Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Going Off Fossil Fuels; Creates a Million Jobs
Topic Started: Nov 12 2015, 03:09 AM (249 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Going Off Fossil Fuels Would Boost Disposable Income And Create A Million Jobs

Posted Image
Construction jobs in clean sources of electricity are expected to boom under a low-carbon scenario.

A new report has found that transitioning to a clean energy economy would be an economic boon to the United States, increasing employment, reducing costs to consumers, and benefiting investors.

The report, from NextGen Climate America, showed that investment in efficiency, renewable sources of electricity, and fuel switching — such as moving from fossil fuel-powered cars to electric vehicles — would add a million jobs by 2030, and roughly 2 million jobs by 2050, while increasing GDP by $290 billion and improving household income. The researchers looked at scenarios that would reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

“While addressing climate change is one of our greatest challenges, it is one of our greatest opportunities to build the economy,” Tom Steyer, co-founder of NextGen and billionaire climate activist (and a board member of the Center for American Progress), said on a call with reporters Monday.

The construction industry, in particular, could see a huge bump in jobs — to the tune of 1.2 million more in 2050 than under the business-as-usual scenario. That’s because it will take a lot of people to build the wind farms, install the solar panels, and retrofit the buildings needed to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Efforts to lower emissions are often subject to the criticism that they will hurt the economy, even though actual examples of programs have shown that efficiency and clean energy programs can actually boost economic factors like household disposable income.

“The go-to argument against [climate action] is that it’s bad for the economy and it’s a job killer,” Steyer said. This report shows otherwise. Steyer also pointed out that in the last few years, jobs in the solar industry have grown 20 times faster than the rest of the economy.

In addition, the so-called reference case — a general economic forecast — did not take into account the potential costs of not addressing climate change. Recent reports have shown climate change poses a significant financial risk.

The report studiously stays away from telling policymakers how to get to 80 percent less emissions. Rather than policy recommendations, the researchers took a feasibility study and used it to build out the economic impacts. The researchers used a 2014 report, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States by Energy and Environmental Economics, which looked at whether it was technologically feasible to reduce carbon emissions significantly enough to avoid 2°C warming.

Economist Jeffery Sachs told reporters it was critical to first determine where we want to go, and then tailor policies to achieve those end goals.

“Too often our national policy conversation jumps straight to the question, ‘Is it a tax? Is it this or that?’ Whereas what this report does, much better, in my opinion, is to show here’s where we want to go,” Sachs said.

Overall, the report painted an optimistic picture of the economy under a clean energy scenario. It’s worth noting, though, that the gains will not be across the board. Job growth in two of the nine regions was expected slow under the low-carbon scenarios. Those two regions — which include roughly the area from Montana to Texas, a fossil fuel heavy swath of the country — would have slower job growth.

That means that as the country does develop policies to achieve these goals, it will likely need to dedicate resources — educational and economic — to areas that will have a harder time getting off fossil fuels.

“To help them adapt we need to provide dedicated new resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training and other employment services for workers and communities affected by job losses at coal mines and coal-fired power plants,” the authors said.

Jobs notwithstanding, all regions were found to see increases in disposable income.

Oddly enough, the Party in the US crying the most
that their country needs new good-paying jobs is precisely the one
which will ignore this report, or worse, deny it completely.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 12 2015, 03:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
:spam: It's not true and even Brew should know that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Anything to back that up besides a mouth, Neut?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The "report" comes from a wacko site, why don't you try proving what that site says is even close to being true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Did you even look at the link?

I didn't think so.

And you're the one claiming, based on absolutely nothing, that it's bogus, with no evidence that either the report or the site is anything of the sort.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
100+ years ago Neutral would have been arguing against switching from the horse and buggy to the automobile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
We in the United States are transitioning at the rate that is normal and in line with innovation and development of the technology. What we don't need is any more hair brained ideas such as ethanol, a product forced down our throats by greedy farmers and cronies in government.

40% of our economic growth during the Obama administration is due to the development and harvesting of traditional energy sources.

There is not going to be a meaningful climate agreement come out of the pending meeting Zip.

Americans will not get suckered into a scheme where we sacrifice and more jobs and economic opportunities are sacrificed. However, this American is wiling to be open minded. I want Canada to go 100% green energy this coming year and show us the way forward. Are you and your government game Brew? If not, then quit blowing hot air BS at me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brew has nothing but a biased report to base his BS on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The usual Right Wing crap, this time from Pat.

"If we can't do it all on the first day, it isn't worth doing at all..."

Yes, I really do believe our new government will invest big time in renewables, along with China, India, and the EU. Not everything will happen this year, but certainly they will start the majority of technologies in the next couple of years, and be going 100% by 2025, with no new fossil fuel projects at all.

And I also believe, although not as certainly, that as long as the US doesn't lose its mind and elect a Republican President, the US will join in as well.

On the other hand, if the US does not join in fairly soon, I believe your economy will be thoroughly in the tank by 2020, with wrongheaded finger pointing from all sides.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 12 2015, 05:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Nov 12 2015, 05:21 AM
Brew has nothing but a biased report to base his BS on.
And you have nothing but bias to say that. Why not try to learn something for a change, Neut?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis