“A new energy economy is going to be part of what creates the millions of new jobs,” President Barack Obama said recently.
That’s because a climate bill, once passed, will act like the starting gun in a business innovation race. To illustrate how capping carbon pollution will stimulate the economy and create jobs, EDF designed this graphic (see below the jump).
This graphic is designed to be easy for reporters, editors, and bloggers around the country to use. We’re hoping it will help them explain the concept to readers, even while they’re busy covering the political story of the Waxman-Markey Bill working its way through Congress.
Please post or link to it from wherever you want to. (We also have a bigger web-friendly version and files meant for printing.)
Really? Since the economic effects of capping carbon in Europe have thus far been negative, how can we be so sure that the effects in the US will be wholly positive? Add a “www” to the URL’s below to read up on some of Europe’s experiences:
The chart provided by the author is all rosy in its outlook, but avoids discussing the flaws in the illustration and the probable path it will follow. First, the carbon capping scheme punishes energy users – both commercial and private – by forcing the utility companies to immediately ramp up pricing to carry their businesses through the penalization phase that precedes the greening phase. Second, the carbon capping scheme punishes all of the pictured industries that are needed to build a planet-saving windmill (mining, oil, natural gas, steel, glass, plastic, rubber, construction and transportation) because they too emit carbon. The costs incurred by all of the support industries will put many of them out of business (i.e. lost jobs) and force those who survive into a cost cutting mode. Cost cutting is most easily achieved by reducing labor (i.e. more lost jobs). This reduces competition and efficiency in the supplier market, which ultimately results in higher component pricing. As such, the cumulative cost of the windmill increases dramatically and the utility has to maintain the high prices that it set during the scheme’s penalty phase to pay for the high cost of the greening phase. Should the utilities fail to anticipate their cash flow properly and hit bumps in the road, the government will have to subsidize their efforts by increasing the tax rates of those lucky enough to still be employed; only half of us currently contribute to the US Treasury. As with any government scheme, the working taxpayer will foot the bill of greening the United States.
Hi Bobby B. You are never going to get invited to parties & dinners given by the greens like this! They don’t appreciate critiques of their wonderful ideas.
Obama’s present plan just makes sure that inefficiency is built into the system and rewards losing companies with the tax payer footing the bill.
Chavez says he will give one of Lenin’s books to Obama next but I think the prez may already have it.
Have to admit that it is a cute cartoon and just about as serious as one.
@russ – I am not much into partying. I saw what happened to Paul Blart after a few drinks, and prefer to save myself the embarrassment.
My criticisms are based upon a basic understanding that the favorite green technologies currently cost more and deliver less than other options. Photovoltaic solar is nearly fifty years old, basic solar has been available for over one hundred years, and wind goes back centuries. If they held all of the promises that are currently being purported, they would have taken the market by storm without the need to be tied to any government’s “saving the planet” initiative.
The same goes for electric cars. It does not take a genius to realize that the best electric generating stations are only now reaching 60% efficiencies. By the time you step up and step down the voltages to transmit the electricity to a plug-in car, the inefficiencies begin approaching that of a conventional automobile. Sure the electric car emits nothing, but some power plant’s load had to be sustained overnight to charge it and that means it’s emissions stayed elevated during off-peak hours. Add the “www” and take a look at this link:
It indicates that a hybrid diesel could be the best alternative for greening cars, but have you ever heard an environmentalist promote that concept?
Hey guys, as someone who’s just trying to find out the truth I have a question regarding the first comment by Bobby.
Specifically, you say:
“Second, the carbon capping scheme punishes all of the pictured industries that are needed to build a planet-saving windmill (mining, oil, natural gas, steel, glass, plastic, rubber, construction and transportation) because they too emit carbon. The costs incurred by all of the support industries will put many of them out of business (i.e. lost jobs)”
Keeping with the example, what about the new business they’ll be receiving from windmills? I would think that the suppliers will make more components and more revenue and therefore hire more people. At the very least I think the idea is that it offsets carbon cap related costs for the component suppliers and creates jobs by way of the new windmill company and the people needed to run that business and make the related infrastructure installations.
Also, I’m pretty sure the cap starts relatively high and comes down slowly over time therefore not shocking existing business and allowing necessary planning.
Did you consider that? I’m not being sarcastic I really want to know what you think.
I would think that over time some businesses and jobs will be lost by those that simply can’t operate in a low carbon economy, however, I think that you’ll gain as much if not a bit more and the burst of innovation will result in a better world for all.
Looking forward to your responses.