It arrived, as these things often do, in the form of a celebratory tweet. Ed Miliband, Secretary of State at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, proudly announced that the Aspen floating wind farm would create 1,000 “North Sea jobs”. But what does this mean in practice?
A quick glance at the details reveals this is a 1GW project — meaning exactly one job per megawatt of capacity. Miliband and his civil servants clicked publish, backs were patted, and Britain’s march towards Net Zero ticked on without a single dissenting voice in the room asking the obvious question: since when did needing more workers to produce the same amount of energy become a good thing?
One wonders if these same officials would proudly announce that a new farming technique requires twice as many workers to produce the same amount of food, or that our broadband will now need three times as many engineers to deliver the same internet speed.
Milton Friedman’s famous observation comes to mind: “If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.” His point was simple but compelling. If maximising employment is your goal rather than maximising output per worker, then the logical conclusion is to make production as inefficient as possible.
Yet here we are, celebrating the fact that wind power requires substantially more human labour to produce the same unit of energy than conventional sources. The data is clear on this point: offshore wind requires approximately 0.2-0.3 ongoing jobs per megawatt of capacity, while a natural gas plant needs only around 0.13 jobs per megawatt. When accounting for the entire lifecycle including construction, wind power creates about 200-400 jobs per terawatt-hour of electricity generated, compared to just 100-120 jobs for natural gas.
A triumph of inefficiency, proudly trumpeted as progress.
The perversity of this logic becomes even clearer when we recall that productivity growth — producing more with less labour — has been the foundation of rising living standards for centuries. In a sane world, we would celebrate when fewer workers are needed to produce our energy, freeing human capital for deployment elsewhere in the economy.
But for believers in the faith of Net Zero, the normal rules of economics are suspended. Inefficiency becomes virtue. Costliness becomes moral imperative. Should we applaud if manufacturing a car suddenly required twice as many workers? Would we issue celebratory press releases if producing a loaf of bread became more labour-intensive rather than less? Of course not — in any other sector, such developments would rightly be seen as alarming indicators of declining productivity.
For years, the Government has touted job creation as a primary benefit of the offshore wind bonanza, as though electricity generation were primarily an employment scheme rather than critical infrastructure. This reflects a deeper confusion about the purpose of an energy system. The goal should be reliable, affordable power that enables the rest of the economy to function efficiently — not maximising the number of people required to keep the lights on.
The great irony is that many of these “green jobs” are temporary construction positions that disappear once the installation is complete. The promised employment bonanza often fails to materialise in the long term, particularly in regions that most need stable, permanent work. Meanwhile, the higher costs of this labour-intensive approach are passed directly to consumers through their energy bills, leaving everyone poorer.
What makes this celebration of inefficiency particularly galling is that it comes at the precise moment when Britain is struggling with a productivity crisis and cost-of-living squeeze. Energy costs are crushing households and businesses alike, yet the solution apparently involves deploying more workers per unit of output, not fewer.
When Britain commits to these economically inefficient energy sources, we necessarily make ourselves less competitive globally. Countries that prioritise affordable energy over job creation metrics will enjoy a significant advantage in energy-intensive industries. The result is entirely predictable: those industries relocate to regions with more economically rational energy policies, taking their jobs with them. The perverse outcome of prioritising “job creation” in energy production may well be fewer jobs overall in the broader economy.
What drives this topsy-turvy approach to energy economics? The answer lies partly in the incentives facing politicians. “Jobs created” makes for a simpler, more voter-friendly metric than “productivity enhanced” or “unit costs reduced”. It’s far easier to point to 1,000 new jobs than to explain — or, in the case of some politicians, understand — the complex economic benefits of efficient energy production.
There’s also the matter of political optics. Politicians need to be seen to be “doing something” about both unemployment and climate change. Wind farms that require lots of workers tick both boxes simultaneously, regardless of their economic merits.
If Britain is serious … we need to abandon this backwards approach to energy policy
But perhaps the most troubling aspect is the gradual normalisation of the idea that the government’s role is to create jobs directly through policy mandates, rather than fostering conditions for private sector growth. When ministers boast about jobs created through government-backed projects, they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of wealth creation in a market economy.
If Britain is serious about boosting the economy and increasing productivity, we need to abandon this backwards approach to energy policy. Instead of celebrating how many workers are required to produce our electricity, we should be focused on minimising that number while maximising output and securing the cheapest possible energy for businesses and consumers.
This means evaluating energy sources on their merits: reliability, cost, environmental impact, and yes, efficiency of production — including labour efficiency. If a floating wind farm requires significantly more workers per megawatt than alternatives, that should be considered a cost, not a benefit.
As energy costs continue to burden households and businesses across Britain, perhaps it’s time to stop applauding when more workers are needed to keep our lights on and start asking why our energy production is becoming less efficient, not more. Milton Friedman would certainly have a view on why we’re using spoons when shovels would do.
