|
“People have lined up
on two sides, choosing either the environment or the economy,”
says Kristen Sheeran, Ph.D., executive director of the Economics
for Equity and the Environment Network (E3 Network) in Portland,
OR. “But you can’t talk about economic activity
and sustainability without looking at the role of the environment
and environmental resources. (They are) an integral part
of the economy.”
Let’s look at the two sides’ arguments in a
few of the hottest “economy-versus-the-environment”
debates.
Economy: Environmental regulation destroys
jobs.
“The American People are primarily interested in stimulating
their economy today and creating jobs,” says Congressman
Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman, House Subcommittee on Energy
and Power, in his opening statement to the House of Representatives
on, March 01, 2011. “One of the concerns many of us
have is that the long list of regulations being considered
at the Environmental Protection Agency today will have a
significant impact on job creation.”
Environment: According to a report published
by the Environment Network (E3 Network) in Portland, OR,
study after study shows that layoffs attributable to environmental
regulations account for between 1,000 to 3,000 jobs per
year, or only about 1/10 of 1 percent of all layoffs nationwide.
Case in point: fewer than 7,000 jobs were lost between 1990
and 1997 as a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Over
that same period, 10 million U.S. workers were laid off
for non-environmental reasons.
“You just don’t see steel mills and auto plants
and other businesses shut down because of environmental
regulations,” says Frank Ackerman, Director, Climate
Economics Group of the Stockholm Environment Institute,
in Somerville, MA. “Outside of a few cases, it's rare
to see a company spend more than 1 or 2 percent on environmental
regulations, and nobody is going to shut down or move a
company overseas over 1 or 2 percent.”
Coal and other extractive industries such as fishing, forestry
and mining might be exceptions to the rule. Coal mining
jobs will be affected if greenhouse gas emission regulations
increase. However, coal jobs are already predicted to decline
significantly over the next decade as a result of mechanization.
Jobs are also affected in fishing and other extraction industries,
when extraction areas are protected or when regulations,
like overfishing legislation, are enacted to protect dwindling
resources
.
Further, says the E3 Network report, environmental spending
creates jobs that offset losses. Compared to overall spending
in the economy, on a per-dollar basis, spending on environmental
protection and clean-up employs twice as many workers in
construction (11 versus 4 percent) and 25 percent more in
manufacturing (20 versus 16 percent).
In fact, on several occasions, an environmental crisis has
created additional jobs. In 1969, Ohio’s long-polluted
Cuyahoga River caught fire, as it had more than a dozen
times since the late 1800s. That fire sparked national media
attention and led to a series of pollution controls including
the Clean Water Act. The Cuyahoga River flows into Lake
Erie, which was also horribly polluted. But due to regulation,
over time, both bodies of water were cleaned up. “Today,
Lake Erie and that area has transformed,” says Ackerman.
“People are swimming and fishing in the water; property
values have increased. That is a positive economic effect."
Another example: in 1987, a tugboat hauling more than 3,000
tons of trash traveled up and down the east coast of North
America for nearly seven months, until a port could be found
that would accept its load. The so-called “garbage
barge” generated massive media attention. Within three
years, most states introduced recycling laws. Today, recycling
is an integral part of our economy. Paper manufacturers
depend heavily on recycled materials; plastics and glass
are converted into a multitude of consumer and commercial
products; and tens of thousands of people are employed by
the recycling industry.
Economy: Excessive regulations hamper
business profits and inhibit business growth.
“A strong economy and a strong environment go hand
in hand; but for too long Washington has pursued environmental
laws and regulations without considering their economic
consequences,” Congressman Upton of Michigan says.
“The result: policies that destroy jobs, raise energy
costs, and harm America’s global competitiveness...”
Environment: It's true that adopting new
practices, renovating machinery and systems, and implementing
clean-up adds expenses outside of existing budgets, and
may tap a company's short-term profits. But those changes
can lead to increased efficiency and long-term prosperity.
