Climate Change and Employment in the European Union
 
 

by Christine Lottje

With financial assistance from the European Commission, DGXI

Brussels, May 1998


Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Overview of Available Studies on Climate Change and Employment in the European Union

2 Introduction

2.1 Climate Change, the Environment and Employment

2.2 Background to the report

2.3 Note on terminology

3 Procedure

4 Case Studies


4.1 The Austrian Toronto Technology Program - The Economic Dynamics of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Austria)

4.2 Main gain future: New employment opportunities through a sustainable transport system (Germany)

4.3 Elements of a Green Energy Plan which can Create Job Opportunities (Denmark)

4.4 Electricity without Nuclear Power - Boom or Doom for Jobs? (Germany)

4.5 Saving the Climate that’s my Job - Case Study: Netherlands

4.6 Major Energy Savings, Environmental and Employment Benefits by Double-Glazing and Advanced Double-Glazing Technologies (European Union)

4.7 30.000 New Jobs through Implementing the Austrian Biomass Program (Austria)

4.8 Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy - White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan (Communication from the Commission, COM (97) 599 final) (European Union)

4.9 What are the Costs of a CO2 Reduction? (Germany)

4.10 Green Tax Reform - Part 6: A Reform package for the UK - 1997-2005 (United Kingdom)

4.11 A Fiscal Reform for Increasing Employment and Mitigating CO2 Emissions in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, UK)
 

5 Analysis

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Quantitative Analysis

5.2 Limitations of the data

6 Conclusions


6.1 Methodological recommendations

6.2 Integration of employment concerns into environmental thinking
 

7 Further Work

 

8 Bibliography

 

9 Index of Terms

 

Annex 1: Further Studies


1 Improving the Environment and Promoting Employment in Denmark

2 Sustainable Development in the Service of Employment (France)

3 Are there Double Dividends in Finland? - The Swedish Green Tax Commission - Simulations for Finland

4 Jobs for the Climate: The Employment Potential of Energy Efficiency Measures in the Housing Sector (Germany)

5 Saving the Climate That’s my Job - Literature Study: Germany (West-Germany)

6 Solar Jobs 2010 (Germany)

7 Direct and Indirect Job Creation from the Standard of Performance for Energy Efficiency Program (United Kingdom)

8 Less Traffic, More Jobs (United Kingdom)

9 New Power, New Jobs - Combined Heat and Power: The Impact on Employment (United Kingdom)

10 Rethinking the Costs Relating to Global Warming: a Survey of the Issues (Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom, West-Germany)

11 The Potential for Employment Opportunities from Pursuing Sustainable Development (European Union)
 

Annex 2: Case Studies:


Job Creation in the Climate Change Mitigation Sector

WISE Group (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Heatwise Ldt. (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

Environmental Improvement Program - EIP (Berlin, Germany)
 

1 Executive Summary


Environmental issues today are more prominent than ever. Climate change is one of the most pressing of these problems and there is a strong need for different players in society to act in the short term. This is even clearer with regard to the Kyoto Protocol agreed in December 1997 and signed by the EU in April 1998. The EU has agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% between 2008 and 2012, compared to the year 1990. After this reduction target was shared out between the Member States in June 1998, the next move must be the implementation of policies and measures designed to achieve these targets.
 
 

In parallel, perhaps the most prominent political issue of today is unemployment. Within the EU 10.2% of the population, about 18 million people, are currently unemployed. Tackling this problem was first declared a priority at the Amsterdam Summit in June 1997 and has since been confirmed as key several times.
 
 

The European Commission began to bring these two issues together in the Communication "Environment and Employment - Building a Sustainable Europe", adopted directly before the Extraordinary Summit on Employment in Luxembourg in November 1997. However the environment has not yet been integrated into the general political discussion on employment even though it is increasingly recognized that there are significant opportunities for job creation in the environmental sector which have not yet been exploited.
 
 

From a total of 22 studies dealing with climate change and employment, those studies which directly relate CO2 reductions to job creation have been selected. This report draws together these eleven case studies in an attempt to show the implications of this research for the employment potential of climate protection policies. Each case study has been summarized and translated (where necessary) and the results from this are listed in the matrix attached to this chapter.
 
 

The most obvious conclusion of the review is that climate protection is beneficial for employment compared to the business as usual scenarios. With one exception all of the studies we have been provided with show this in their results. Although some of the studies have been published by groups supporting the development of a proactive climate policy and are therefore likely to contain positive results, it is interesting to note that this kind of research has not been undertaken by the fossil fuel or energy intensive industry who are normally the biggest opponents to climate protection. The only example (1) known which results in an overall negative employment effect has not been published in a full version to-date.
 
 

Comparison between the studies is difficult. Most of them look at individual sectors or at interaction between sectors related to climate change at a national level, and therefore reflect country specific circumstances. Adding to this, there is a great variety of models used with different assumptions implicit in their methodologies. The studies have used different levels of modelling which means that some have only measured direct costs and benefits whereas others have gone into much greater detail.
 
 

Despite these uncertainties it was possible to estimate the employment potential of a CO2 emissions reduction of 15% until 2010, as compared to 1990 for the European Union, at +1.9 million jobs. The estimate was based on extrapolation from 8 studies with a correlation coefficient of 0.86. Two taxation-only studies were omitted from this analysis because pure revenue recycling as opposed to broader investment packages seemed to generate a bias in favour of job creation, although this omission was essentially a subjective decision. This estimate should be taken more as an indication of a trend than as an exact prediction.
 
 

The review has made it clear that even though climate change mitigation is beneficial for employment this area is far from being fully explored. On the methodological side there is a clear lack of a common approach and definition of terms which needs to be solved in order to make future research more effective. But there is also a need for better interaction between environmental decision makers and economics decision makers who usually influence the employment market most. Only then can the full benefits of CO2 reduction and employment creation in tandem be realized. Furthermore focusing on the effects of existing programs (e.g. environmental tax schemes) could provide a clearer ‘real life’ picture of job creation priorities and opportunities.
 
 
 

1.1 Overview of Available Studies on Climate Change and Employment in the European Union
 
 
 
MeasuresTime frameTotal CO2 reduction (Mt)
(3)
Investment
(in ECU) (4)
Employ-mentJobs/Mt CO2Key assumptions underlying the studyOther benefits (economic and environmental)
Sector: General CO2 Reduction
Austria: The Toronto technology program, Austrian Council on Climate Change
Enhancement of: cogeneration; energy efficiency; transport; renewables1997-200570.2 Mtprefinancing of 824 million

(103 m per year)

12,200 (net)174Details on assumptions on economic and energy growth and energy efficiency improvement could not be obtained in time; no introduction of new technologiesadditional private investment: over ECU14.4 bn; GDP: +1.2%; national demand: ECU3.46 bn; governmental budgets (net): ECU640.9 mn
Sector: Transport
Germany: Hauptgewinn Zukunft: New jobs through a sustainable transport system, Öko-Institute and Verkehrsclub Deutschland (VCD)
sustainable transport shift through car sharing; use of modern communication technologies; new technologies for passenger cars; increase taxes on transport fuels; speed limits1999-2010328 Mt62.7 million (5.7 m per year)200,000 (net)610Baseline: GDP grows from 3.023-4.232 (1995-2010); transport growth +35% (1992-2010); population (2010): 83.8 million; no relevant introduction of new car technologiesreduction of SO2 and other emissions from transport; reduction of traffic noise; free space of 125km²; reduction of accidents; no effect on GDP
Sector: Energy Industry
Denmark: Elements of a green energy plan which can create job opportunities, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University
Enhancement of natural gas, district heating, combined heat and power (CHP), renewables; energy efficiency1996-201581.84 Mt12.28 bn (662 m per year)16,000 (net)195.5Baseline: standard Western European economic growth assumed, energy consumption stable

Model: based on empirical data; no changes in consumer prices;

foreign exchange savings: between ECU79.4-185.3 mn; value of additional value apparatus: ECU 10.6 bn; reduction of SO2 and NOx; reduced nitrate pollution; reduction of flue dust and slag/cinder

 
MeasuresTime frameTotal CO2 reduction (Mt)Investment

(in ECU)

Employ-mentJobs/Mt CO2Key assumptions underlying the studyOther benefits (economic and environmental)
Germany: Electricity without nuclear power - boom or doom for jobs?, Progress Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (PIW), Bremen
Phase-out of nuclear power until 2000; reduction of coal, enhancement of renewables1995-20101000 Mt210 bn

(14 bn per year)

121,000 (net)121Baseline: rise in electricity production +36% (2010); no change in policies; CO2 emissions +9% ( to 1993)

GP scenario: electricity production -20%; nuclear power plants are shut down when storage is full

no specific effects mentioned
Netherlands: Saving the climate, that’s my job - Case study Netherlands, Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology
Efficiency improvement of transport, industry, electric equipment, insulation, wind energy1995-2005440 Mtinvestment 2.5 bn per year71,000 (net)161Baseline: GDP growth 1.5% per year; CO2 and energy growth 1.3% per year; energy prices constant 1990 level;

