iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Greenhouse Gas Regulations And Job Growth Linked In New Study

Pollution

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 08/21/11 08:41 PM ET Updated: 10/21/11 06:12 AM ET

A study from a multi-state air quality agency suggests that there may be a huge economic incentive to enacting a clean fuels standard (CFS) and pursuing low-carbon fuels in the Northeast.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) organization issued a report showing the economic benefits of requiring a 10 percent reduction in carbon pollution from all fuels over the next 10 years.

The study, "Economic Analysis of a Program to Promote Clean Transportation Fuels in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region," which made economic projections for 11 states from Maine to Maryland and the District of Columbia, calls a CFS “a fuel-neutral, market-based program” that “would allow all fuels to compete based on their greenhouse gas impacts and costs.”

NESCAUM also advocates pursuing low carbon fuels which “would reduce carbon emissions and those of other harmful pollutants, enhance energy independence and reduce vulnerability to price swings in imported petroleum, and create jobs in the region.”

The report claims that by the tenth year, there would be significant job creation and increased economic output as a result of a CFS. The standard would only limit pollution levels from common fuels, and not try to regulate which fuels are actually used, explains Nathanael Greene with the NRDC.

In terms of numbers, the study argues that by the tenth year:

  • Employment increases by 9,490 to 50,700 jobs. Gross regional product, a measure of the states’ economic output, increases by 2.1 billion to 4.9 billion.
  • Household disposable income increases by 1 billion to 3.3 billion.
  • Gasoline and diesel demand drops 12 to 29 percent.
  • Carbon pollution from transportation is cut by 5 to 9 percent.

The New York Times reports that the standards suggested in the NESCAUM plan are similar to ones already in place in California.

This news comes when several Republican presidential candidates are lambasting organizations like the EPA and arguing that increased government regulation won't promote growth in an already stagnant economy. In June, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) suggested that the EPA should be renamed “the job-killing organization of America.”

Writing for Earth & Industry, Zachary Shahan writes that green R&D in the automotive industry and increases in fuel standards have already created 155,000 jobs across the country, according to a joint report by the NRDC, the United Auto Workers Union and the National Wildlife Federation.

Shahan says that another report found increased investment and the higher fuel standards announced by President Obama last month are projected to create an additional 150,000 jobs in the next decade.

CORRECTION: NESCAUM's study used an economic model that made projections for 11 states and D.C., but the organization's membership is limited to the states listed on its website, and not D.C. as previously stated.
---
FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

A study from a multi-state air quality agency suggests that there may be a huge economic incentive to enacting a clean fuels standard (CFS) and pursuing low-carbon fuels in the Northeast. According...
A study from a multi-state air quality agency suggests that there may be a huge economic incentive to enacting a clean fuels standard (CFS) and pursuing low-carbon fuels in the Northeast. According...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 505
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:27 PM on 10/02/2011
Humans spew roughly 200 times as much CO2 into the atmospheric as all the volcanoes in the world combined.

That probably changes the climate, huh?

How many reason do we need to stop our Fossil and nuke dependency and go green?

Global climate change,

Wars for oil,

Muslim fanatical funding for oil,

Oil spills killing billions of fish, and destroying gulf sized ecosystem for oil.

Mountain top and river system destruction,

Fossil toxic heavy metal pollution,

Nuclear waste, disaster, proliferation and terrorism,

And Green is cheaper or very soon to be cheaper than all the fossil and nukes.

What are we waiting for?

rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels (FT too).

in combination,

Can provide all the fuels, chemicals, energy we need, more than now, forever, 24/7 using the waste bio fuels in existing gas turbines, safe, clean, carbon, land and water negative, ready now to grow by doubling every year or so as it has been, to replace fossil and nukes within 7-15 years.

http://solarcellcentral.com/companies_page.html first solar 2.5$ per Wp installed.

http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 1-2 cents KWH

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/

http://www.sunelec.com/ 75 cents per Wp.
1-2$/Wp http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html 3 months