In the 1990s, for example, The Robbins Company—an
Attleboro, Massachusetts company that specializes in manufacturing
awards and jewelry—saved nearly $300,000 in capital
costs and more than $115,000 per year by installing a closed-loop
system to filter wastewater, recover metals, and eliminate
discharge.
And for the majority of industries, environmental regulations
are not a hindrance. High-tech industries cluster around
Silicon Valley in California and in Massachusetts, says
Ackerman, in spite of both states rigorous environmental
regulations. And over the decades we’ve seen other
manufacturing industries – chemicals, plastics, textiles,
steel – adapt to regulations against pollution and
remain profitable. One U.S. 3M plant, for example, saved
$120,000 in capital investment and $15,000 annually by replacing
toxic solvents with water-based solutions.
“I think the fight against environmental regulation
is really an argument against regulation in general,”
said Ackerman. “Most businesses want to run with as
little regulation as possible.” True market balance
depends not only on labor and capital, but other costs including
environmental impact, says Ackerman. Suppose a chemical
plant destroys a waterway, along with its fishing and recreation
industries; that’s not factored into the typical economic
growth spreadsheet.
Economy: Spending money on climate change
is pointless, and will cripple an already weak economy.
Referring to a series of congressional hearings on climate
change, Congressman Upton of Michigan says “In those
hearings, we have revealed the shibboleth of Obama environmentalism:
it promotes neither the greater environmental good nor the
American economy.”
Environment: According to an article in
the October 2010 issue of Solutions, an online environmental
journal, the cost to lower CO2 concentrations to safe levels
for the environment and the earth (350 ppm is safe, currently
global levels approach 395 ppm) would amount to 1 to 3 percent
of the GDP. The strategies to achieve this level include
reforestation, carbon capture and reduction in energy use.
According to the report, spending one year’s growth
(1 to 3 percent of GDP) won’t negatively impact salaries,
earnings or jobs, which will still grow at almost the same
rate.
And at the same time, certain notable outliers rebuke climate
change as a hoax. But the evidence at hand says otherwise.
“The science behind climate change has been relatively
settled for a long time now,” says Sheeran. “There
is even U.S. consensus going back to the Bush [Sr.] administration.
What is less settled is the economic issue of whether we
take action now to reduce greenhouse emissions and, if so,
who will do that job.”
According to a 2008 report by the National Resources Defense
Council, four global warming impacts alone – hurricane
damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs
– will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S.
GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in 2008 dollars)
by 2100.
So the cost of doing something to manage climate change
must be measured against the cost of doing nothing.
Economy: Nuclear power is crucial for
economic growth and energy independence
Some say nuclear energy is a key player in freeing the United
States from reliance on foreign oil and supporting our economic
independence. Nuclear energy produces relatively low carbon
emissions, proponents say. And those arguing for expanding
nuclear energy say focusing on other renewable energies
such as solar and wind, could hamper economic growth and
moreover won’t produce enough energy to replace today’s
polluting power plants.
Environment: Corporate leaders are showing
how investment in renewable resources other than nuclear
power can enhance growth and help the environment.
A 2008 report from the Department of Energy noted that achieving
20 percent wind energy production by 2030 would result in
the support of more than 500,000 jobs in the industry and
related sectors. Victor Abate, Vice President Renewables,
GE Energy, stated to the House Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming in March, 2008 that “The
growth of wind energy is creating real economic, energy
security, and environmental benefits, according to studies
by the American Wind Energy Association. Last year the industry
spurred $9 billion in investment and created more than 50,000
jobs. Much of this job growth has occurred in areas hardest
hit by manufacturing job losses [following the recession].”
Nuclear energy is the most nuanced issue of the four issues
we address here. The two sides of the argument don’t
follow typical party lines. Here’s why:
We need to get more energy from somewhere, and globally
we rely primarily on coal. Coal-fired plants cause 24,000
deaths a year and emit 2.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide every
year, as well as other toxins, including nitrous oxide,
sulfur dioxide and even radiation. Nuclear offers a less
lethal and much less polluting alternative. But as we are
seeing in Japan, and saw at Chernobyl in the Ukraine and
at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, critical failures
at these plants are terrifying. Additionally nuclear waste
storage remains a controversial issue.