Model: ICARUS database for static input-output model; no change in energy prices, import and export; new technologies as in ICARUS database;

saved energy costs amount to ECU7.71 bn per year; additional money for households: ECU4.03 bn; reduction of SO2 and NOx
Sector: Energy Efficiency (Domestic/Tertiary)
EU-15: Major energy savings, environmental and employment benefits by double-glazing and advanced double-glazing technologies, Karlsruhe Fachinformationszentrum (FIZ) and Comité Permanent des Industries du Verre de la Communauté Economique Européenne (CPIV)
Replacing single-or double-glazed windows through high performance double-glazed windows of 60% of European dwellings10 years940 Mt137 bn(13.4 bn per year)126,000 (net)134Assumptions on prices made on the basis on prices in 1995; payback between 7/8 and 24/36 years; interest rate of 8% for a dwelling with 35m² window areaspace heating savings: ECU13 bn/ year; more light and solar gain in houses; improved sound insulation and use of floor space; property related benefits
Sector: Renewables (Electricity and Heat)
Austria: 30.000 new jobs through implementing the Austrian biomass program, Austrian Biomass Association
biomass:

higher taxes on fossil fuels; no taxes on renewables; lowering non wage labour costs

1997-200520.18 Mt5-5.7 bn (625-713 m per year)30,000 (net)1,487Model assumes a static situation on the basis of 1995 ? data;improved air quality; lower dependency on import of fossil fuels; new export chances; governments savings through less unemployed

 
 
 
 
MeasuresTime frameTotal CO2 reduction (Mt)Investment

(in ECU)

Employ-mentJobs/Mt CO2Key assumptions underlying the studyOther benefits (economic and environmental)
EU-15: Energy for the Future: Renewable sources of energy - White paper for a community strategy and action plan, Energy for Sustainable Development Ltd
enhancing the share of renewables to electricity production from 6 to 12% of EU primary energy demand1997-20101,749.94 Mt95 bn(7.3 bn per year)500,000

(net)

286SAFIRE model (input-output) used;avoided fuel costs of ECU21 bn; reduced imports 17.4% (ref. 1994)
Sector: Taxation
Germany: What are the costs of a CO2 reduction?, Institute for Empirical Economic Research, University of Osnabrück
CO2 tax; revenue recycled through lower employer’s social security payment1996-20051,290.12 Mtoverall revenue in 2005: 112 bn

(12.4 bn per year)

1.5 million

(net)

1,163Baseline: GDP growth +1.4% per year; private consumption +1.8% per year; energy consumption +5.7% overall; CO2 emissions +2% over 1990;

Model: Panta Rhei

GDP rises 1.1% per year; energy consumption decreases 19.3% (overall); better export chances of W-Germany
United Kingdom: Green tax reform, Cambridge Econometrics
industrial energy tax, transport taxes, landfill tax; revenue recycle: lowering employer’s National Insurance Contribution (NIC)1997-200512.665 Mt (in 2005)overall revenue in 2005: 33.4 bn

(4.175bn per year)

717,000 (net)(56,613)Baseline: no data available

Model: Cambridge E3

reduction of SO2 emissions, waste disposal and landfill; no major effects on GDP, inflation, profits and balance of payments (in relation to model errors)
Same taxes as above; revenue recycle: lowering VAT, business rates and NICsee abovesee abovesee above576,000 (net)(45,480)see abovesee above

 
 
MeasuresTime frameTotal CO2 reduction (Mt)Investment

(in ECU)

Employ-mentJobs/Mt CO2Key assumptions underlying the studyOther benefits (economic and environmental)
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, UK: A fiscal reform for increasing employment and mitigating CO2 emissions in Europe, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Belgium
50% CO2, 50% energy tax; revenue recycle: employer’s social security contributions1995-2003

(8 years)

597 Mtoverall revenue: 62.3 bn

(7.7875bn per year)

696,900 (net)1,167Baseline: assumption on GDP, private consumption, energy consumption and prices (see description); 

Model: HERMES

Effect on GDP: +0.15% (overall); energy consumption: -3.5%; private consumption: +0.15%; mean energy prices: +16.3%;

Footnotes
 1 Regionalwirtschaftliche Wirkung von Steuern und Abgaben auf den Verbrauch von Energie - das Beispiel NRW (1996). Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).

2 The 15% CO2 reduction target forms part of the greenhouse gas reduction target of 8% agreed in Kyoto. We chose this figure in order to make it comparable to already existing work.

3 Calculation of the CO2 emission reductions for studies where only the percentage figure was given was made on the basis of data available from “1997 - Annual Energy Report” from the Directorate General for Energy (DG XVII)

4 Calculation from the different currencies used in the studies to ECU (where necessary) was made on the basis of the exchange rate of 10 April 1998 (Source Agence Europe)
 
 

2 Introduction






The aim of this report is to bring the issues of climate change and employment together and to show that they are not contradictory to each other. Instead it reveals that the climate protection policies that have to be introduced today can have a positive effect on the employment market in the European Union.
 
 

2.1 Climate Change, the Environment and Employment
 
 

In its Second Assessment Report of 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (5)confirmed the human fingerprint on the atmosphere as well as the dangers of climate change to our planet. Science found the political back-up in December 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon by the negotiating Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Protocol set greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for industrialised countries, on average a 5.2% reduction between 2008-2012, for six GHGs. For the European Union a reduction target of 8% has been agreed which the EU confirmed by signing the Kyoto Protocol in April 1998. At the Environment Council in June 1998, the EU furthermore shared up the 8% between the Member States, opening the way for implementing the Protocol.
 
 

In the run-up to Kyoto, the EU played a leading role by pushing for a reduction target of 15% by 2010, which was more ambitious than proposals of other industrialised countries. This target was backed up by detailed research done by the European Commission on policies and measures available to achieve it as well as showing the cost effectiveness of these measures.
 
 

There are many options available to countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this study we concentrate on options to reduce CO2 emissions as CO2 is the main greenhouse gas (GHG), making up 83% of all GHG emissions in the EU. And most of the detailed work has been done on CO2.
 
 

While climate change is an extremely important environmental issue, unemployment is at the top of the political agenda With 18 million unemployed (10.2%) people in April 1998, unemployment is one of the most urgent problems that the EU faces. At the Amsterdam Summit in Summer 1997 employment was declared to be one of the top issues of the EU, to be integrated into other policy areas. This statement was confirmed both at the EU Extraordinary Summit on Employment in Luxembourg (November 1997) and the Cardiff Summit of the Heads of States in June 1998.
 
 

One of the results of the Luxembourg Summit was that member countries committed themselves to present national plans every year on how governments plan to combat unemployment in their countries. The first set of these was submitted to the European Commission in April 1998. Despite the fact that the Commission published the Communication "Environment and Employment - Building a sustainable Europe" shortly before the Luxembourg Summit, the guidelines for the national plans on combating unemployment made no reference, until today, to environmental aspects.
 
 

This failure to integrate the environmental aspect into social policies reflects the usual approach to these two problems, which is shaped by the out-dated opinion that they are contradictory. However, more and more people recognise today that this is not necessarily the case. In the face of the "jobless growth" that many EU economies are experiencing at the moment - meaning the growth of economic activity without the according increase in employment - it is even more unlikely that old-fashioned concepts will be able to cope with today’s situation. The facts show that new concepts and approaches are needed in order to react to the complex problems of today.

We hope that this report will facilitate a new look at climate change measures and employment, helping to accelerate the implementation of the

climate related policies and measures that will benefit the environment and create jobs.
 
 

2.2 Background to the report
 
 

In this report we explore the idea that measures to protect the environment (in this case climate protection measures) are not damaging to the economy, but are actually creating employment and possibly promoting sustainable economic growth when implemented in a coherent way.

Reasons for Concept

There are several reasons why climate protection is beneficial for employment:

Further employment potential from climate measures Potential problems

When looking at the idea that climate protection is beneficial for employment there are different aspects to be taken into account as they could lead to serious problems preventing the programmes to be successful.
 
 

The aim of this report is to give an overview of existing literature on the issue of climate change and employment in the European Union. The first section is a literature review of mostly small scale country specific studies done for different sectors related to climate change. The second part presents a short analysis of the results obtained from the first part and draws some conclusions from the reviewed data.
 
 

2.3 Note on terminology
 
 

Most of the terms and expressions used in this report are commonly known. There are however some expressions which deserve an explicit clarification because it is important to be clear about their definition in order to understand the review and the analysis attached to it.

Gross and net employment

In terms of the employment effects there is a distinction between different effects. There is on the one hand the "gross" employment. In this report it has been used with the definition that it calculates the employment created in each of the different sectors of economy. On the other hand there is the "net" employment which is the overall figure calculating all the gross effects occurring in the sectors affected by the study. On a large-scale the net employment calculates all gross effects including direct, indirect and multiplier effects of the national economy.
 
 

Direct, indirect and multiplier effect

Furthermore there are different types of employment effects. First of all there are "direct" employment effects which are the jobs created or lost in industries directly affected by climate measures. "Indirect" employment effects refer to industries such as supplier industries. Most of the studies up to now have only calculated these two effects as they are easiest to model. On a third level there is the "multiplier" or "respending" effect which today is very hard to model in quantitative terms, and therefore isn't reflected in the studies with a common definition. The multiplier effect refers to the fact that by reducing unemployment more money is circulated in the economy. Part of this is the reduced unemployment costs of governments or the additional money available to people that have been unemployed before. This additional money creates a higher activity and therefore has its effects on the whole of the economy and employment.
 
 

We hope that you may find this work useful and would welcome your comments and especially any additional information on studies not mentioned in this collection. Please send these to:
 
 

Climate Network Europe

44 Rue du Taciturne

1000 Brussels

Belgium

Tel (32 2) 231 0180

Fax (32 2) 230 5713

Email canron@gn.apc.org
 
 

Footnotes
5    The IPCC is an international group of over 2000 government appointed scientists.

