| By Clem Guttata
Big news on the climate change legislation front today is yet another study shows that addressing climate change is good for the economy (emphasis mine):
The study, Clean Energy and Climate Policy for U.S. Growth and Job Creation (pdf), assumes that the bills will be kept at least as strong on emissions targets (17% nationwide reductions by 2020, 83% by 2050) and renewable energy standards (mandate that utilities get at least 20% of electricity from renewable suppliers) and that there is strong continued funding for renewable energy research and development (Obama put 60$ billion into the stimulus bill, but more will be needed).
The study looks at the impact of the economies of each and every state--and finds that in each case, the effect is positive.
There are three main findings, all of them noteworthy:
1. All 50 states can gain economically from strong federal energy and climate policy, despite the diversity of their economies and energy mixes . . . they all have substantial opportunities to grow their economies by promoting energy saving and domestic renewable energy alternatives.
2. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, comprehensive national climate policy does not benefit the coasts at the expense of the heartland states. In fact, heartland states will gain more by reducing imported fossil fuel dependence because they are generally spending a higher proportion of their income on this low employment, high price risk supply chain.
3. The country as a whole can gain 918,000 to 1.9 million jobs, and household income can grow by $488 to $1,176, by 2020 under comprehensive energy and climate policy . . . Indeed, a central finding of this research is that the stronger the federal climate policy, the greater the economic reward.
And that's really the takeaway here--as noted by the study, by "aggressively promoting efficiency on the demand side of energy markets, alternative fuel and renewable technology development on the supply side can be combined with carbon pollution reduction to yield economic growth and net job creation."
West Virginia could benefit from new energy policies designed to address climate change. What can go wrong? There's two major risks.
#1 - The study is based on the assumption that "the bills will be kept at least as strong on emissions targets... renewable energy standards... strong continued funding for renewable energy research and development."
One major risk is that Sens. like our own Rockefeller and Byrd will continue working to undermine the aspects of the bill that will deliver the most economic benefit for a new energy economy. A "strong" bill is needed not only to address escalating climate change but also to stimulate creation of a new energy economy.
#2 - Another major risk is that West Virginia won't take advantage of the opportunities for renewal energy development. Both Reps. Mollohan and Rahall have spoken out against specific wind farm developments before. The green energy sector in West Virginia lags behind other states and is growing at too slow of a rate to catch up. Unless we change course, West Virginia will be left in the dust.
The energy economy of the future will look very different than that of the past. West Virginia needs leadership that will look at all the options ahead, not just cling to our heritage and traditions of mining and burning coal. |
