Good News/Bad News On The Environmental Front

First, from the NYT, comes the bad news.

A new ranking of the world’s nations by environmental performance puts some of the globe’s largest economies far down the list, with the United States sinking to 61st and China to 121st.

In the previous version of the Environmental Performance Index, compiled every two years by Yale and Columbia University researchers, the United States ranked 39th, and China 105th.

The top performer was Iceland, which gets nearly all of its power from renewable sources, followed closely by Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

“Countries that take seriously the environment as a policy challenge do improve, and those that don’t deteriorate,” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, who oversees the index project.

The paper does note that because most of the data is from 2007 and 2008, "the index does not fully reflect new efforts by the Obama administration" to improve environmental performance. It also notes that the U.S. scores well in forestry and safe drinking water, but our ranking is abysmal because we score low in areas like heat-trapping emissions and urban air pollutants.

Increasing renewable energy would help decrease our emissions. The good news is that we're advancing quickly in one area - wind power.

Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a rapid pace in 2009, adding 39 percent more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines.

According to the NYT, that's up from virtually nothing a few years ago, and they reported that the American Wind Association said "the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year."

The nation’s wind turbines generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9.7 million homes, according to the report. Last year, Texas consolidated its lead as the nation’s top wind producer, with a total capacity of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They were followed by California, Washington and Minnesota.

And guess what the AWEA credits for the growth of wind power? “The U.S. wind industry shattered all installation records in 2009, and this was directly attributable to the lifeline that was provided by the stimulus package,” said Denise Bode, the trade association’s chief executive.

However, as extraordinary as growth has been in this area, they also point out that it would be better if Congress would pass a a federal mandate requiring that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. Mandates already exist throughout the European Union and in China, and in the U.S. 29 states have adopted a renewable power standard, including Michigan, which set a standard of 10% of electricity from renewable resources by 2015.

“The wind manufacturing sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs, but without a renewable electricity standard to provide a long-term market, the sector will be slow to grow,” the trade group said in its report.

I'm so tired of the U.S. falling behind in everything but the strength of our military. The U.S. should be leading the way in this area instead of falling further behind. And although we're fortunate to have Gov. Granholm and other Democrats with foresight and vision pushing for higher standards, we're still stuck with obstructionist Republicans who would rather help their fossil fuel cronies than our environment. Just imagine how much better our country could be if Republicans didn't always stand in the way.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Job Creation: Green Investment vs. Defense Spending

Republicans believe government spending does nothing to create jobs, unless we're spending money on defense. Actually, we're better off spending money on green investments according to Robert Pollin, professor of economics.

In fact, the green-investment agenda is a highly effective engine of job creation, much more so, for example, than two favored Republican forms of spending, military outlay and the oil industry.

Thus, for a given billion dollars of spending, the Obama green-investment program will generate about 17,000 jobs. Spending the same amount on the military will produce only 8,500 jobs, 50 percent less than green investments. Spending an additional $1 billion on the oil industry -- the "drill, baby, drill" agenda advanced by the McCain/Palin campaign -- will produce only 4,500, about one-fourth the total created by green investments.

Pollin says three factors are at play to explain why investment spending devoted to the green economy creates more jobs than military or oil spending.

Relative labor intensity. This means more spending on people and less on machines, buildings, supplies, and energy. In weatherizing a home, the machinery and supplies needed are relatively low, while the demand for construction workers is high. Drilling for oil requires huge amounts of sophisticated machinery and relatively few people to operate that equipment. A military base employs lots of people. But it also involves heavy equipment purchases and consumes lots of energy.

Domestic production versus imports and spending abroad. With Obama's green-investment agenda, well over 90 percent of total spending will occur within the U.S. economy. Energy-efficiency measures, such as building retrofits, public transportation, and upgrading the electrical grid, can only occur on-site. Weatherization projects for buildings in North Dakota can only be done in North Dakota. The New York City subway system must be upgraded in New York. By contrast, the U.S. now imports about 50 percent of all the oil it consumes, and about 20 percent of total spending within the oil industry occurs abroad. The proportion of the military budget spent abroad is even higher.

Differences in pay levels. The average annual pay for employees associated with the green investment, including both wages and benefits, is about $52,000. This is roughly 20 percent below the $65,000 average for both the military and oil industries. This means that a given amount of spending for workers in the green-investment areas yields more job creation at lower average wages -- stretching out a given sum of wage and benefit payments.

That last point about lower average wages isn't actually a bad thing according to Pollin, because many more jobs overall are being created and more money is going into more workers' pockets.

All told, the green-investment agenda still creates far more jobs paying over $16 an hour than either the military or the oil industry does -- 75 percent more than the military and three times more than the oil industry.

And in the green economy, even many of the relatively low-paying jobs in construction and manufacturing offer decent job ladders for entry-level workers. There are fewer such prospects for advancement in even lower low-paying service-sector jobs, such as those of janitors, waiters, and health-care assistants.

President Obama's economic stimulus program includes between $50 billion and $140 billion in clean-energy spending. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $1339 billion the world spent on the military in 2007, of which we're responsible for 45 per cent of that total, distantly followed by the UK, China, France, and Japan each with 4 to 5 per cent of the world share. Instead of increasing defense spending by 8 percent next year, the President should take the $40 billion or so difference and put it toward green investment. It'll create new industries and put more people to work, and we'll still be a superpower.