6  Communication “Climate Change - The EU Approach for Kyoto” (COM(97)481 final), October 1997

7 EUROSTAT Press Release of 16th June 1998
 
 

3 Procedure


The report is based on a literature study Climate Network Europe (CNE) has been doing since September 1997. For this report we assessed those studies that contained the appropriate sets of data for comparative analysis. The areas we put emphasis on was data on CO2 reduction, level of investment and employment created. This led to the selection of 11 suitable studies. The next step was to summarize the key details of the studies, which usually included further investigative work in order to collate more background details. We have focused on the following areas:

The results of this work are summarized in the matrix attached to the Executive Summary which gives a very short overview of all the studies used in this analysis.

We have also undertaken a quantitative assessment of the CO2 and jobs data. We have omitted quantitative analysis of the direct investment data because of a evident lack of transparency and comparability between the studies on this figure, which is discussed more thoroughly in the Analysis.

For each project the annual savings in CO2 for each year of the project (relative to business as usual) were added together to give a figure for the total ‘CO2 reduction’ over the lifetime of the project. This was necessary because using a reduction figure for a single year of a project takes no account of the possibility that CO2 savings may change from year to year during a project.

For example, a 10 year project which reduces C02 by 100T per annum every year relative to "business as usual" saves 1000T in total, whereas a project which saves no C02 in the first 5 years and 150T per annum in the last five years only saves 750T in total. It is therefore important to consider the reductions over the whole project lifetime, rather than just the final year, or indeed years for which data is available.

For some projects we do not have data on annual CO2 savings for each year of the project lifetime. For years where data was not available we have extrapolated linearly between the years for which we do have data. For example, with a 10 year programme where case study data indicates reductions of 100 tonnes/annum in year ten we assume reductions of 10 tonnes/annum in year 1, 20 in year two and so on.

‘Jobs created’ data was taken as net jobs created by the project given in the individual studies. There are some major issues concerned with the relevance of this data which are considered more fully in the Analysis (Section 5). A correlation was calculated between the jobs created and the CO2 reduction and a linear regression used to generate a best-fit line relating jobs created to tons of CO2. We then used this regression to estimate the number of jobs that might be associated with the EU reaching the target of a 15% reduction in annual CO2 emissions (relative to 1990) in the year 2010. In order to do this we calculated the total reductions in CO2 achieved between 1990 and 2010, on the assumption that the Community reduced emissions in a linear fashion between 1990 and 2010. According to the Commission Communication ‘The EU Approach for Kyoto’ reaching the 15% target in 2010 means a reduction in emissions of 800 million tonnes/annum CO2 relative to 1990. We therefore assumed that emissions abated in 1990 are 0 tonnes, in 1991 40 million tonnes, in 1992 80 million tonnes, and so on, until the target of 800 million tonnes below 1990 levels is reached in 2010.

Total jobs created was then generated by extrapolating the best-fit line from the case study correlation to the cumulative reduction in CO2 over the years 1990-2010 (which was 8400 million tonnes).
 
 

4 Case Studies








List of Case Studies

4.1 The Austrian Toronto Technology Program - The Economic Dynamics of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Austria)

4.2 Main gain future: New employment opportunities through a sustainable transport system (Germany)

4.3 Elements of a Green Energy Plan which can Create Job Opportunities (Denmark)

4.4 Electricity without Nuclear Power - Boom or Doom for Jobs? (Germany)

4.5 Saving the Climate that’s my Job - Case Study: Netherlands

4.6 Major Energy Savings, Environmental and Employment Benefits by Double-Glazing and Advanced Double-Glazing Technologies (European Union)

4.7 30.000 New Jobs through Implementing the Austrian Biomass Program (Austria)

4.8 Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy - White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan (Communication from the Commission, COM (97) 599 final) (European Union)

4.9 What are the Costs of a CO2 Reduction? (Germany)

4.10 Green Tax Reform - Part 6: A Reform package for the UK - 1997-2005 (United Kingdom)

4.11 A Fiscal Reform for Increasing Employment and Mitigating CO2 Emissions in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, UK)
 
 
 

4.1 The Austrian Toronto Technology Program - The Economic Dynamics of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets (Austria)


(Das österreichische Toronto-Technologie-programm - Die wirtschaftliche Dynamik von Treibhausgas-Reduktionszielen) 1997

Published and carried out by the Austrian Council on Climate Change

Intention

Model

Macroeconomic computer model developed for the Austrian economy.
 
 

The concept of the model starts with defining the amount of the 5 factors determining the final economic demand (among others private and public consumption, export). Investment is desegregated into five categories and modelled for each category. In a second step the sum of the final demand is fed into a sector model through which then the effect on demand for certain goods is calculated.

Assumptions:

Measures

The program aims at reaching the Toronto target; this means a 25% reduction of CO2 emissions until 2005 (compared to 1988).

Measures proposed are:

These measures request a public prefinancing of S1.44 billion per year. This amount will stimulate S11 billion per year of technology investment and therefore the total investment of S20 billion per year.

Effects on employment

net job creation in 2005: 12,200 or 5% of unemployed
 
 

Other benefits

additional income: S8.31 billion

additional spending: -S0.62 billion

(reduced spending)

net effect: S8.93 billionContact address:
 
 

Prof. S. Schleicher, Austrian Council on Climate Change, c/o University of Graz, Universitätstr. 15/F4, 8010 Graz, Austria, Tel +43 316 380 3440, Fax +43 316 380 3440, Email sts@wsr.ac.at
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.2 Main gain future: New employment opportunities through a sustainable transport system (Germany)

(Hauptgewinn Zukunft: Neue Arbeitsplätze durch umweltverträglichen Verkehr) June 1998

Published by Öko-Institut and Verkehrsclub Deutschland (VCD)

Carried out by the Öko-Institut
 

Intention

Model

MOBIMOD, a model developed by the Öko-Institut.

Employment effects are calculated with a static input-output model based on 58 sectors.

This model considers the direct employment effects as well as the indirect employment effects, which are induced by the demand of products that are necessary for the production of products and services for the final demand. Changes in labor productivity are not calculated within the model but in an additional approach.

Assumptions:

for TREND and MOVE scenario:

TREND scenario: MOVE scenario: Measures
 
 

TREND Scenario (baseline) assumes a continuation of current transport policies. Among them are the following:

MOVE Scenario:

The overall amount of journeys undertaken and "activities" are not changed in comparison to the TREND scenario. The overall amount of passenger kilometres is reduced at a range of 4.2% in 2010 as compared to the TREND scenario.
 
 

The usage of transport modes changes as below (in comparison to the TREND scenario):

Among the measures to achieve this are: This will result in effects like:
 
 

Additional revenues from taxes amount to DM 25.062 million per year. From these there has to be deducted the amount of expenditure for public transport and for investments into new infrastructure due to the intermodal shift. These are at the range of DM 11.212 million per year. The remaining DM 13.851 million are redistributed to private households and therefore compensate them for the additional tax burden. Due to reduced imports (especially cars, gas etc.) the domestic economy experiences an increase in demand of DM 6.808 million per year.
 
 

CO2 emissions will be reduced at a rate of 31% below the TREND scenario, or 24% below current emission levels. In figures this is a reduction of 50 Mt below the TREND scenario and a 30 Mt reduction below the 1995 level.
 
 

Effect on Employment
 
 

Net average employment (1990-2010):
 
new employment created
337,000
employment lost
-130,000
net employment effect
207,000

 

Sectoral employment effects:
 
Sector
Employment
car production
-74,000
construction 
35,000
wholesale and retail
-22,000
services of railways
122,000
services of other transport
99,000
insurance (excluding social security)
-20,000
other services (hotel, restaurant, science, consulting, 

architecture etc.)

48,000
other sectors (negative)
-14,000
other sectors (positive)
33,000

 

Other benefits

Contact address:

Anke Herold, Öko-Institut, Binzengrün 34a, 79114 Freiburg, Germany, Tel +49 761 45295-28, Fax +49 761 475437, Email herold@freiburg.oeko.de
 
 
 

4.3 Elements of a Green Energy Plan which can Create Job Opportunities (Denmark)


March 1996

Published by General Workers Union in Denmark (SiD)

Carried out by the Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University
 

Intention

Model
The model is an Excel model. The assumptions are based on the existing electricity production capacity of two existing power plants. It does a detailed analysis of the energy balance, investment needed for the "Green Energy Plan" and the effect on governmental budgets for the years 1988, 1993, 2005 and 2015.

The effect on employment and import has been calculated for each technology on the basis of data gathered for the research project "The Employment Effects of Danish Energy Policies".

Assumptions:

Measures

The study is designed for Denmark to reach a CO2 reduction of 20% by 2005 and 34% by 2015 compared to 1988 levels.

Measures proposed are:

The plan requires an investment of DKK5 billion per year.
 

Effects on employment
 
SectorEmployment effect by 2005
Conversion from electrical heating
400
Additional insulation
2,700
Change to natural gas district heating
1,800
More decentral cogeneration plants
1,500
Biogas and straw gasification plants
1,200
Wind generators
800
Fewer central power generating stations
-600
Power saving
2,600
Operation and maintenance
3,100
Fuels
-500
Total employment effect
13,000

 

Until the year 2015 employment rises steadily to approximately 16,000 jobs (additional to the baseline).
 