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio chart.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Recovering CPA
08:02 PM on 08/30/2011
Are these the same "scientists" who warned us last week that the earth is in danger of attack by aliens because we are screwing up our planet and the aliens might be afraid that we will export the technology?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:40 PM on 08/30/2011
No. And if you were informed on the subject then you too would have known that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:47 AM on 09/11/2011
Please stop lying...
10:45 PM on 08/28/2011
Global Warming is real - to believe it does not in my opinion, is foolish -
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
theexperimentisfinished
10:36 PM on 08/28/2011
the plan is similar to the one already in place in California...One look at our unemployment numbers and the companies that leave our state on a daily basis is evidence enough that these people are frauds and this study is environmentalist propaganda.
09:14 PM on 08/28/2011
Look liberals, there is no "global warming." You could warm things up ten degrees. So what? More summer days would just improve local economies. Plus if the poles melt, that’s more fresh water for growing economies. To shut-up the EcoNuts, we can just genetically engineer polar bears to have less fur. The real problem is the greedy atmospheric scientists. They will do anything for a buck. I suggest a Federal Board of Truth in Science. Any major study goes through the board to determine its level of patriotism. “Problem” scientists will be de-funded and barred from further research, Wake up liberals, you’re not in Kansas anymore. America; GOD’S COUNTRY.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:48 AM on 09/11/2011
Ok, could you PLEASE include a (POE) disclaimer on things like that?

I'm 90% certain you're indulging in parody, but it's hard to tell...
El Justiciero
HP mods have NO sense of humor, obviously
12:51 PM on 09/20/2011
That's SATIRE!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:46 PM on 08/28/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.

Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
This American
An end to all this nonsense
05:19 PM on 08/27/2011
This ridiculous story has been up now for nearly a week, but not one single word about the experiment the CERN experiment. We have been waiting for more than ten years for this to be done, and the fact that CERN, easily the most credible scientific lab on the planet, did the experiment, shows they they thought it important. Is this an oversite or is it possible that huffpo editors have an agenda other than the scientific truth?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:22 PM on 08/27/2011
Tell us what the experiment involved and what the conclusions were. Then, note that there are zero strong or even moderate arguments from this work to climate. None.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:24 PM on 08/28/2011
Funny that you refuse to explain why you think this study so important, TA.

Could it be that you want people to believe it can explain global warming over recent decades, when in fact it does not and cannot do so?

Here's CERN on their study:

-----------------------------------
We have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied... This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.
-----------------------------------
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

Moreover and as RealClimate observes:

"Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure)."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
02:06 AM on 08/27/2011
Here are a couple other good resources, if you want more info:

A list of "skeptic" arguments, and fully cited answers to them:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

All climate science papers published since 1824, arranged by year, and by whether they're "pro" "neutral" or "com" relative to man-made climate change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate_science_history.php

The first link, as I said, is fully cited. The second is nothing more than a well organized list of citations - all climate science over the last 187 years. Some papers will be harder to track down than others, and some will cost money to read in full, but they're all out there, and the second link gives you titles and authors for ALL of them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 AM on 08/26/2011
I installed a new high efficiency natural gas forced air furnace last December. 97% compared to my old 80%. It is so much quieter. Hardly hear it run. Montana does get cold sometimes. Keep the tax credits for improvements that conserve energy. Between the state and federal tax credits and the energy company rebates 40% of the cost was covered. Energy conservation is so much less expensive than building more power plants and should be our very first focus as fossil fuels get more expensive. Many people can't afford new furnaces, etc without some help. Dump the big tax breaks for the top 2% and put it into energy conservation for middle class and poor.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:51 AM on 09/11/2011
Just FYI - http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/09/315845/natural-gas-switching-from-coal-to-gas-increases-warming-for-decades/ - It's a recent study, and you couldn't have known, but you should probably move away from natural gas as soon as you can. Maybe go for geothermal/wood pellets.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:37 PM on 08/24/2011
Debunked: Heartland Institute Global Warming "Skeptic" Roy Spencer

ThisAmerican: "Your pathetic attacks on Dr. Spencer have not and will not work. Even Judith Curry is paying close attention to his recent work."

You mean where Dr. Curry described Roy Spencer's most recent work as making "the same error in interpretation that they accuse others of making"?

You are a funny guy, TA.

Also, which of the following Roy Spencer facts do you deny that you have characterized as "pathetic attacks"?

Do tell, This American.

