Jobs and Incomes Will Increase Under Climate Policy
By Laurie Johnson, Chief NRDC Economist
The EPA recently released an analysis of what the economy might look like if the proposed Waxman Markey bill were enacted. This legislation would finally put a cap on dangerous global warming pollution, driving investments that will create millions of clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, and help protect the planet. The results provide good news on many issues (and are consistent with many previous studies). For now let's focus on overall income.
EPA finds that under the Waxman-Markey proposal,
- Households will become 18-19% richer between 2010 and 2020, and by 36-40% by 2030. Translating these numbers into a more familiar unit, this means median household incomes would be approximately $9,000 higher in 2020 from today's levels, and over $18,000 more in 2030.
- By 2050, median household income would be over $45,000 higher than it is currently.
- Renewable energy penetration will increase more than 150% over the next two decades, and this is before modeling the bill's renewable electricity standard (given time constraints, EPA could not model this provision yet). Since renewables create almost 3 times as many jobs as fossil energy, we'll have more jobs.
- GDP would grow 30% by 2020, 70% by 2030, and over 200% by 2050, also translating into more jobs.
In contrast to these impressive gains,
- Over the entire life of the bill, from 2010 to 2050, EPA estimates that the average household will need to invest only $98-$140 per year, a little over a dime a day per person.
Obstructionists will undoubtedly continue to claim that climate legislation is too costly, but the EPA study provides an essential perspective for anyone who wants to evaluate these claims objectively. Even if investing in climate protection carries a small price tag, the cost will be much lower than the opposition says, and it will be more than offset by the economic gains presented by the EPA's analysis. And let us not forget: the cost of doing nothing would be far higher. We can tackle global warming, move to clean energy, and grow the economy at the same time.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
You mean the average household income will increase by 45% over the next 40 years? Great! Especially considering the last 40 years showed more than a 500% increase in the average household income. I want some of that!
So in 40 years we can expect to less than double our current income? Even better. I'm sure prices will stay low too.
The problem with green isn't that it's green. It's that it isn't green. Current proposals ignore the cost, both financially, and environmentally of going green, at least by the current definition of green. Give us some real alternatives, like wind, hydrogen, and hydro power. Stop this cap-and-trade garbage that is only going to make billions for folks like Al Gore. Al Gore, who hasn't made a dime off this, despite his net worth increasing from a little over 2 million when he left the White House, to over 35 million today. And all he has been doing is pushing his anit-carbon agenda. What a joke.
Nobody has a problem with being better to the environment . The problem is the approach. Take a look at the facts that are being left out by Gore and his apostles and then come back with something workable and sustainable. Then let's have a real debate.
I am in favor with passing stricter environmental laws, but I agree completely with your point. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions will help, but only temporarily, and it may be too costly. Water, wind, hydrogen, solar, and other renewable energy sources are the real solution. We are living unsustainably by heavily relying on finite energy sources, such as oil and coal . The welfare of our nation and world, depends on fundamentally changing our energy sources, not trimming down and slightly altering the present system.
After looking at the EPA summary, I see that the numbers about household consumption are estimates of absolute growth and are slightly smaller than the growth would be without the legislation. The argument makes it sound like the bill would create that new wealth, which is very misleading.
Moreover, the evaluation only holds if the bulk of the climate allowances are returned to households. What do you think the chance of that happening is?
I was just about to go look at this EPA report to see exactly how this magical occurance could possibly be, and decided to check the comments first, and saw somebody already beat me to the punch. Way to do your homework.