 

Other benefits

DKK 1.4 billion (rising fuel prices)Contact address:

General Workers Union in Denmark (SiD), Kampmannsgade 4, P.O. Box 392, DK-1790 Copenhagen, Denmark, Tel +45 33 14 21 40, Fax +45 33 97 24 60
 
 
 
 

4.4 Electricity without Nuclear Power - Boom or Doom for Jobs? (Germany)

October 1994

Published by Greenpeace Germany

Carried out by the Progress Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (PIW) in Bremen, Germany
 
 

Intention

Model

One basis for this study is the study "What does nuclear phase-out cost" by the Öko-Institute for Greenpeace in 1994. The calculations for costs attached to the nuclear phase-out are taken from this study.
 
 

The calculation of the employment effects is done by using an input-output table. The table is based on economic structures as of 1990 and this stays on a constant level. It differentiates 17 sectors. The multiplier effect is calculated with a factor of 1.9 for job gains (this means that for each DM100 that an employee earns more the economy experiences a further increase of income at a rate of DM90).
 
 

Job losses are also taken into account including job losses (indirect and respending) at a factor of over 2 (this means that for each direct job lost another job is lost in the economy).
 
 

Assumptions:
 
 

in 1992: 525 TWh

trend scenario (2010): 716 TWh (+36%)

GP scenario (2010): 422 TWh (-20%)

Measures
 
 

The study refers to the scenario of a nuclear phase-out until the year 2000 and a restructuring of the energy industry in order to achieve a more sustainable energy supply. Apart from the nuclear industry the sectors included in the scenario are:
 
 

The trend (or business-as-usual) scenario represents a pursuing of current policies without any further promotion of renewables or phase-out of nuclear power.

The overall investment required for the Greenpeace scenario is in the order of 416 billion DM over the time period of 1992-2010. This is 38.1 billion below the investment required for the trend scenario. This difference increases even more if the costs of a nuclear disaster are taken into account.

Overall the trend scenario emits 6,800Mt of CO2 until the year 2010 whereas the totalCO2 emissions in the GP scenario amount to only 5,800Mt until 2010.
 
 

Effect on Employment

The calculations below are the employment changes from the trend scenario and take into account direct, indirect and multiplier effects. This means that sectoral employment development can be very different from the overall figure given below, e.g. job losses in the coal industry can be much higher. But as there are also job losses projected for the trend scenario the figures below only represent additional job losses caused by the measures undertaken in the Greenpeace scenario.
 
 
Measures/effects
Employment
direct and indirect employment effect resulting from a production impulse through restructuring the power station network
15,000
purchasing power impulses resulting from restructuring power station network
17,000
increased private household demand for consumer goods through savings in electricity consumption
79,000
investment-induced effects on account of savings in electricity consumption by industries and businesses and self-financed measures to encourage restructuring
59,000
Taking nuclear power plants out of operation
-6,000
Reduction of energy from brown coal
-10,000
Reduction of energy from hard coal
-33,000
Net employment effect
121,000

Other benefits


Contact address:

Greenpeace Germany, Große Elbstr. 39, 22767 Hamburg, Germany Tel +49 40 30618-222, Fax 49 40 306 18-211, Email mail@greenpeace.de
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.5 Saving the Climate that’s my Job - Case Study: Netherlands

March 1995

Carried out by the Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology, Marc D. Davidson and Gerrit de Wit
 
 

Intention

Model

Input/output model using the ICARUS database for the calculation of the energy saving potentials for different economic sectors and the attached CO2 reductions. The employment effects are calculated on the basis of the table from the "Statistics Netherlands" for the Dutch economy in 1991.

Assumptions:

Baseline scenario:

For the Toronto target: Measures

The study wants to achieve the Toronto target (a 20% CO2 reduction until 2005, compared to 1990). This implies a reduction of 80 Mt of CO2 compared to the baseline scenario. The study focuses solely on energy efficiency improvement. The rate of improvement lies at 4% per year between 1994-2005.

Specific measures introduced are:

Apart from wind energy all measures are calculated to have negative overall costs. Therefore the calculations assume that the investment costs will be recovered by the lower energy bill. The investment will amount to 5.48 billion NLG per year whereas the total energy bill savings are calculated to be around 17.21 billion NLG per year.
 
 

Effects on employment
 
 

Potential employment effects in 2005:
 
 
 
direct
indirect
total
investment in energy efficiency measures
17,000
21,000
38,000
lower turnover of energy sector
-17,000
-27,000
-44,000
respending saved money
40,000
38,000
77,000
Total
39,000
32,000
71,000

This employment rate is also expected to be stabilized on this level after 2005.
 
 

Other benefits


Contact address:
Marc Davidson, Centre for Energy Conservation and Environmental Technology, Oude Delft 180, 2611 HH Delft, The Netherlands, Tel +31 15 215 0150, Fax +31 15 215 0151, Email ce@antenna.nl
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.6 Major Energy Savings, Environmental and Employment Benefits by Double-Glazing and Advanced Double-Glazing Technologies (European Union)

December 1995
Published by DG XVII (Energy) of the European Commission.
Carried out by the Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe (FIZ) and the Comité Permanent des Industries du Verre de la Communauté Economique Européenne (CPIV).
 

Intention

Model

The model uses a standardized computer model allowing a precise evaluation of energy consumption. It is based on data collected by the glass industries in the EU countries.
 
 

For the economic analysis it makes different calculation steps. First of all it calculates four types of dwellings:

  1. single-family house (101m²), constructed ‘49-57
  2. single-family house (158m²), constructed ‘69-78
  3. apartment house (1 457m²), constructed ‘49-57
  4. apartment house (3 020m²), constructed ‘69-78
Additionally the model calculates the "U value" of the windows existing in the dwellings (U value defines the thermal transmittance of a glazing product during a fixed period of time). The "U value" also takes into account the climatic conditions of each country. Finally it evaluates the marginal glazing costs for different interest rates on investment.
 
 

For the employment effects the study only calculates the direct employment effects for installation and assumes that it takes 4 man days to replace the windows in a typical dwelling. Employment effects calculated are based on the assumption that the working force of the insulating industry is needed for current rates of installation and therefore new capacities are created.
 
 

Assumptions:

            -for colder countries: 7 or 8 years

            -for warmer countries: 24 and 36 years

Measures
The study models the replacement of current single- or double-glazed windows of all dwellings in the EU by high performance double-glazed windows in a time frame of 10 years.

The study only calculates the benefits through energy savings and doesn’t take account of other benefits. Energy savings are calculated for the energy saving potentials per m² window and the fuel which the results are calculated for is oil.

Overall investments required amounts to 137 billion ECUs (1995). Savings in unemployment payment in these 8 countries would amount to around 11 billion ECU.

CO2 reductions are in the order of 94 million tons per year, representing 3.2% of total CO2 emissions of the EU.
 

Effect on Employment
 
Country
Direct employment created over 10 years
Belgium
3,380
France
22,375
Germany (West)
13,330
Italy
34,650
Netherlands
2,915
Spain
17,780
United Kingdom
16,670
Total
111,100
For EU-15
126,000

Other benefits


Contact address:
Groupement Européenne des Producteurs de Verre Plat, 89 Avenue Louise, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, Tel +32 2 538.4377, Fax +32 2 537.8469
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.7 30.000 New Jobs through Implementing the Austrian Biomass Program (Austria)

(30.000 neue Arbeitsplätze - Das Österreichische Biomasseprogramm) July 1997
Published and carried out by the Austrian Biomass Association

Intention

Model

not specified

Assumptions:

Measures

The study calculates measures for the following emission reduction target:

The study elaborates the detailed measures needed to achieve these 62 PJ of biomass:
 
 
  1. Energy taxes:
- 0.4 Schilling per litre per year on lighter heating oil ("Heizöl leicht und extraleicht")

- 0.1 Schilling per litre per year on heavier heating oil ("Heizöl schwer und mittel")

- 0.3 Sch. per m3 per year on natural gas

- 0.2 Sch. per kg per year on coal

- ruling out the tax freedom for coal and natural gas when they are used for the production of electricity. Instead the tax burden on fossil fuels could be reduced to 1/3 of the proposed tax rate if they are used in electricity companies that use
 
 
 
 

at least 10% of the primary energy consumption to produce electricity.

- enforcing a tax on aircraft fuels step-by-step to the same level as the tax of car fuels
- taxes on diesel and gas should be designed like in Germany and Italy
- no taxes on renewables; the VAT on district heating from renewables should be lowered from 20 to 10%
  1. Supporting projects by 30-80% that enhance renewable energies with public financial support
  2. Companies who produce energy from biomass should be provided with economically feasible conditions
  3. No more pipelines for natural gas in regions where heating can be provided by wood ovens
  4. Public support for renewable energies through public statements and green public spending


Effects on employment
 
Measures
Employment in 2005
Jobs created in production and supply of biomass
18,000
Jobs created in small enterprises and industry (through primary and secondary effects)
12,000
Jobs created through new chances for export of newly developed technologies
3,000
Jobs lost in the traditional sectors of energy production (coal, gas etc.)
-3,000
Net job creation
30,000

Other benefits
 
 

Contact address:

Austrian Biomass Association, Franz Josefs-Kai 13, 1010 Vienna, Austria, Tel +43 1 533 0797, Fax +43 1 533 0790, Email forum@netway.at
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.8 Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy - White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan (Communication from the Commission, COM (97) 599 final) (European Union)

November 1997

Published by the European Commission
 

Intention

Model

SAFIRE market penetration model which is an input-output model. Induced effects (e.g. respending of labour) are not taken into account by the model.