Roy Spencer analyzed NASA satellite data incorrectly for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Roy Spencer's climate science has been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Roy Spencer believes per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

Roy Spencer is a creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
This American
An end to all this nonsense
09:51 PM on 08/24/2011
This "study" is uses an economic model that is very similar to the climate models that are the foundation of the AGW hoax, in that it starts off with a conclusion then works backwards and creates reasonable-sounding assumptions that support the conclusion. The fact that this is actually reported as a study illustrates the media's role in this nonsense.

The AGW scam is dying. Personally, I worry more about the next scam the Marxists/Malthusians come up with.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:30 PM on 08/24/2011
TA: "I worry more about the next scam the Marxists/M­althusians come up with."

So how do you keep that tin foil hat permanently attached to your head, anyway?

Again as I asked you downthread:

What are the top 5 most influentia­­l atmospheri­­c gases that keep the Earth above freezing, and how do they do that?

Again it's an easy question for anyone with functional understand­ing of basic climate science to correctly answer, really. It's even an open-book test! C'mon TA - I have faith that you can come through where Hardtcross has repeatedly failed.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
05:55 AM on 08/25/2011
Your question is ridiculous. The term influence, when unmodified, has no meaning in chemistry or any other science.
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
01:19 PM on 08/25/2011
Publicola, I'm responding on this thread because you had no reply button on the other one. First, thank you for your kind remarks...much appreciated on this often very contentious site.
As far as this goes:
"Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsibl­e for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been.

Can you explain this *a little*? It seems to be a key point and I don't get it at all. Thanks!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:38 PM on 08/24/2011
Please explain how the economic model you think is being espoused in the article resembles climate modelling by precise reference to mathematical and statistical issues.

If you cannpt, I will simply take this as proof that you are talking out of your back end.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
03:32 PM on 08/24/2011
Facts don't really matter to climate change deniers.

for instance the fact that humans emit 100 times more that all the volcanoes in the world combined.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
12:17 PM on 08/24/2011
"Making electricity/gas more expensive than it is now, is going to increase employment opportunities in this country".

Did these people go to college? What planet are they living on? Am I the only one who recognizes the absurdity of this statement?

I understand and sympathize with environmental issues, but when you make ridiculous statements like that, you're jeopardizing your own credibility.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
04:16 PM on 08/24/2011
Continuing to burn coal and oil will destroy our economy due to run away global warming. We have no choice, and yes green jobs will help our economy as we tackle the immense task of shifting our entire infrastructure to a post carbon economy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lro7644
02:06 AM on 08/25/2011
No only that but the damage to human health. Humans have economic valve and when you damage their capacity to produce you damage the economy. Short term gain for the few with long term consequences for the masses.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MJinCanada
Safe from zombies until my 2nd cup of coffee
11:01 PM on 08/24/2011
Installing new energy efficient furnaces is a business booster.

Insulation, window and door replacement and other renovations employ people.

Developing better alternative energy products employs people.

Improving mass transit employs people.

Making quality stuff that lasts and doesn't end up in the dumpster in two years would also employ people productively too.
11:09 PM on 08/24/2011
Seems to me that making things that last is more expensive, but labor is a smaller portion of the price and spread over a longer life time for the item. Could be a money saver for the purchaser and a job saver for the USA.
05:54 AM on 08/24/2011
What a nice article. I'm sure the reports presented here will be totally ignored by many politicians, and after energy lobbyists will continue to complain about rising environmental costs and how the actions discussed in this article will hurt job creation....We need to act now to save our environment and future. Job creation or not, dirty water and air is good for no one, except the pockets of CEO's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Blackwell
Why watch the news? The truth's on Comedy Central!
02:19 AM on 08/24/2011
I think it's a rather silly argument. Let's just say, clean air - good, dirty air - bad. It seems they had plenty of tax breaks and plenty of time to fix those problems. If that wasn't enough, how about all the money they made from the jobs they sold. Ooohh, right, they were busy handing 40$ million checks around the boardroom table and shuffling off the rest to foreign accounts.
And yeah, I suppose air pollution from traffic would be down, when folks have no JOBS to drive to.
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
06:54 AM on 08/24/2011
"I suppose air pollution from traffic would be down, when folks have no JOBS to drive to."

Good one, I'm surprised they haven't used that one as a valid arguement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lro7644
02:08 AM on 08/25/2011
Always the same simpleton responses to complex problems