President Barack Obama supports nuclear energy as a viable
solution for the U.S. Currently, the U.S. gets 20 percent
of its electricity from nuclear plants, and that could increase
if Obama moves towards his goal of generating 80 percent
of the country’s electricity from clean energy sources
by 2035. Some environmentalists support this too. Obama
is also supporting wind, solar, clean coal and natural gas.
By comparison, Germany, a major economic power, is committing
to safe renewable energy without much reliance on nuclear.
Following the Japanese nuclear plant crisis Germany declared
that it would phase out nuclear energy permanently, beginning
with the immediate shutdown of seven pre-1980 plants. While
Germany currently uses coal for 40 percent of its electricity,
it also has targets of generating 35 percent renewable electricity
by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Additionally, it intends
to generate 60 percent of all energy, including all fuels,
from renewable sources by 2050. If Germany can do it, perhaps
we can, too.
Are both sides right?
Can we have both greenbacks and green fields? This poignant
debate is an opportunity for individuals, society, policy,
and for the world to make new strides in managing both the
environment and the economy. On a personal level, as first-world
residents, we have the invitation and the opportunity to
investigate the science, the facts, the possibilities and
the strategies, and to make our voice heard in our community
and with our policy makers. Maybe you are pro-nuclear, prefer
reusing over recycling, want to drill more domestic oil
wells or make bottled water illegal. What you believe and
what you do – even if it is only turning off the lights
and shopping with reusable bags – will influence the
future of our environment and our economy.
In the 1950s, a post-war boom was ignited in part by technological
advances that could exploit natural resources faster and
at lower costs. This was wonderful for the economy, especially
because the world population stood at 2.5 billion, leaving
plenty of undiscovered resources to tap and plenty of room
to dispose of waste.
Today, the global population stands at 6.5 billion, and,
at these levels, that same paradigm of tapping natural resources
for economic growth is strained. By the time we number 9
billion or more, we will have to be more efficient and more
innovative with the resources we have, and to become better
stewards of both our economic and environmental futures.
While the superficial question pits economic growth against
environmental conservation, “The bigger question is,
how do you value future outcomes, such as your grandchildren’s
lives and the risks to the planet?” Frank Ackerman
of the Climate Economics Group in Massachusetts says. “When
you buy fire insurance, it’s not because you are sure
a fire will happen, but because you are not significantly
sure it won’t. We face a lot of environmental and
related economic risks. What do we want to spend to protect
ourselves against them? We can’t hedge against these
risks with another planet.”
Tread Lightly
Nine ways to reduce your impact on the environment
1. Be a vegan: raising animals for food
is a major source of planet-warming methane; even better,
go raw and save electricity or gas used in cooking meals.
2. Change your light bulbs. Compact fluorescent
light bulbs use about one-quarter the electricity of traditional
incandescent bulbs.
3. Pay online, and sign up for paperless bills,
to save trees, cut down on paper waste, and decrease fuel
consumption from transporting paper bills.
4. Check your tires; properly inflated,
they’ll help your car use less fuel. Get regular tune-ups
and replace air filters for more savings. Better yet, take
the bus, ride your bike, carpool or telecommute.
5. Wear vintage; buying second-hand clothing
skips energy used to produce and ship new items. Ditto for
anything else you buy second hand.
6. Downsize. Big houses use more energy
to heat and cool. If you’re buying or renting, choose
cozier digs.
7. Take shorter showers. Lower the thermostat
on your water heater, and wrap the heater in an insulated
blanket to save CO2 emissions.
8. Join a CSA. Buying produce from local
farmers reduces carbon impact and (usually) pesticides.
9. Be home for the holidays. Cutting down
on travel means reducing airplane emissions. Stick around,
or coordinate with family and friends to consolidate travels.
|
Do you ever wonder how to rebut your brother-in-law's
anti-environmental rants? Likely his main argument, like
that of political commentator Charles Krauthammer, is founded
on the premise that environmental regulations are killing
jobs and hurting the economy. 