Results taken from The European Renewable Energy Study (TERES II) study, carried out by Energy for Sustainable Development Ldt. (ESD) for the ALTENER program.

Measures

The share of renewable energy contribution to the primary energy demand shall be doubled, from 6 to 12% until 2010. This can reduce European CO2 emissions by 250 million tons per year by 2010.

This requires a total capital investment of 95 billion ECU from 1997-2010. The saving in fuel costs is expected to be 3 billion ECU/year and an overall saving of 21 billion ECUs.

Effects on Employment

Other benefits Contact address:

Ian McChesney, ESD, Overmoor Farm, Nestom, Corsham, Wiltshire SN13 9TZ, United Kingdom, Tel +44 1225 812102, Fax +44 1225 812103, Email esd@esd.co.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.9 What are the Costs of a CO2 Reduction? (Germany)

(Was kosted eine Reduktion der CO2-Emissionen?) February 1997

Carried out by the Institute for Empirical Economic Research, University of Osnabrück
 
 

Intention

Model

Model used is PANTA RHEI, a bottom-up and environmental economic model. The model distinguishes 29 fuels, divides the economy into 58 production sectors and uses around 250 variables for each sector. This leads to about 30,000 calculations happening in the modeling process.
 
 

Assumptions:

Baseline:

-GDP rises at an average rate of 1.4% year

-energy consumption rises 5.7% over 1990 levels (until 2005)

-CO2 emissions rise 2% over 1990 (by 2010)

-Private consumption rises 1.8% per year

Tax scenario:

-Tax of 10 DM/tCO2 in 1996; rises to 420 DM/tCO2 in 2005

Companies shift their burden entirely on their prices

additional imports of electricity are prohibited
 
 

Measures

The study is designed to reach a CO2 reduction of 25% by the year 2005, compared to 1990 levels.

The overall revenue of the tax will be DM 221 billion.
 
 

Effects on employment
 

Overall GDP is reduced by 2.8% (in 2005 as compared to the business-as-usual scenario). Nevertheless it will still be increasing by about 1.1% per year.

Net job creation: 1.5 million (+5.8%)

Working hours per sector (from selected sectors of economy):
 
Sector
in million
in percentage
mineral oil processing industry
-6.1
-36.5
coal mining industry
-34.6
-23.4
iron processing industry
-27.8
-15.7
chemical industry
-60.5
-6.9
food production
+114.2
+10.0
construction sector
+342.3
+20.2
conversion construction sector
+243.1
+21.7

 

Other benefits

Contact address:

Prof. Dr. Bernd Meyer, University of Osnabrück, Rolandstr. 8, 49069 Osnabrück, Germany, Tel +49 541 969-2767, Email meyer@oec.uni-osnabrueck.de
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.10 Green Tax Reform - Part 6: A Reform package for the UK - 1997-2005 (United Kingdom)

1997

Published by the Institute for Public Policy Research - IPPR

Carried out by Cambridge Econometrics
 
 

Intention

Model

The Cambridge Multisectoral Dynamic E3 model, a large-scale integrated model of the UK economy and its regions. It includes interactions of energy, environment and economy. Among these the energy submodel enables the analysis of the impact of an energy tax on the fuel composition of the economy.
The structure of the model is comparatively simple containing about 26 equations for energy and economy variables. It calculates variables for 49 industries, 38 investment sectors, 10 fuels, 10 types of air emissions and 12 regions.

Measures
 
 

The study models a package of taxes combined with two scenarios to preserve the fiscal neutrality:

The overall revenue of this tax would amount to £21.7 billion in 2005.

Scenarios to recycle the revenue:

a) the economist's package:

b) the politician's package: The introduction of these tax packages leads to an overall reduction of 9% of the UK's total CO2 emissions in 2005, compared to the base scenario. Of these 9% the largest part of reduction is delivered by transport (19%), iron and steel (18%), chemicals (12%) and other industry (10%).
 
 

Effects on employment
 
 

a) Economist's package:
 
 

Net employment effect:
 
 
 
Year
Employment
2000
252,000
2005
717,000

(or 2.56% from the baseline)


 

The unemployment rate falls by 300,000 because not all of the newly employed people have been registered as unemployed.
 
 

b) Politician's package:
 
 

Net employment effects:
 
 
 
Year
Employment
2000
206,000
2005
576,000

(or a 2.06% from the baseline)

Gross employment effects in 2005:
 
 
 
Sector
Employment
Agriculture
8,600
Manufacturing
112,200
Utilities
6,700
Construction
40,600
Distribution, hotels
68,000
Transport and communication
17,700
Other market services
119,600
Non-market services
203,000
Total
576,000

 

Type of employment:
 
 
 
Type
Employment
Full-time
325,700
Part-time
177,000
Self-employed
73,300

 

Other benefits

Contact address:

Chris Hewett, Institute for Public Policy Research, 30-32 Southampton Street, London WC2E 7RA, Tel +44 171 470 6100, Fax +44 171 470 6111, Email ippr@easynet.co.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

4.11 A Fiscal Reform for Increasing Employment and Mitigating CO2 Emissions in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, UK)

1995

Carried out by Francis Bossier and Thierry Bréchet, Federal Planning Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Belgium
 
 

Intention

Model

The HERMES model was used which distinguishes energy, capital, labour and other intermediate inputs as production factors, for eight different production sectors.
 
 

Assumptions:

BFGINUK
GDP2.02.52.42.52.52.5
CO2 emissions0.80.61.01.21.01.4
Private consumption1.92.32.22.21.42.7
Energy consumption1.31.01.61.91.62.3
Energy prices1.51.52.13.71.82.5

B=Belgium, F=France, G=Germany, I=Italy, N=Netherlands, UK=United Kingdom
 
 

Measures
 

Implementation of a combined CO2/energy tax:

cuts in employers' social security contributions addit. measure: introduction of a wage moderation scheme to prevent a strong wage-price spiral
 

CO2 emissions are reduced by 4.4% compared to the baseline scenario. Mean energy prices rise to +16.3% over the baseline (in 2003).
 
 

Effects on employment

After 8 years of the tax:
 
Country
Energy
Industry
Intermediate goods
Equipment goods
Consump-tion goods
Belgium
-400
2,700
1,600
5,600
France
-600
11,200
9,000
20,600
Germany
-700
20,100
31,900
18,900
Italy
0
5,700
8,500
10,200
Netherlands
-400
800
200
2,100
United Kingdom
700
11,700
44,500
12,900

 
 
Construc-tion
Transport
Services
Total
2,100
4,700
15,900
32,500
10,200
5,100
43,400
98,800
48,100
26,200
76,400
234,700
8,300
17,700
90,900
165,600
2,400
2,200
7,900
15,200
9,200
21,100
43,300
150,100

 

Other benefits

Contact address:

F. Bossier, T. Bréchet, Federal Planning Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Avenue des Arts, 47/49, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium, Tel +32 2 507.7311, Fax +32 2 507.7373
 
 


5 Analysis









5.1 Introduction

As a first general remark the most obvious feature of the results is that all the studies suggest that climate protection policies and measures will provide net job benefits - none of the examples considered in detail by this study suggest that climate measures will result in a net loss of jobs. CNE has been completely unbiased in putting this review together, and whilst we are not suggesting that it is exhaustive, it is at least strongly indicative of the balance of the scientific findings in this area.

Many of the studies have been developed by renewables and energy efficiency industry groups with a vested commercial interest in positive employment results, and therefore there may be some subjective bias in these methodologies. On the other hand there is no evidence of such work by the fossil fuel or heavy industry communities, most prominent in objecting to climate policy development. This suggests that even the ‘creative’ consultants employed by these groups have not put conflicting figures together.

To-date, CNE has come across one exception to this trend (8). A study produced by the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI) examined the effects of an energy tax on the employment market in Northrhein Westphalia. It concluded that such a tax would result in 430,000 job losses in the energy supply and energy intensive industries. The report did however note that additional jobs would be created through decentralized electricity generation, cogeneration and energy efficiency, but these were not quantified. This study has not yet been published or subjected to peer review.(9)
 

5.2 Quantitative Analysis
 

The graph below plots "CO2 reductions" against "jobs created" in order to identify a consistent relationship between the two variables. The UK tax reform example is omitted from this analysis
because the measures in this work are targeted at a number of environmental sectors and not only at CO2 reductions. It was not possible to isolate the employment effects of the climate measures within this package and therefore quantitative analysis is inappropriate.

A weak correlation (Correlation Coefficient (CC) = 0.58) can be established using the 10 studies which is perhaps unsurprising given the substantial uncertainties which are discussed below. It is worth noting that the two studies dealing exclusively with taxation measures (and where revenue generated is almost entirely recycled through reductions on labour charges) have especially high job creation potentials relative to CO2 emissions reduced. The other studies are less simplistic and usually include dedicated and detailed investment programs focusing on specific technologies. If the two "taxation-only" studies are excluded from the quantitative assessment then the correlation improves substantially (CC=0.86) (see Figure 1), which is surprisingly high given the large differences in methodological assumptions.

