EPA Analysis: Jobs and Household Incomes Increase Under Climate Policy
- Laurie Johnson
- Chief Economist, Climate Center, Washington, DC
- Blog | About
- Posted April 22, 2009 in Green Enterprise , Solving Global Warming , U.S. Law and Policy
Today EPA released an analysis of what the economy might look like if the proposed Waxman Markey bill were enacted. This legislation would finally put a cap on dangerous global warming pollution, driving investments that will create millions of clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, and help protect the planet. The results provide good news on many issues (and are consistent with many previous studies). For now let's focus on overall income.
EPA finds that under the Waxman-Markey proposal,
- Households will become 18-19% richer between 2010 and 2020, and by 36-40% by 2030. Translating these numbers into a more familiar unit, this means median household incomes would be approximately $9,000 higher in 2020 from today's levels, and over $18,000 more in 2030.
- By 2050, median household income would be over $45,000 higher than it is currently.
- Renewable energy penetration will increase more than 150% over the next two decades, and this is before modeling the bill's renewable electricity standard (given time constraints, EPA could not model this provision yet). Since renewables create almost 3 times as many jobs as fossil energy, we'll have more jobs.
- GDP would grow 30% by 2020, 70% by 2030, and over 200% by 2050, also translating into more jobs.
In contrast to these impressive gains,
- Over the entire life of the bill, from 2010 to 2050, EPA estimates that the average household will need to invest only $98-$140 per year, a little over a dime a day per person.
Obstructionists will undoubtedly continue to claim that climate legislation is too costly, but the EPA study provides an essential perspective for anyone who wants to evaluate these claims objectively. Even if investing in climate protection carries a small price tag, the cost will be much lower than the opposition says, and it will be more than offset by the economic gains presented by the EPA's analysis. And let us not forget: the cost of doing nothing would be far higher. We can tackle global warming, move to clean energy, and grow the economy at the same time.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Jeff Lassle — Apr 22 2009 04:21 PM
It is a shame that the EPA has become a political football bending to the whims of the polictical party in power. In the past this agency had been only concerned with unbiased science, now, under the new leadership of Obama, it has become a tool for the Washington elites and their environmental causes and should be a concern for all Americans.
John Liffee — Apr 23 2009 09:54 AM
Thank you, Jeff Lassle, for a truly awesome belly laugh.
What sort of alternate reality do you inhabit? As has been exhaustively documented, it was the Bush administration that relentlessly politicized science on climate change, toxic chemicals, and many other subjects at EPA during its eight years.
Just because you say the sky is green doesn't make it so.