Climate 411

A month ago, July unemployment, at 5.7 percent, was the highest in four years. The August numbers just came in, and they’re even worse – 6.1 percent unemployment, the highest in five years.

But as I wrote last month, there is a solution: the green economy. Jobs related to new energy technologies are the one area of the market that is growing, and at a rapid pace.

Read More »

This post is by Nat Keohane, Ph.D., director of economic policy and analysis at Environmental Defense Fund.

When our media team opened up this morning’s Washington Post, they were delighted to see that Environmental Defense Fund was featured in an article about high energy prices and the connection to climate policy. Delighted, that is, until they read the article – which badly misrepresents our views.

Discussing the potential for perverse incentives from high gas prices in the absence of a cap on carbon, the reporter wrote:

The way to fix that would be a carbon tax or some other mechanism that would reflect the environmental cost of greenhouse gas emissions, Keohane said.

Those of you familiar with climate policy might have just spit out your coffee. EDF calling for a carbon tax? What gives?

In fact, I said nothing of the sort.

Read More »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

The employment situation in the U.S. is grim. July marked seven straight months of job losses, with no sign of improvement. The July jobless rate of 5.7 percent was the highest in over four years, with 51,000 jobs lost. (As a writer, I can’t help but note that the situation for journalists is especially grim – dubbed the "Midsummer Massacre".)

One bright spot in this generally depressing picture is the green economy. This encompasses much more than employment at renewable energy firms; there’s a whole supply chain that benefits, as well. But even when you consider only the renewable energy jobs, the surge is impressive – especially given the context.

Read More »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Some people worry about the cost of taking action to stop climate change. But what they miss is the cost of inaction, which is vastly larger. These costs can be tricky to estimate because they’re often indirect – for example, infrastructure damage from flooding, crop loss, or loss of tourist dollars in a ski resort area. But there’s much good evidence that the cost of inaction is extremely high:

• Cost of inaction to U.S. overall (Tufts University)
• Cost of inaction to U.S. overall (University of Maryland)
• Cost of inaction to U.S. transportation industry (National Research Council of the National Academies)
• Cost of inaction to Florida (Tufts University)

Now the University of Maryland, in collaboration with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), has extended its national report with studies of the economic and environmental costs of climate change in 12 different states (Colorado, Illinois, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee).

Read More »

This post is by Jackie Roberts, director of sustainable technologies at Environmental Defense Fund.

In the midst of reports of six straight months of U.S. job losses, there were two reports on a more hopeful note:

• Jobs in Renewable Energy Expanding (Worldwatch Institute)
• Job Opportunities for the Green Economy (University of Massachusetts)

The Worldwatch Institute finding that green economy jobs were increasing as other jobs declined was part of their Vital Signs Update. From Senior Researcher Michael Renner:

Renewables are poised to tackle our energy crisis and create millions of new jobs worldwide.

Read More »