This may be due to the small sample but could also be indicative of a much stronger relationship between the two variables which would become apparent under more normalized conditions. The strength of this relationship makes it worthwhile extrapolating the best-fit trendline to give an estimate of the EU -15% CO2 reduction target (see Figure 2 and Table 1). The results are as follows:
 

Table 1: Employment effects of the 15% CO2 reduction target
 
 
StudyEmployment effects
CNE regression analysis - 10 studies, CC=0.58+ 3 986 740
CNE regression analysis - 8 studies, CC=0.86+ 1 927 064
Commission macroeconomic analysis (for comparison) (10)+ 1 023 000

 

5.2 Limitations of the data

The quantitative results should be treated with considerable caution and have been generated more to establish general indicative trends and as a focus for discussion rather than to establish concrete statistical relationship.

In many cases various models have been used to simulate the workings of technology shifts on the economy. Whilst some of the more obvious features of these packages are identified in this review, no attempt has been made to assess the implications of a model’s structure and assumptions in terms of the implications for job creation - a task which unfortunately falls outside the remit of the study. There are substantial differences in assumptions about variables such as GDP growth, energy prices, price elasticities of demand, technology prices, CO2 emissions and so on. These effects are compounded by the fact that many analyses are country specific and are therefore focused on distinct economies which behave in different ways.
 

Two areas of particular importance are examined in more detail below:

Economic costs and benefits

Initially it was the intention of the study to compare the economic costs and benefits for various technology options in an attempt to establish a hierarchy of cost effectiveness in terms of job creation. This was not possible for a number of reasons, for example:
 
 


Job creation

Another problem area, when comparing the results of the studies and also for concluding on the relevance of climate measures for job creation, is in assessing the real value of the jobs created:

Footnotes
 8  Regionalwirtschaftliche Wirkung von Steuern und Abgaben auf den Verbrauch von Energie - das Beispiel NRW (1996). Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).
 9 Die Ökologische Steurreform (1998), Krebs C., Reiche D., Rocholl M. Birkhäuser Verlag
10   Macro-economic Implications of the “Kyoto” CO2 Target for the European Union. Results from the GEM-E3 Model(1998). Pierre Valette, DGXII. Commission internal working paper.


 
 

6 Conclusions






The most obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this review is that climate change policies and energy efficient and clean technologies create jobs. More importantly these policies and technologies create jobs when compared to a business as usual baseline, and usually produce net economic benefits at the same time. This suggests that the jobs created are sustainable and not just a function of direct project investment producing localized and temporary opportunities. Following on from this, it is reasonable to assume that the intelligent development of policies and measures designed to combat climate change could result in a buoyant job market, focusing on the expansion of under-exploited technologies and business concepts. In order to exploit this potential a number of areas need to be addressed:
 
 

6.1 Methodological recommendations

Methodological guidelines for estimating job creation potential would be helpful to improve the comparability of results. One example could be standardized techniques for calculating direct and indirect jobs created and the resultant multiplier effects. Consistent use of job years would give a clearer picture of the permanence of work created.

Environmental costs should be included in calculations or, at least, some indication of relative benefits in this area should be given. Whilst considerable uncertainties remain in costing externalities associated with greenhouse gases, other pollutants such as acid gases and particulate can be estimated more accurately. The Extern E program is a good example.

The ‘real value’ of job creation should be considered in more detail. A greater discussion of the qualitative aspects of job creation would be useful and, in particular, linked for example to subjects such as regional employment effects, skills development, labour availability and existing patterns of unemployment.
 

6.2 Integration of employment concerns into environmental thinking
 
 

Many of the studies consider job creation as a secondary effect or a ‘bonus’. As a result, the ‘real value’ of jobs created is usually poorly estimated, because the studies are not designed to address unemployment as a key issue. There needs to be greater interaction between policy makers in the fields of climate change and employment creation. A greater understanding is required of the real issues underpinning the employment debate, in order to design policies which maximize employment opportunities and greenhouse gas reductions in tandem.


7 Further Work






This study provides an initial insight of the job creation potential of climate measures. To obtain more accurate and comprehensive data, further work is however required.

Furthermore:
 


 

8 Bibliography






General CO2 Reduction:
 
 

Transport:
 
  Energy Efficiency - Domestic/Tertiary:
 
  Renewables:
 
  Cogeneration:
 
  Taxation:
 
 
9 Index of Terms






CO2 carbon dioxide

NOx the sum of NO (nitrogen oxide) and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide)

SO2 sulphur dioxide

Mt million tons

GJ gigajoule (109)

TJ terajoule (1012)

PJ petajoule (1015)

MW million watt

TWh tera watt-hours

ECU/toe ECU per ton of oil equivalent
 
 

Annex 1: Further Studies

1 Improving the Environment and Promoting Employment in Denmark

September 1995

Transport, environment and employment: A strategy with three pillars

Published/carried out by

Published by the General Workers Union in Denmark (SiD)

Prepared by the Economic Council of the Labour Movement, Denmark and the Centre for Alternative Social Analysis (CASA)

Model

Data for the size of the direct and indirect employment effects is based on the input output analysis of Denmark’s Statistics.

For the multiplier effects on employment there has been used the macroeconomic model ADAM.

Measures

The aim of the study is to achieve a shift from private to public transport and thereby promote employment.

Strategy A:

Shifting the price of transport, making public transport cheaper and private transport more expensive. This will lead to a shift from private to public transport.

Strategy B:

Investing in the infrastructure of public transport (e.g. railways) through either state or combined private/state investment.

The investment required to achieve a sensible improvement in the railway infrastructure is DKK 15 billion.

Strategy C (Denmark's Road Safety Commission):

Reduce average speed of cars and improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Investment required is about 7.5 billion DKK.
 

Effects on employment

Strategy A:

per DKK 1 billion:

jobs created in public tr. 2,900

jobs lost in private tr. about 1,000

net job creation 2,000

(direct and indirect effect)

for shifting 5% of private transport (means a 25% increase in public transport):

net job creation 3,000

Strategy B:

per DKK 1 billion (including VAT):

net job creation 2,700 person-years

for DKK 15 billion:

net job creation 40,000 person-years

with multiplier effect 55,000 person-years

he employment effect applies dispersed over the whole of Denmark and especially to unskilled workers in the construction area.

Strategy C (Denmark's Road Safety Commission):

net job creation 20,000 person-years

with multiplier effect 28,000 person-years
 

Contact address:

General Workers Union in Denmark (Sid), P.O. Box 392, 1790 Kopenhagen V, Denmark, Tel +43 33 14 21 40, Fax +43 33 97 24 60
 
 
 

2 Sustainable Development in the Service of Employment (France)

(Formation d’Elus: Le Developpement Durable au Service de l’Emploi) January 1998

Published/carried out by

Published by INESTENE

The cited and evaluated studies have been carried out by different organizations. They will be mentioned with the different studies.

Biomass

Scenario of ASDER (Association Savoyarde pour le Developpement des Energies Renouvelables)

Model

For the calculations of the employment effect of the program there has been used a calculation scheme most often used for biomass. This calculates 4 jobs created per 1000toe of wood consumed. This figure takes into account job losses elsewhere in the economy.

Measures

The plan wants to create 2,000 biomass power plants in a time frame of 6 years. This is equal to 200MW energy and would require an investment of 670 million FF over the 6 years.

Effect on Employment

Direct employment effect:
 
 
employment in wood supply200
employment in exploitation50
total250

Solar Energy

The future plan of ASDER

Model

The study uses an established calculation for the employment generated by solar panel installation based on figures from existing companies in the solar sector in France. The ratio is that one direct job/year in the solar sector costs 350,000-500,000 FF.

Measures

The program wants to install 117 000 m² of solar panels in the time frame of 5 years. They would serve for the following three sectors:

In total this project would cost 541 million FF.

Effect on Employment
 
 
 
job-years
Direct employment (fabrication and installation)
1,082
Indirect employment accompanying measures)
128
total
1,210

Transport

Employment and Energy mobilized by passenger transport

Published/carried out by

Published by INESTENE

Carried out by INRETS and ADEME.

Model

There has been used the model IMPACT. This model evaluates the employment generated through investments in transport infrastructure. (It has as a basis that industries respond to the needs and not try to use their capacities.

Measures

The study evaluates the actual situation of transport in the region of Rhône-Alpes in regard of the energy consumed and employment generated by different means of transport.

It compares the situation of

  1. urban car transport and public transport.
  2. the employment generated through sectors of public transport (bus and metro).
Effects on Employment

1) Per billion of passenger-km:
 
Means of transportEnergy consumedEmployment
urban car transport53,000toe2,700
public transport24,000toe5,600

If these figures are compared public transport consumes 2,2 times less energy and creates 2 times more employment than urban car transport.

2) The study shows that bus transport employs 8 times more people than the metro.

Transport Projects for the Region Rhône-Alpes: The Real Alternative to the A51

Model

Not specified

Measures

Instead of building the A51 which is a new highway from Grenoble to Sisteron and which would go through a mountain region the alternative plan contains two measures:

  1. an upgrading of the two national routes RN75 and RN85 in 12 years which also includes an enlargement in some parts.
  2. 2an reconstruction of the train connection between Grenoble and Veynes.
This would require an investment of 1,741mio FF (comparison: the A51 will require 13,7 billion FF).

