the sign, “The End is Nigh!”
Maybe this winter.
“It’s usually a man in a rowing boat, sweeping up the dead birds,”
…… perhaps Monbiot should take his turn sweeping and see the utopia that he helped create.
Doing things less efficiently means you need more people to do the same job. This has been
the left’s way of doing things since the beginning. The problem comes (not for them, but the taxpayers) when it’s so inefficient that it’s just losing money. But then, the new problem happens to be capitalism for them.
Why use earth moving machines when you can hand out spoons to many more workers.
To which the sane response is “because little work gets done and the labour’s value is too small to earn any if the workers a living.”
But maybe that’s the goal…
It’s been losing money since Day 1.
It’s not “capitalism,” it’s glorified welfare.
It would have been less of a waste to send the money to that great bastion of Britishness, the Royal Society for Putting Things On Top Of Other Things.
I have a green front door!
I have a green coat!
%Story Tip: A truly extraordinary story in today’s Guardian.
“So at the moment, the working definition that we’re using for this analysis is to reach 95% clean power. That means that, by 2030, 95% of the generation in Great Britain over the period of a year will be from clean power sources. And that means that the remaining 5% will come from unabated gas. That’s our definition.”
This is a quote from Fintan Slye, in charge of National Energy System Operator (Neso), a publicly owned company with a mandate to deliver the government’s green energy agenda.
Five years from now they are proposing to be generating 95% of UK electricity from wind, solar and a bit of biomass and hydro? There is no sign of the kind of crash national program that would be needed to make a real effort at doing this. And even were there plans to install enough wind and solar, there are absolutely no plans to deal with intermittency.
You cannot do it at all, but you certainly cannot do it without massive amounts of storage. The idea that you can manage with 5% of generation from gas? Not going to happen.
Then, buried in the later part of the story, we come on this:
“These legacy processes were fine when there were only two or three generators connecting to the grid every year, but at the moment the queue is over 700 gigawatts heading to 800 gigawatts,” Slye says.
The UK at the moment has peak demand of about 40-45 GW, and there is a queue of projects awaiting approval and installation amounting to 700-800 GW? If you said to one of the green activists that it was necessary to install wind capacity amounting to 20 times peak demand to make Net Zero work, you would meet with a furious response alleging misinformation, denialism and far-right fossil fuel astroturfing.
Yet here is Fintan Slye, the man in charge of making it happen, arguing not that this is a ridiculous number, but that we have to reform planning and commissioning regulations in order to make it happen faster!
The last publicly released figures I recall from Labour were that they would get to about 130 GW of renewables. 95 GW of wind and 35 of solar. There was no quantified mention of storage. Those targets seem unlikely to be achieved. Even if they were, the solar would be useless at these latitudes for 3-4 months in winter, and both would be useless without massive amounts of storage.
But the idea that the country will ever get to or should get to 700-800 GW of wind is madness.
I am going to start breeding Unicorns, looks like it could become very lucrative 😉 .
When is one of these idiots going to open his eyes and admit the Emperor has no clothes.
Your belief in Unicorns is more plausible than the net zero acolytes’ religious fervor about 95% wind & solar.
We at least know that a horse can get a horn, just not on its head.
Unicorns are LBGTQ and are really good Juts look at that rainbow shit
And you still need 100% gas/nuclear available for when we get those 10-14 day blocking highs over the UK, especially the winter months.
So saying only 5% is needed from gas hides the truth.
Saw him interviewed on the BBC this morning by Rowlatt. He obviously also believes in leprechauns – indeed perhaps he is relying on them to achieve his fantasy.
Most of these jobs will be created in China, to make the stuff from displaced industry and to make the wind turbines and solar panels. How to destroy your economy and become a client state in one easy lesson.
Chris,
Thank you for picking up on “environmental charities”.
These days, the word “charity” can and does often mean a scheme to minimize or reduce taxation otherwise payable. Tax dodges are not to be applauded. Genuine charities are.
