More on EPA, Climate Debate

I gather that the heart of conservative opposition to energy reform lies in the   fear of job-loss. As the argument goes, if we were to discourage the use of traditional fuels, the impact could be devastating across industries and geographies (within the US).

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council:

While EPA’s endangerment finding arises in the context of automobile emissions, the finding can have profound consequences for all industry in the United States.  Over 20 different industrial sectors are heavily dependent on traditional fossil fuels, and many more rely upon the products, feedstocks and commodities created by those industries.  The annual benefit of coal use alone has been estimated at more that $1 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 7 million jobs.

If reliance upon coal-fired generation were to diminish by a third as a result of EPA regulatory programs, GDP would be reduced by about $166 billion, household incomes by $64 billion, and employment by 1.2 million jobs.  To the extent green jobs are created, they would come only after severe trauma to the economy and would likely be lower-paying than the manufacturing jobs they displace.

Those in our economy least able to afford it would unfortunately be hurt the worst.  Americans living on fixed incomes, at or near the poverty level, pay a far greater percentage of their monthly income on energy bills.

While his is a reasonable reaction, I take issue with a couple of his points. First, he hardly acknowledges the focus of the EPA. The administration, quite clearly, is not interested in shutting down power plants, slashing GDP, and shipping jobs overseas.

The findings of the report, which comes after all major scientific orgs in the world have reported similarly, necessitate action. The approach is in the interest of transitioning from dirty, polluting, and indeed dangerous energy sources – to cleaner, more responsible, healthier sources. While many might argue that sheer levels of consumption is the culprit, those in power seldom dare suggest consumption cuts, especially in a recession.

So the figures of job loss and GDP reduction are unfounded, treating current sources as the only option, without which the country would crumble.

Segal goes on to comment on the burden placed on “Americans living on fixed incomes”. I’ve heard similar statements elsewhere with little explanation. There are programs in the proposed Cap & Trade scheme to ameliorate disproportionate energy price increases. I’ll look around for more on this, from either viewpoint.

Advertisement