Effects on Employment

  1. direct job creation 1,800
  2. direct job creation 1,569
Net job creation: 3,369

Cost per job 516,770 FF

(comparison: The A51 would creat about 400 jobs and therefore has a cost/job ratio of 34.25million FF/job)

Evaluation of a Program to Renovate Heating Installations in Private Buildings in Rhône-Alpes

Model
The study uses the model "Mure-chauffage" developed by INESTENE in 1993. It is a bottom-up model which is able to evaluate the impacts of an energy efficiency program on energy consumption. For this it identifies each measure unit by calculating the associated costs for acquisition and implemention of the specific insulation measure. Parameters for this are the type of lodging, the age, the type of heating and the energy used (oil, gas, wood etc).

Measures

The program intends an insulation of housing built before 1975 in the time frame of 1995-2010.

This means that about 630 000 buildings will be insulated. The measures shall be implemented evenly over the 15 years of program duration The program requires an investment of 7,2 billion FF, therefore 11,500 FF per building.

Effects on Employment

Direct job creation in 15 years:
 
 
MeasureEmployment
roof insulation125
wall insulation1048
ground insulation684
double glassing194
total2051

Conclusions

In the conclusions there is a comparison between the different employment scenarios. This comparison can only be used as an indicator for certain trends of employment creation as the studies reviewed use different models and different assumptions and therefore cannot be directly compared.
 
Sector/StudyCost in mio FFDuration (in years)EmploymentCost/job in mio FF
Superphenix34,400251,30026.46
Biomass (plan ASDER)67062502.68
Solar (plan ASDER)54161,210 (job-years)0.447 (job-years)
Insulation of housing7,200152,0513.51

Contact address:
INESTENE, Frédéric Tuillé, 5 rue Buot, 75013 Paris, France, Tel +33 1 45650808, Fax +33 1 45897357, Email inestene@wanadoo.fr
 
 
 
 
 
 

3 Are there Double Dividends in Finland? - The Swedish Green Tax Commission - Simulations for Finland

1997

Published/carried out by Helsinki School of Economics

Model
The model is a standard, pseudo-dynamic CGE-model. It takes into account market imperfections and therefore a potentially stronger reaction to a tax than in a perfect market.

Among the key assumptions the authors chose there are the following:

Measures
The study takes as the starting point the introduction of a tax on electricity and fuels for all sectors in 1997 with an tax exemption for fuels used for electricity production. In 1997 there is a revenue of 14.2 billion FIN marks.

There are then different tax scenarios modeled of which there will be two listed in this report. The tax policy sees a raising of the carbon taxes by 200% (no time frame given) and a redistribution of the revenue by lowering employers’ social security payments. One scenario models a fixed sectoral investment (scenario 1), the other a fixed overall investment (scenario 2).
 

Effects on Employment
 

Effects on sectoral employment (in percentage from the baseline):
 
SectorScenario 1Scenario 2
Agriculture
-0.29
0.00
Forest
0.61
0.30
Mining
0.94
1.74
Coal
3.46
4.29
Hydro
1.2
0.33
Combined Heat and Power
0.94
0.09
Construction
0.08
0.97
Transport
0.35
0.81
Service
0.77
0.87
Other
0.59
0.7
Net employment
0.69
0.85
CO2 emissions
1.07
1.42
GDP
1.91
1.59

Contact address:

Juha Honkatukia, Helsinki School of Economics, Runeberginkatu 15 A 20, 00100 Helsinki, Finland, Fax +358 0 4313 8305, Email honkatuk@hkkk.fi
 
 
 

4 Jobs for the Climate: The Employment Potential of Energy Efficiency Measures in the Housing Sector (Germany)

(Jobs fürs Klima - Beschäftigungspotentiale von Energiesparmaßnahmen im Raumwärmebereich)

November 1997

Published by WWF Germany

Carried out by German Institute for Economic Research (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung DIW)

Model

The study uses an open static input-output model. The input-output table used for this is produced by the German Federal Statistical Office ("Statistisches Bundesamt") for the year 1993. It calculates 58 production sectors, six sectors of final demand and 7 primary input. All indications about prices are made in prices of 1993. Employment effects are calculated on the basis of changes in production resulting from demand impulses.

Assumptions include:

The study only looks at insulating measures in the housing sector. The following conditions are taken as a presumption for the calculations:


Measures
 
 

A total investment of DM 200 Mio (in prices of 1990) will lead to energy saving of more than 50% in 55 years. They will account for about 30% in the year 2005 and about 45% in 2020. The amount of saved energy costs will therefore be DM 12.6 billion in 2005 and DM 18.9 billion in 2020 (in prices of 1993).
 
 

Effects on employment
 

Gross employment effect:
 
 

positive effects from investments in energy savings
 
Sector
2005
2020
construction
45,100
11,000
building materials
3,900
700
other
13,200
2,800

negative effects from saved energy
 
electricity, steam
-10,700
-14,000
gas
-4,700
-6,200
coal, products from mining
-8,900
-11,700
mineral oil products
-1,400
-1,500
other
-15,500
-10,000

Net employment effect:
 
energy saving investments
73,700
16,800
saved energy
-50,400
-60,500
spending of saved energy costs
47,900
53,400
muliplier effect
6,200
900
Total
77,400
10,600
in percentage of total employees (Germany)
0.20%
0.03%

Contact address:
 

WWF Germany, Stephan Singer, Hedderichstr. 110, 60591 Frankfurt, Germany, Tel +49 69 60500377, Fax +49 69 617221, Email singer@wwf.de
 
 
 
 
 
 

5 Saving the Climate That’s my Job - Literature Study: Germany (West-Germany)

August 1995

Further demand-oriented studies:

Macroeconomic effects of air pollution control and climate protection measures (FhG-ISI, 1992)
 

Published by the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy GmbH

Written by Karin Ostertag (FhG-ISI) and Kai Schlegelmilch (Wuppertal Institute)
 
 

Model
The model uses a bottom-up-approach with long-term macro model
 
 

Measures

The study covers the time frame from 1987-2005 and the envisaged CO2 reductions are in the range of 28% in 2005, compared to 1987.

To achieve this CO2 reduction an energy tax is introduced:

This leads to an enhancement of energy efficiency and therefore a decline in demand for energy.
 
 

Effects on employment

Net Job creation in 2005 (compared to the baseline scenario):
 
Scenario 1Scenario 2
direct employment100,000100,000
indirect and multiplier effect340,000140,000
net employment440,000240,000

scenario 1 = when respending the saved money

scenario 2 = when not respending the money
 

Contact address:
Kai Schlegelmilch, Wuppertal Institut, Döppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany, Tel +49 202 2492-0, Fax +49 202 2492-108, Email kai.schlegelmilch@wupperinst.org
 
 
 
 

6 Solar Jobs 2010 (Germany)

April 1997
 

Published by Greenpeace Germany

Carried out by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (Fraunhofer Institut für Solare Energiesysteme)

Model

Not specified

Measures

Increase of photovoltaic and wind energy until 2010:

This financing scheme will lead to a higher electricity price of 0,25 Pf/kWh (or 10DM per year for an average family) and an additional total supporting investment of DM 17,7 billion between 1998 and 2035.

Effect on Employment
 
Employment effectWind energyPhotovoltaic
direct employment6,930-7,3603,660-4,590
indirect employment2,570-2,7601,500-1,960
multiplier effect4,270-4,5602,320-2,950
net effect13,770-14,6807,480-9,500

Contact address:
Greenpeace Germany, Sven Teske, Zweigbüro Berlin, Chausseestr.131, 10115 Berlin, Germany, Tel +49 30 308899-0, Email mail@greenpeace.de
 
 
 
 

7 Direct and Indirect Job Creation from the Standard of Performance for Energy Efficiency Program (United Kingdom)

June 1997
 

Summary of the report to the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and Unison by the Association for the Conservation of Energy ACE

Model
 

The study uses a bottom-up model based on empirical evidence within the members of ACE. The modellers chose two Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) to discuss in detail the Standards of Performance (SoP) program implementation and likely employment effects. Using the figures of this discussion and the total number of measures within the 14 Public Electricity Suppiers (PESs) an estimate of the total amount of employment generated by the SoP was made.

Measures

The Standards of Performance program started in 1994 and the estimates made here are for the first two years. The investment sum is £25 million per year. The measures carried out are insulation measures in mostly lower income housing with an electricity saving target for Public Electricity Suppliers (PES) of 6,103 GWh as a cumulative lifetime savings.

Effects on Employment
 

Direct job creation per year:
 
PESs, EST210
installation184
total direct effects394
total direct effects394
indirect and multiplier effect67
net job creation461
costs per job per year£22,000

 

Contact address:
Association for the Conservation of Energy ACE, Westgate House, 2A Prebend Street, London N1 8PT, United Kingdom, Tel +44 171 359 8000, Fax +44 171 359 0863, Email acejoanne@aol.com
 
 
 
 

8 Less Traffic, More Jobs (United Kingdom)

May 1997
 

Published by Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ldt
 
 

Model

The study does not use a specific model, but uses existing data on employment and employment intensity of the different sectors of industry related to transport. This was taken from work ECOTEC has done before on this issue. From there it looks at the measures introduced in the scenarios and calculates the changes in productivity in each sector.
 

Measures

The baseline of the study uses the Sustainable Transport Scenario (STS). The aim of this scenario is to reduce traffic levels by 10% by 2010, over 1990 levels by shifting transport away from car to public transport and cycling.
The employment effects are calculated for a combination of the High Technology Scenario and the High Lease Scenario. These scenarios are introduced as an addition to the STS.

