I don't own a TV so when I stay in a hotel I try to watch it. This morning I was watching the 12/17 confirmation hearings of the California PUC's Michael Peevey . He is a very important guy on all energy issues for the state.

During the hearings, a Democrat pushed him that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) should be using its budget to encourage the development of new green human capital at high schools. Similar to Bill Clinton's 1992 love for the European vocational skills education, this vision would have California high schools train students (in shop class?) with practical skills for the new green economy. So, avoiding engineering details, these young people would be trained in installation and maintenance of wind and solar panels and perhaps the art of maintaining plug in hybrids and other energy efficient durables.

This harkens back to an old labor economics literature; namely on the job training versus general human capital. In one scenario, firms would hire young people and would train them. This would be attractive if there is specificity to the specific task that the firm wants done. For example, if Burger King has an exact way of making their Whopper. The firm will only invest in a worker's green skills if they expect the worker to remain with the firm and if there is a demand for the final product.

I wondered if there is a "field of Dreams" logic behind what the Democrats are arguing for. If California has a thick pool of "skilled" relatively cheap green labor, will more factories locate in California or will China still be more attractive?

Does this create a new interest group who supports AB32 (anti-carbon) legislation?
Typically, carbon mitigation has been an elite issue but this would nudge the union rank and file on board.

If high schools embrace an even "greener" curriculum what gets pushed out? economics?
If it is trigonometry then I support this.

The big issue here is the "tipping point" --- wise strategists are moving on several levels to build support to keep carbon mitigation going strong. Al Gore and other people in Malibu and Berkeley will always support this legislation but how do you get Joe the Plummer on board? He needs to believe that there is something in it for him.

Does supply create demand? This green jobs push may offer a good test but I do believe that we also need the Copenhagen Success to send a world wide signal that the future is low-carbon. If there isn't credible demand then such supply side subsidies will fail to deliver "good green jobs at good wages".