Further, the word “environmental” is a master control word for anything spun by greens. For reasons that elude me, greens seem to have inserted themselves in the public mind as connected with doing good things for our natural surroundings. In essence, when examined closely. the green movement is populated by people so thick that their ideas seldom advance past elementary. They promote such stuff as new, fresh, innovative, when in reality there no little substance to it. When greens use threats of withdrawing political support, they are exercising an old con trick that politicians continue to fall for, blees their simple souls.
This would all be funny if the economic consequences of unbridles ideological simplicity are not so damaging. In another few years, people will have woken up.
Geoff S.
Greens and Climatistas lie about everything else. Why would they draw the line at job creation promises?
UK 50 MW Kincardine floating wind system was placed in service on October 2021
It produced 144 GWh in 2023
It was predicted to produce 200 GWh
CF = 144000/(8766 x 50) = 0.329, a far cry from 0.457 predicted by proponents
.
Located 15 km off the coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland, water depths 60 to 80 m
It has five Vestas V164-9.5 MW and one V80-2 MW,, each installed on WindFloat® semi-submersible platforms, designed by Principle Power.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/10/19/worlds-largest-floating-offshore-wind-farm-fully-operational/
.
Operating results in year 2023:
All numbers are in UK pounds
.
Cost = Finance 30 mil, Admin 5 mil, Other 46 mil = 81 mil
Production cost 81000000/144000 = 562/MWh
.
Income =Tax credit 6 mil, Subsidy 31 mil, Sales 13.3 mil = 50.3 mil
.
LOSS without subsidies = 81 – 13.3 = 67.7
LOSS with subsidies = 67.7 – 37 = 30.7
.
It operates under a PPA at 92/MWh and receives subsidies at 125/MWh, for a total of 217/MWh.
https://x.com/adissentient/status/1840690466477535685
World’s first floating wind farm Hywind Scotland faces shutdown for ‘heavy maintenance’
Norway’s Equinor confirms component changes needed on all five Siemens Gamesa 6MW machines operating since 2017
.
https://images.dngroup.com/image/eyJ3IjoxOTYwLCJrIjoiYzI5MGY0MzUwNTIzZmM2Y2FjYWFhMmI5ZTQwYjA4ZTUiLCJmIjoid2VicCIsImNyb3AiOlswLDk3LDE2MDAsNzk2XSwiciI6MiwibyI6Imdsb2JhbCJ9
One of five 6MW Siemens Gamesa being towed out to Hywind Scotland in 2017
.
Published 12 January 2024, 10:03
Norwegian energy giant Equinor will temporarily remove all five floating wind turbines from the pioneering Hywind Scotland array later this year after discovering a need for “heavy maintenance” on the Siemens Gamesa machines deployed there, Recharge has learned.
.
The 6MW turbines will be towed back to Wergeland on the west coast of Norway, as part of a maintenance program that is likely to take around four months and will disrupt power output from the project operating 24 km off Peterhead since 2017.
.
All units will be reconnected back on the Hywind Scotland site when the maintenance is complete, a spokesman for the Norwegian company confirmed.
.
The work will involve changing various components, including bearings on the turbines, as well as increased routine maintenance in the future.
.
“What we see from operational data, such as excessive stresses on bearings, points to the need for… heavy maintenance on the turbines,”
.
The cost of towing from Scotland to Norway, repairs and lack of production, towing from Norway to Scotland and reconnecting, will be significant.
.
If such wind turbines were installed in Maine, round-trip towing, and lack of production would be much greater.
At least Ed Miliband’s brother David Miliband will do well out of the madcap policy.
https://unherd.com/2024/09/the-miliband-files/
Story Tip
There is an old ax that says, “He who controls the money, controls.”
That has been superseded with, “He who controls energy, controls the money.”
Everything else follows.
I would remove waste, energy efficient products, repairs, water quantity (whatever that is), environmental charities, and other from the graph. Those are all things we would have whether we had renewable energy or not. They are lying and taking credit for things they had nothing to do with. We must stop letting them get away with it. I don’t think jobs should be a measure of whether we should choose one form of power generation over another. If their preferred form of energy production needs to hire way more employees than the alternative that would suggest to me that the preferred method is less efficient than the alternatives. In the case of renewables it is also intermittent so you get even less bang for your buck. It is a lose lose all the way around.