Rakesh, interesting that the focus on addressing climate change has become one of more jobs, of more growth, more consumption.

Seems the most effective way to fight climate change would be the one requiring the least amount of hardware, jobs, carbon emissions, and expense. By rewarding the process and not the goal we're not only extending the process indefinitely, we're making the goal unattainable.

But maybe that's the point.

The issue here is eliminating high wage jobs and the sheer numbers required in a conventional utility plant or coal cannot be replaced with "green" power.

So we're destroying peoples ability to earn a good living by eliminating these plants.

If looked at on a per MW or per MWh basis, is it indeed true that  "The renewable energy industry requires fewer on-the-ground workers as compared to the fossil fuel industry?" It is true that individual wind and solar farms are smaller than central station generating facilities, but measured on the  basis of capacity or output are they really less labor intensive? I'd be curious to see the employent data sliced in that manner. 

I think the comparison has to between the present employment opportunities and the future ones as a result of the "Build Back Better" program, which is being prepared for rollout at the moment.  There will certainly be a boom in general construction job opportunities, many of which will be unionized. 

But, comparing one set of energy industry opportunities to that of another is not particularly relevant.