Home
Tackling climate change will green the U.S. in a lot of ways.
For
those passionate about controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs),
star environmentalist Ed Begley, Jr., hit all the right notes in a Solar Power International 2009
keynote address that cheered the solar energy industry with its
stirring examples of how solar energy fits into the “big ticket” work
of cleaning the earth’s all too troubled air and water and reversing
global climate change.
But as U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda
Solis, who followed Begley, told the people who are pioneering the
development of the most abundant New Energy on earth, the building of
the New Energies will also generate jobs and revenues and grow the kind
of green that banks and businessmen who disdain environmentalism and
deny climate change get passionate about, the green in greenbacks.
Estimating the Impacts of Tackling Climate Change,
released by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES), the original
solar energy association, and Management Information Services, Inc.,
the respected research authority, proves Secretary Solis’ passionately
expressed points exactly right about the value to the economy of
building New Energy.
Aggressive deployment of New Energy and
Energy Efficiency (NE & EE), according to the report, will create a
net gain, even after considering Old Energy job losses, of up to 4.5
million U.S. jobs by 2030. Coincidentally, such growth will cut GhGs
enough to impact and perhaps even turn back global climate change.
click to enlarge
The
study finds that NE & EE deployed in the needed magnitude would
also be at least revenue neutral and potentially revenue positive.
Implementation costs that might otherwise drive up the price of New
Energy-generated electricity would be offset by energy bill reductions
from lower generation expenses and efficiency-driven reductions in
consumption.
COMMENTARY
There are
possible ironies to this report its authors seem to overlook. Fighting
climate change, it argues in an unprecedentedly detailed analysis, will
be a driver of economic growth. One possible irony to that argument is
that it leaves out the fact that dealing with the worst aspects of
global climate change would be a terrible drain on the economy, such a
drain that discussing the economic benefits of New Energy is almost
missing the point.
Compared to the costs of the ravages of
climate change, the report almost forgets to mention, any expense for
New Energy and Energy Efficiency is small.
click to enlarge
Or
perhaps the irony it that no amount of spending to build a New Energy
economy could match the amount of spending and the jobs that will be
needed to do the grim work of geoengineering and environmental
reclamation necessary if the world lets climate change do its worst.
Yet that would be a completely different kind of economic boon, the
mother of all stimulus packages.
Perhaps the ironies are the result of the report’s vital but narrow focus. A 2007 ASES report assessed the impacts
of 6 major New Energies (concentrating solar power, solar
photovoltaics, wind power, biomass, biofuels and geothermal energy) on
climate change and concluded the New Energies could achieve by 2030 the
needed offset of 1.2 billion metric tons of GhGs to head off climate
change’s worst impacts. This new report, therefore, is primarily
focused not on the broader frame of reference but almost entirely on
jobs.
Still, as Secretary Solis’s speech made clear, the news
about the jobs that will come from a commitment to the New Energy
economy is exciting. But perhaps differentiating between the climate
change fight and the fight for the New Energy economy is moot.
click to enlarge
By
September 2009, the U.S. had lost ~8 million jobs to the recession. At
the same time, atmospheric GhGs were at ~390 ppm and headed beyond the
perhaps (but probably not) safe level of ~450 ppm (350 ppm
would be a lot better). Aggressive deployment of New Energy and
implementation of Energy Efficiencies is an effective way to reverse
BOTH those ugly trends and increase U.S. national security in the
process.
NE & EE are already driving economic growth. In
2006, they created 8.5+ million new jobs, generated $970 billion in
revenue, $100+ billion in industry profits, and $150+ billion in
increased federal, state, and local government tax revenues. In 2007,
it was 9+ million jobs, $1,045 billion in revenue, and ~$160 billion in
federal, state, and local tax revenues. The 2007 revenues were bigger
than Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil and General Motors combined.
click to enlarge
An
aggressive effort going forward, the ASES/MIS study shows, can generate
up to $4.3 trillion in U.S. revenues and create 37+ million jobs by
2030. That job total represents 1 in every 5 U.S. jobs, jobs that have
to be done in place and therefore could not be outsourced, jobs that
will be in every nook and cranny and corner of the U.S., in every
sector and layer of the economy and involve every race, creed, color
and kind of educational level of the nation.
Yes, Old Energy jobs will be lost but there will be a NET GAIN by 2030 of 4.5 million NE & EE jobs.
