Download Tristan Hardy 9/24/15 Debate Paper #2 Word Count: 1,700 Question

Tristan Hardy
9/24/15
Debate Paper #2
Word Count: 1,700
Question: Should the U.S. government further invest in green energy?
The benefits of the U.S. further investing in green energy are numerous. The utilization
of green energy creates little to no global warming emissions, it would improve public health and
environmental quality, and it would stabilize energy prices, and offers a plethora of economic
benefits. From all these benefits offered, it seems like this decision would be a no-brainer but it
is way more complicated than one would think. The reason being, that while we should continue
to invest in green energy, we must make sure that the right amount of money is allocated to
things such as healthcare, government jobs, public service projects and the list goes on and on.
When the government gives money to build a windmill, those resources cannot simultaneously
be used to build other products. At best, there's no new job creation but an extraction of
resources from one sector of the economy to the politically preferred green sector. And since
taxpayer dollars are subsidizing expensive, inefficient sources of energy, those resources could
be used more efficiently in the private sector, and consequently, U.S. economic growth suffers
on net. If there is a role for alternative sources in America's energy portfolio, it should be
dictated by price and competition, not government handouts.
Even though there are contrasting arguments when it comes to the debate on how many
jobs investment in green infrastructure can create, one cannot argue with the statistics. Compared
with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the
renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are
created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. For
example, in 2011, the wind energy industry directly employed 75,000 full-time-equivalent
employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction
and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial,
legal, and consulting services. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for
wind turbines, and the amount of domestically manufactured equipment used in wind turbines
has grown dramatically in recent years: from 35 percent in 2006 to 70 percent in 2011. Other
renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2011, the solar industry employed
approximately 100,000 people on a part-time or full-time basis, including jobs in solar
installation, manufacturing, and sales; the hydroelectric power industry employed approximately
250,000 people in 2009; and in 2010 the geothermal industry employed 5,200 people. Increasing
renewable energy has the potential to create still more jobs. In 2009, the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable
energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many
jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels—resulting in a benefit of
202,000 new jobs in 2025. Further analysis by the UCS found that a 25% by 2025 national
renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for
renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income biomass production
and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local
communities. Renewable energy projects therefore keep money circulating within the local
economy, and in most states renewable electricity production would reduce the need to spend
money on importing coal and natural gas from other places. Thirty-eight states were net
importers of coal in 2008—from other states and, increasingly, other countries: 16 states spent a
total of more than $1.8 billion on coal from as far away as Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia,
and 11 states spent more than $1 billion each on net coal imports.
Even though those number are quite persuasive the counter argument for such a job
increase are as follows. Artificially pumping up employment in the energy sector drives down
productivity while driving up cost to the broader economy is counterproductive to job creation. It
is an increased sign of efficiency if more energy can produced and delivered with fewer workers
because this expands the overall output potential of the economy. For example the number of
workers devoted to the agriculture sector has decreased over the past century while the
production of agriculture has risen significantly and this is a healthy sign of growth in the U.S.
economy. Government efforts to reverse this trend and employee more people devoted to the
agricultural sector would not create jobs in the long-run but raise food prices and cause shrinkage
in other sectors. The other argument opposing further government investment in green energy is
that the government cannot do what the private sector can do. According to the invisible hand,
market prices for green energy are going to regulate and self-adjust themselves. The government
can provide subsidies for a lot of these green technologies to prosper but in the long term the
market will adjust itself and thus pick which technologies will actually prosper.
Not only can one argue that increased government investment in green energy could
create jobs but another argument can be made that increased government investment in green
energy will improve environmental qualities. Generating electricity from renewable energy
rather than fossil fuels offers significant public health benefits. The air and water pollution
emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked to breathing problems, neurological damage,
heart attacks, and cancer. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy has been found to reduce
premature mortality and lost workdays, and it reduces overall healthcare costs. The aggregate
national economic impact associated with these health impacts of fossil fuels is between $361.7
and $886.5 billion, or between 2.5 percent and 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). A
recent study by fortune showed that the U.S. spends about 17% of its GDP on healthcare alone.
This means that if the U.S. did invest more in green energy it would cut down our GDP
expenditure to about 11% which would save us a substantial amount of money and allow us to
allocate those extra funds to something beneficial. In addition wind and solar technology requires
essentially not water to operate and thus do not pollute water systems or strain supply by
competing with agriculture, drinking water systems, or other important water needs. In contrast,
fossil fuels can have a significant impact on water resources. For example, both coal mining and
natural gas drilling can pollute sources of drinking water. Natural gas extraction by hydraulic
fracturing (fracking) requires large amounts of water and can pollute local aquifers and all
thermal power plants, including those powered by coal, gas, and oil, withdraw and consume
water for cooling. That water is then released in local water ways which can raise the
temperature of rivers, lakes, and streams and make the water uninhabitable for certain fish and
other aquatic organisms.
So far we have looked at how investment in green energy could create or destroy jobs,
how it could be beneficial to the environment, and how it can cut carbon emissions. Now let’s
look at how green energy can impact energy prices. The costs of renewable energy technologies
have declined steadily, and are projected to drop even more. For example, the average price of a
solar panel has dropped almost 60 percent since 2011. The cost of generating electricity from
wind dropped more than 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 and more than 80 percent since
1980. In areas with strong wind resources like Texas, wind power can compete directly with
fossil fuels on costs. The cost of renewable energy will decline even further as markets mature
and companies increasingly take advantage of economies of scale. While renewable facilities
require upfront investments to build, once built they operate at very low cost and, for most
technologies, the fuel is free. As a result, renewable energy prices are relatively stable over time.
UCS’s analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable electricity standard found
that such a policy would lead to 4.1 percent lower natural gas prices and 7.6 percent lower
electricity prices by 2030. In contrast, fossil fuel prices can vary dramatically and are prone to
substantial price swings. For example, there was a rapid increase in U.S. coal prices due to rising
global demand before 2008, then a rapid fall after 2008 when global demands declined.
Likewise, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly since 2000.
I’ve shown many reasons as to why investment in green energy is not only plausible but
very beneficial to the economy. Green technology will create an abundance of jobs cut down on
healthcare cost, better the environment, and help cap carbon emissions. Many people, however,
argue that due to government subsidies, the utilization of greener energy is not sustainable in the
long-run and it will only hinder the economy, not help it blossom. In my opinion, these people
are not looking at the bigger picture. In the long run, if carbon emissions continue to rise and the
planet continues to warm, life on this planet will become very unstable and harder to live on. The
damage that we would have inflicted on this planet will be irreversible and thus very costly if we
wish to maintain our current way of life. The best way to address this problem is to start
deciphering the biggest issue, climate change. When that is solved, then we can begin to work
our way inside by addressing the economic side of the situation and everything that follows it.
Sources:
U.S.News.com. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
"The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy." Www.americanprogress.org. Web. 24
Sept. 2015.
"Benefits of Renewable Energy Use." Union of Concerned Scientists. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
"Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction? - IER." IER. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.