Mantras die hard, and a particularly recalcitrant notion has been that “environmental policies cost jobs.” We will soon hear it again. Debate is about to heat up in the U.S. Congress about whether to begin oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proponents will argue that oil exploitation there will create jobs and that to forgo Arctic oil will cost jobs. Meanwhile, on February 16, the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change will come into force in many nations in the world, including the European Union, but not America.

Opponents of the Kyoto Protocol claim that joining Kyoto will cost American jobs and that staying out protects jobs.

But the persistent and intensely political nature of these debates ignores the true economic and business reality – that not only are strong environmental policies responsible for significant employment in America today, environmental protection turns out to be one of the few major bright spots in jobs creation. Moreover, the environmental industry is a major economic force in the nation, largely unsung and overlooked in the national economic discourse.

New research by the Jobs and Environment Initiative, which has undertaken the first national and state-specific quantitative studies of current jobs creation impacts from environmental investment, vividly shows that, contrary to public perception, environmental protection is a huge employer. In 2003, for example, nationwide, the environmental industry overall was responsible for the creation of 5 million jobs, for people in all walks of life – which is more than 10 times the jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, three times that in the chemical industry and almost one third of employment in the construction industry.

What’s more, jobs created are not at all just the classic “green” occupations such as forester. In fact, most jobs created are standard jobs at all skill levels – accountants, engineers, electricians, janitors, secretaries, electricians, carpenters, etc. Moreover, in a nation that seems bereft of new ideas for creating jobs in the manufacturing sector, the initiative’s research has shown that, far from causing job losses, environment-related businesses are actually having a greater than proportionate jobs benefit in the manufacturing sector in all states examined thus far – which includes the nation’s core manufacturing states, as well as Florida and North Carolina, with other state studies in the pipeline.

Who would think that, for example, in Ohio and Wisconsin, environmental activities have created more jobs for welders, directly and indirectly, than biochemists or biotechnicians; and in Minnesota and Michigan, more jobs for machinists than geoscientists and forest and conservation technicians? In fact, in the core manufacturing states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the environmental industry accounts for between 3% and 5% of each state’s gross domestic product and environment-related employment has been growing 2% to 3% annually.

Research for the Initiative was conducted by Management Information Services Inc., a D.C.-based economic research firm with experience analyzing the energy, environmental, defense and other industries. The initiative analyzed national environmental expenditures, and also state-by-state data, including key environmental companies in each state and current hiring patterns.

To define an “environmental job,” MISI economists Roger Bezdek and Bob Wendling designed an “environmental job spectrum,” and quantified jobs along that spectrum, approaching environmental employment as a progression in types of work from “less green” to “more green.” Thus the research defines environmental jobs as those which “have produced the development of numerous products, processes and services, which specifically target the reduction of environmental impact” and quantifies both indirect and direct employment.

What is also impressive is the scale and scope of the environmental industry itself. The Initiative found that, in 2003, the last year for which full data are available, the environmental industry generated $301 billion in sales, more than Wal-Mart – the largest American corporation. That same year, the environmental industry generated $20 billion in corporate profits and $45 billion in federal, state, and local government tax revenues. And, perhaps most interestingly given today’s economic jitters, the environmental industry has shown itself to be somewhat “recession proof.” For example, during the early 1990s, U.S. GDP declined 1% and unemployment increased to 7.5%. Meanwhile, environmental protection expenditures increased by about 15% between 1990 and 1995, to $235 billion.

Given the real and potential employment and economic potential of the environmental industry, one would think environmental jobs creation would be a centerpiece of economic development and employment policy. But missed opportunities appear to abound.

In Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, which include some of the nation’s poorest cities and where jobs are a no. 1 issue, almost none of the numerous economic development efforts, including various gubernatorial “workforce development” commissions, strategic economic plans, tax incentives, high-tech business recruitment, workforce training or antipoverty programs give priority to environmental investment as a source of jobs creation, even though all states studied thus far have thriving, homegrown, environmental companies, many of which are leaders in their field with global sales and customers. Amazingly, in Ohio, which has a thriving environmental industry and strong environmental companies, the state is considering eliminating the Ohio Clean Fund, established as a $400 million bond fund, despite obvious jobs creation potential.

The continuing national blind spot on the economic nature of environmental protection is due to a persistent oversimplification of what wise environmental management actually entails, and the persistent canyon between economic and environmental thinking. Policy makers and the public at large remain stuck in the view that environmentalism amounts to recycling and protecting national parks. Yet, environmental protection now extends into virtually every strand of economic activity, especially the invention and manufacture of products and processes needed to cut pollution and waste of energy, water, and other natural resources. This in turn translates to new products and processes of all sorts, which in turn employs workers to make that equipment, plus others to research, design, test, make, market, distribute, install, evaluate, monitor, promote, sell, and buy.

For example, addressing climate change is no theoretical nicety, but rather a matter of nuts and bolts, literally, involving the invention of real products by real companies, like the patented “frost free heat exchanger” developed by American Energy Exchange, based in Kalamazoo, Mich., and its founder and president, David Thompson. The exchanger maximizes energy recovery, which enables more energy efficiency and, in turn, reduced emissions of potentially dangerous greenhouse gases if the energy being used is derived from fossil fuels. Mr. Thompson’s firm has also developed a process he states can reduce air conditioner energy use 30%, while still cooling and avoiding mold in buildings.

Society may debate the urgency of the climate change issue, but the economic value of smarter energy planning is undebatable and smart managers seek more, not less, energy efficiency. For business leaders like Mr. Thompson, the link is clear: He says, “Our focus on the design, patenting and production of energy efficient products like air conditioners has keyed our growth in hiring and profits.”