NE
& EE growth will increase opportunities for accountants, engineers,
computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers, mechanics
and many more kinds of workers. Coal miners can do retrofits and build
wind turbines. Oil drillers can do geothermal drilling. Nuclear
engineers can build solar power plants.
click to enlarge
Wages
are expected to be, on average, higher. NE & EE are expected to
drive the retrofitting of rusting manufacturing infrastructure,
revitalize inner cities and reinvigorate rural communities. The need to
train new workers will, indeed, already has begun to drive growth and
changes in educational institutions from trade schools to University
graduate programs.
OK, so how much is it going to cost?
The
ASES/MIS paper created a deployment curve for each technology. It
estimated the gigawatt-hours of electricity or gallons of cellulosic
ethanol or energy saved through efficiency that would occur each year
from (base year) 2005 to 2030. It also created a supply curve and an
Reserach, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) curve for each
technology. It used standard life-cycle cost-analysis techniques for
each technology. And it subtracted the data for Old Energies and Old
Energy jobs lost due to being replaced by the New Energies and New
Energy jobs.
click to enlarge
Net
costs for deployment of the different components of the New Energy
economy differ significantly. Example: In 2020, EE shows net savings of
$85 billion but all NE technologies except biofuels show net costs. But
by 2030, EE savings fall to $16 billion while wind and biofuels start
showing net savings, though the other New Energies still show net costs.
In
short, EE is a better deal through 2030 than NE but the EE gains fall
over time, as the low hanging fruit gets picked. Meanwhile, NE slowly
becomes a better and better buy over time as technology improves and
economies of scale develop. EE jobs drop from 3.5 million in 2020 to
3.3 million in 2030. Jobs in NE grow from 900,000 in 2020 to 1.15
million in 2030.
Jobs in EE are 80% of the total in 2020 but only 74% in 2030.
In
NE, the most 2020 jobs are in biofuels. Concentrating solar will be
second, and then wind, biomass power, photovoltaics (PV) and geothermal
power. By 2030, photovoltaics will supply the most jobs, followed by
biofuels, biomass power, concentrating solar, geothermal power, and
wind.
click to enlarge
The
data show clearly that while costs for NE deployment and EE
implementation will be high, savings assure that there will be no NET
costs.
Job distribution will be broad. The most will be in
construction, state and local government, farms, and miscellaneous
professional, scientific, and technical services.
Bottom line:
The politicians and policy analysts who say that making the transition
President Obama wants, to a New Energy economy, will be economically
costly are wrong. The transition will be one of the best things that
could happen to the U.S. economy.
Along the way, making the transition, just coincidentally, will take a giant step toward reversing global climate change.
The
alternative is a pointless exercise in resisting change in the interest
of sustaining old habits that are not only destructive to this good
earth but self-destructive as well.
click to enlarge
QUOTES
-
Brad Collins, Executive Director, ASES: “The twin challenges of climate
change and economic stagnation can be solved by the same action—broad,
aggressive, sustained deployment of renewable energy and energy
efficiency…the solution for one is the solution for the other…For job
growth the status quo is no match for innovation…Congress can help get
the economy back on track with smart energy policy - reduce energy
consumption in buildings by 50%; adopt an aggressive national renewable
portfolio standard; commit to end dependence on foreign oil by 2025;
and implement an upstream cap and auction system to manage greenhouse
gases at the points where they first enter the energy economy.”
click to enlarge
-
From the report: “The vast majority of the jobs created by the Tackling
Climate Change initiative are standard jobs for accountants, engineers,
computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers, mechanics,
etc. and most of the persons employed in these jobs may not even
realize that they owe their livelihood to climate change
mitigation…[Occupational data demonstrate that the Tackling Climate
Change initiative will create a variety of high-paying jobs, many of
which take advantage of manufacturing
skills currently going unused.
Most areas of the country have the existing infrastructure and skilled
workers to accommodate the growth of EE&RE industries.”
click to enlarge
-
From the report: “The ASES/MISI research summarized here finds
that—even accounting for initial deployment costs and displacements—the
effect on the U.S. economy of addressing climate change would be
overwhelmingly positive. For example,
these data show that the sustained, orderly, and robust development of energy efficiency
and renewable energy (EE&RE) will generate at least 4.5 million more jobs than the effort will eliminate.”
-
From the report: “Time is of the essence, however. Efforts like these
take time to ramp up, and if the United States is to achieve the
ambitious climate mitigation job goals outlined here, it must introduce
aggressive programs immediately. The bottom line is that addressing
climate change can be good for the environment, good for the economy,
and good for jobs.”
posted by Herman K. Trabish
ASES/MISI
analysis shows that renewable energy and energy efficiency can reduce
U.S. carbon emissions 60-80%, generate millions of jobs and are revenue
neutral or better
October 21, 2009 (American Solar Energy Society)
