Plans to create five million “green jobs” took a hit last month with the resignation of Anthony “Van” Jones, the President’s green jobs czar. Jones quit not because his claims regarding creating green jobs became exposed for the myth they are, but rather for a series of impolitic remarks and revelations of associations with unsavory organizations.

Jones gained attention only after moving from red to green issues, that is, from social justice to environmentalism. Steve Hayward writing in the Weekly Standard explains the rationale: “Jones was hitting environmentalism at its weakest spot. Environmentalism has always suffered from the stigma of being predominantly a wealthy, elitist movement. The average dues-paying member of an environmental organization...enjoys a household income more than twice the national median, and the membership of most organizations is overwhelmingly white.”

The definitive insight into Van Jones’ strategy is found in Tom Wolfe’s influential 1970 article, Radical Chic. Radical Chic recounts a fund-raising party for the Black Panthers hosted by conductor Leonard Bernstein. Set in Bernstein’s Park Avenue duplex, Wolfe described the irony of watching Bernstein and his wealthy friends meet with representatives of the Black Panthers. This fundraiser was to help their radical cause.

Here’s a sample: “These are nice. Little Roquefort cheese morsels rolled in crushed nuts. Very tasty. Very subtle. ... Wonder what the Black Panthers eat here on the hors d'oeuvre trail? Do the Panthers like little Roquefort cheese morsels rolled in crushed nuts this way, and asparagus tips in mayonnaise dabs, and meatballs petites au Coq Hardi, all of which are at this very moment being offered to them on gadrooned silver platters by maids in black uniforms with hand-ironed white aprons....”

Jones is simply the latest in a long line of political entrepreneurs exploiting his race for personal gain. He landed foundation grants and was feted by elites at the Aspen Institute and the World Economic Forum. He garnered praise from Bill Clinton and Thomas Friedman. The Washington Post described him as “a towering figure in the environmental movement.” Playing in such a rarefied atmosphere, where one’s every utterance is met with accolades, often blunts critical thinking.

Hence, Jones based his “green” jobs policy on slogans, e.g., “from the jail cell to solar cells” rather than sound economics. He assumed, for example, that our transition from a carbon intensive to a carbon-lite economy would be cost free and would generate productive jobs. But these promises are made without thinking about the several and serious costs, e.g., the loss of jobs in carbon intensive sectors of the economy.

The entire green jobs model is built on the inefficient use of labor. Jones favors technologies that employ large numbers of people (preferably union members) rather than technologies that use labor efficiently. The efficient use of labor is important because producing the same good with less input not only makes it more affordable, but also makes financial and physical resources available for other opportunities.

A study of Spain’s renewable energy initiatives reported the obvious; that creating green jobs destroys jobs in other sectors. The study found that every green job created by the Spanish government destroyed an average of 2.2 other jobs—and that only 1 in 10 new jobs were permanent.

Spain’s experience is cited as a model for America. However, the study “reveals with high confidence...that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.”

Van Jones and other advocates desire jobs that the private sector will not create. Hence, at the end of the day green jobs become simply another wealth transfer program. It comes at the expense of taxpayers, business owners, and ironically environmental quality. While the market process is biased towards efficiency, with political allocation the cost is the benefit.