High Technology Scenario introduces:


High Lease Scenario introduces:

Policy instruments suggested to achieve this range from financial incentives (tax, price differentials) and direct regulation to green public expenditure.
The study only includes technology improvements and public transport enhancement. Areas not included are the lowering of traffic intensity and transport modes such as walking and freight transport.
 
 

Effects on employment
The study calculates only the direct employment effect of the scenarios.
The STS already models an increase in employment by 130,000 jobs in 2010 by enhancing public transport.
For the car industry the employment effects are listed in detail below:
 
MeasureEmployment change compared to STS (2010)Total Employment 

(2010)

Sustainable Transport Scenario (STS)
Total1,029,000
High Technology Scenario
Natural Gas Vehicles800
Electric Vehicles6,200
Hybrid Vehicles12,100
Rest1,200
Total20,3001,049,000
High Lease Scenario
Total15,1001,043,700
Combined High Technology and High Lease
Total35,4001,064,000

The Combined High Technology and High Lease scenario leads to an employment reduction of 43,000 jobs in the car industry. Therefore the overall effect of this scenario is a job loss of 8,000 jobs.
 
 

Net employment effect:
 
 
 
SectorEmployment change

(2010)

Public transport/cycling (STS)130,000
Combined high technology and high lease scenario35,000
Car industry-43,000
Total122,000

 

Contact address:

Tim Jenkins, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ, Tel +44 171 490 1555, Email timj@foe.co.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 

9 New Power, New Jobs - Combined Heat and Power: The Impact on Employment (United Kingdom)

October 1995
Published by Combined Heat and Power Association CHPA

Carried out by the New Economics Foundation
 
 

Model

Bottom-up model which aggregates labour required for the different parts of the process and which also takes into account other side effects.
The author states that only crude estimates can be made because of not-existing data and the variability of installation costs.
The calculation on the employment effect are made on the basis of the investment. The author assumes that 25% of the investment sum has to be deducted for the import of material. This means that about 50% of the material used in the process are imported. The costs per job assumed in the calculation are £30,000.

Measures
Planned installations:

Kind of installations (per year): Investment required: Effects on Employment

Employment effect for installations until 2000:
 
direct job creation6,000-8,000
multiplier effect2,000
net job creation8,000-10,000
A far greater effect can be expected from industrial respending effects but this is unquantifiable for this study.

Contact address:
The Combined Heat and Power Association, 35-37 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0BS, United Kingdom, Tel +44 171 828 4077, Fax +44 171 828 0310
 
 
 

10 Rethinking the Costs Relating to Global Warming: a Survey of the Issues (Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom, West-Germany)

1995

Revenues from a Carbon Tax
 
 

Published/carried out by

Paul Ekins, University of London
 
 

Model

HERMES Model, used by the European Commission

Measures
The scenario calculates the employment effects of an energy tax. There are two cases:

  1. an energy tax of $10 per barrel introduced in 1990 with a revenue use of either a reduction of direct taxes (A) or of employers’ social security payments (B).
  2. an energy tax of $10 per barrel introduced in 1991 with a revenue use of a reduction of either direct taxes on households (A), payroll taxes on employers (B) or VAT (C).
Effects on Employment

1) Employment effects for 2005 (Unemployment rate, in % from the baseline scenario)
 
 
 
Revenue use(A)(B)
West-Germany-0.3-0.7
France0-0.2
Italy0-0.2
United Kingdom0.4-0.1
Europe-40.01-0.37

 

2) Employment effects for 2000 (Employment, in % from the baseline)
 
 
 
Revenue use(A)(B)(C)
Belgium0.151.331.12
Denmark-0.04-0.24-0.22
Portugal-2.13-0.59-1.65
Ireland0.60.90.3

 

Apart from the employment effects the effect of the tax on GDP is of a similarly small order.
 
 

Contact address:

Paul Ekins, Keele University, Tel +44 1782 583 093/583 091, Fax +44 1782 717 577
 
 
 
 
 
 

11 The Potential for Employment Opportunities from Pursuing Sustainable Development (European Union)

October 1994
 
 

Published/carried out by

Published by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Carried out by ECOTEC

Model

The model is a micro-economic model. The name is not mentioned in the study. It is a combined empirical and modeling approach. The model takes into account the direct sectoral, spatial and temporal employment effects. Employment effect are calculated for the time frame of about 10 years.

Agriculture (Biofuels)

Measures

The study models the case in which the rotational set-aside land is used to grow oilseed rape to produce biodiesel (rape methyl esther RME). The set-aside land equals a quantity of land of 4 million hectar for each year.

Effects on Employment

Base on available statistics of the UK Farm Management Data the study calculates11.4 person hours per hectare per year for the cultivation of oilseed rape. The cultivation represents 56% of the process of RME production. There is no explanation for the employment figure of the employment created in the processing of RME.

Direct employment creation:
 
 
Type of workfull time job equivalent (FTE)
cultivation24,400
processing20,000
total45,400

Job losses in the conventional fuel production are expected to be of small range.

Energy
 

Measures

The aim is to reduce the total final energy consumption in the EU by 20% until the year 2020 (this will nevertheless mean an increase in energy demand by 13%).

To achieve this the study introduces a package of 26 Best Available Technologies (BATs) that shall replace existing technologies at the end of their life time. From these the five most efficient BATs represent 50% of the savings achieved. These technologies are: building insulation, wind energy, Combined Heat and Power (CHP), improvement to cars and lighting.

The overall additional investment to install these technologies is around 19 billion ECU.
 

Effect on Employment

There has only been made a detailed calculation for the direct employment effects as respending and multiplier effects are very uncertain to calculate. Therefore the indirect effects calculated in this study are only to be seen as an indicator and not as a correct calculation of employment effects.

For the direct employment the calculation scheme used was the deduction of labour intensity of the existing technology from the labour intensity of the BAT that replaces it. The number of applications of the BAT is also taken into account.

For the respending and multiplier effect there has been used a simple expenditure/employment ratio. This calculates that for each ECU100,000 there is a employment reduction of one job elsewhere in the economy.

Employment effect in 2020
 
 
net direct employment880,000
respending and multiplier effect-190,000
net employment690,000

 

Industry
 

Case Study 2: Substitution of Building Materials

Measures
 

The construction sector today is a highly energy and transport intensive sector and it also has a significant contribution to CO2 emissions, e. g. cement production emits around 2% of EU CO2 emissions (1994).
 
 

The study models a replacement of existing non-renewable building materials like primary aggregates (building materials like e.g. concrete) and cement through renewable building material (mainly timber and recycled material, but also steel, clay etc.).

The use of cement could be reduced by 54% and the use of primary aggregates by as much as 67%. To substitute these, the demand for timber would rise by over 200% (to 161m³ per year) and the demand for recycled materials would increase by 280% (to 130m tones per year).

The rise in construction costs for this shift in the supply of building materials is calculated to be not more than 20%. It might even be less depending on the changes in future supply and demand conditions due to the change in production and the limited availability of primary aggregates.
 
 

Effect on Employment

The study only calculates the direct employment effect. The distribution of the employment generated depends highly upon if the European timber industry will be able to satisfy the rising demand or if timber has to be imported.

The following results are modeled for the case that the rising demand for timber are met by the indigenous timber industry. The employment effects can only be expected in the longer term.
 
 
 
SectorEmployment
Cement-38,000
Primary aggregates-92,000
Forestry378,000
Wood processing524,000
Secondary aggregates (incl. construction)20,000
Net direct employment792,000

 

Transport
 

Model
 

The model is a micro-economic model. It is a combined empirical and modeling approach. The model takes into account the direct sectoral, spatial and temporal employment effects. Employment effect are calculated for the time frame of about 10 years.
 

Measures
 

The main objectives are:

Measures to achieve this are: Effects on Employment
 
 

Only direct employment effects for France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom have been calculated.
 
 

Net change in employment (compared to the baseline scenario):
 
 
 
SectorEmploymentPercentage
car-497,732-16%
bus81,46514%
rail (passenger)473,56850%
air-161,576-16%
road (freight)-268,045-8%
rail (freight)85,94718%
inland (water)7180%
total-285,655-3%

 

It must be added that the employment effects can vary more widely in the different countries due to the regional differences and specialties.
 
 

Contact address:

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Loughlinston House, Shankill, Co. Dublin, Ireland, Tel +353 1 282 6888, Fax +353 1 282 6456
 
 



Annex 2: Case Studies:

Job Creation in the Climate Change Mitigation Sector






WISE Group (Glasgow, United Kingdom)
 
 

Activities

Effects b)879 trainee participants of which 40% had been unemployed for over 2 years

57% found further permanent employment or further education after the end of the training

Financing a) funding: in 1996 £15 million (£14.473 m)
b) spending: in 1996 £14.236 million
Contact address: Alan Watt, The Wise Group, 72 Charlotte Street, GB-Glasgow G1 5DW, United Kingdom, Fax: +44-141-303 00 70
 
 

Heatwise Ldt. (Glasgow, United Kingdom)
 
 

Activities

Effects
 
  Financing Contact address: Ruth Adams, Heatwise Ltd., 72 Charlotte Street, GB-Glasgow G1 5DW, United Kingdom, Fax: +44-141-303 00 70
 
 

Environmental Improvement Program - EIP (Berlin, Germany)
 
 

Activities

Effects Financing Contact address: Berlin Senate Department of Urban Development and Environment, Office for Environmental Support Measures and Information, Lindenstr. 20-25, 10958 Berlin, Germany, Tel: +49-30-2586-2317, Fax: +49-30-2586-2340