This article links to a number of previous posts I have made on the topic of "green jobs". Academic articles are also beginning to emerge. I think it is safe to say that green jobs are unlikely to compensate for jobs lost if "heavy industry" becomes uncompetitive although their may be a "first mover advantage" for certain countries in certain sectors.
Whilst I have some sympathy for Lomborg's argument I believe he is over simplifying the issue and missing a number of important elements of the story.
The green pseudo-revolution
"Whatever the enviro-lobbyists say, subsidising inefficient green industries is not the way to tackle climate change"
Many green pundits have, however, started saying that the financial crisis only makes the need for action on climate change greater. They urge America's president-elect Barack Obama to pursue a "green revolution" with big investments in renewable energy, arguing that this could create millions of new "green collar" jobs and open huge new markets. Such sentiments, no surprise, are strongly voiced by business leaders who live off such subsidies. But are such pleas smart investments for society?
The problem with the green revolution argument is that it doesn't trouble itself about efficiency. It is most often lauded for supplying new jobs. But billions of dollars in tax subsidies would create plenty of new jobs in almost any sector: the point is that many less capital-intensive sectors would create many more jobs for a given investment of taxpayers' money.
Similarly, green initiatives will open new markets only if other nations subsidise inefficient technologies bought abroad. Thus, the real game becomes which nations get to suck up other nations' tax-financed subsidies. Apart from the resulting global inefficiency, this also creates a whole new raft of industry players that will keep pushing inefficient legislation, simply because it fills their coffers.