By: Stephen Roesler
The once pressing problem of a dwindling ozone layer, increased global temperature and innocent polar bears losing their coveted glaciers seems to be forgotten in today’s economic insecurity. Today, everyone seems to need a job.
But as scientists explain, fixing the U.S. economy by creating jobs is only one minuscule piece of a rather repugnant pie. A warming globe, for example. And what about our energy crisis? Yes, that’s a problem also.
As the world continues to expand and industrialize, energy continues to remain a globally pressing issue. Domestic dependency on foreign oil and increasing green house gases perpetuate the rush to find clean alternatives. Although astonishingly high gasoline prices once played a role in the search for sustainable energy, we now face a different problem. With a glaring recession on tap and a depression peering around the corner, President Obama has suggested a solution to the now 26 million Americans out of the job.
On Obama’s weekly Internet address, he promised the economic stimulus package will “create nearly 500,000 jobs by investing in clean energy.” Now that the U.S has allocated over $1 trillion to bolster the economy, taxpayers question this seemingly ostentatious plan.
“The money will be spent, jobs created, taxes increased,” says former Los Angeles Times correspondent, Michael Williams. “And we will be no closer to eliminating our need for, and dependence upon foreign oil than we are now.”
Similarly, a debate between scientists, engineers, economists and politicians continues over the correct steps towards advancing sustainable energy options while encouraging economic growth.
Obama’s theory is correct. As Economist Ron Batchelder, professor of economics explains, federal subsidies allocated directly to a new market will create jobs. “The benefits in terms of jobs are going to come to those employed in industries that are complimentary to this [sustainable energy] industry.” The objective, he explains, is creating jobs that produce valuable output while remaining free from artificial inflation.
To make economical sense of Obama’s plan, the Pepperdine professor says, “you have to identify what the source of failure is in the market system – why is the market not investing in this particular sector themselves,” Batchelder asks. “You have to give an economist the nature of the source of failure as to why this is the necessary approach.”
In other words, to enact policies that would grow this market, we must identify how our economy is being made poorer and how to correct that. Answering this question remains tricky. The recurrent argument goes like this: The U.S. continues to use up limited resources and remains reliant on the Middle East. Rising Co2 emissions and the warming of the planet seem correlated. But stop right there. Herein lies the looming controversy for economists.
According to Charles David Keeling who created the Keeling Curve, there is no doubt Co2 emissions are rising and the globe is warming. For the past 50 years, Keeling tracked Co2 emissions in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The data is clear but the question is whether rising emissions remain human induced.
Ask someone on The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and you risk your life. The data is not taken lightly. “The world has a problem, here is the data, we are causing it and if we don’t respond now we could be to be in deep trouble,” says Steve Davis, professor of Biology. “There are uncertainties, but our professional opinion is that this data is clear.”
It’s so clear, in fact, that the IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their findings and it’s only beginning to impact policies. Currently, the U.S. and China struggle to agree over reasonable tax policies on Co2 emissions. Additionally, President Obama is considering a 30 percent investment tax credit to homeowners and small businesses that invest in small wind turbines.
But these measures aren’t enough, says Davis. Modern research suggests that solar power, for example, is endless. Scientific American magazine suggests that, “the energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year.” They further suggest that the American southwest is a perfect place to obtain this energy. Nearly 250,000 square acres remain suitable for the construction of solar power plants. If we converted a mere 2.5 percent of the annual British Thermal Units (Btu) of radiation in that region, we would match our country’s energy consumption in 2006.
By 2050, 69 percent of the U.S. electricity and 35 percent of its total energy could come from solar power alone. This would, in effect, lower carbon emissions by 62 percent, require less dependency from politically tense Middle East relations and create domestic jobs. But, to achieve such a goal requires something taxpayers don’t want to hear – capital.
An America perpetuated by clean energy is not simple, says Gerard Fasel, professor of Physics. First, we lack the policies to develop large public land areas to support the spanning systems. Furthermore, some find the panels an aesthetic eyesore as many enjoy the desert scape without the painfully blinding reflection of a solar panel.
Second, although the technology is quickly improving, waste is presently enormous. Our storage systems lack effectiveness, as batteries remain expensive and inefficient. Similarly, transporting the energy to surrounding cities results in huge losses. Because most energy would theoretically come from the southwest, the energy would travel roughly 3,000 miles to cities like New York and Washington D.C. According to Fasel, the existing AC system is not robust enough to maintain the power over the long haul. Thus, a new high voltage system remains obligatory; again requiring more money.
Third, a national energy plan remains indispensable to such a goal. As Batchelder explains, “the private sector will not collectively invest in certain areas because they cannot capture a private return.” Currently, the International Energy Agency finds that coal is cheaper and more accessible than solar. Thus, energy companies need incentive to switch their efforts to renewable sources, which Washington could achieve through a coal or carbon emission tax.
Theoretically, the necessary steps towards a society fueled by sustainable sources require capital, technological improvement and implemented federal policies. And although capital and development in technology require effort, Batchelder asserts that changed polices present deeper problems.
Although the scientific data is overwhelming, it’s not 100 percent certain. According to Davis and Fasel, it will take a degree of trust on the part of economists, but the creation of jobs in the energy sector seems prudent. However, economists look to historical governmental programs for a point of reference.
Recalling FDR’s New Deal, if the U.S. creates jobs for citizens, it often removes them from their area of skill, Batchelder says. For example, if a car salesman is thrown into a recently created job building roads, the salesman is essentially removed from his area of skill. Instead of waiting around for the market to rebound, the salesman now produces output from a different sector of the market. In essence, creating jobs simply on the principle of supply and demand remains dodgy.
“One of the reasons it took so long to come out of the depression is the idea that we shook up our team of assets,” Batchelder says. “So if I take someone who is a natural quarterback and I make him a lineman, at some point I have to bring that whole team back together and restructure.”
As we experienced post Depression, economic restructuring took years. President Obama’s quandary is balancing our economic future with today’s hardship. Amid the balance, however, we must take the advice of experts in their respected areas. If environmental scientists and geologists largely agree on findings, we better listen. And this goes for economists as well. At the end of the day, the U.S. faces a strenuous challenge to rebuild an economy, without the neglecting the potentially permanent problem of global warming.
Renewable energy may be that answer.