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 »

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

A few weeks ago, it came out that the White House is excising major portions of an EPA document on regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The document - a draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - is EPA's answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fall squarely within the act's definition of "pollutant".

The 252-page draft document [PDF] was leaked. In it, EPA projects that controlling greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks would result in substantial net savings to Americans - as high as $2 trillion in net present value over the next few decades.

Read more »

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

Fareed Zakaria has a great editorial in today's Washington Post. It describes how the U.S. economy would be revitalized by a carbon cap that spurs clean energy development. Here's an excerpt:

Washington's inaction also stands in contrast to intense activity in the private sector, fascinatingly described in Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn's new book, "Earth: The Sequel." Krupp heads the Environmental Defense Fund, but this is not a gloomy global warming tirade. It's an optimistic account of the progress being made by American industry in renewable energy. The authors explore every new technology, from solar to wind to geothermal, and introduce the men and women who are inventing the future.

Read more »

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

Shifting to a low-carbon economy means creating renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. This will take a lot of work, but in a good sense. We'll see increased investment, new businesses, and new products to manufacture — the creation of many new jobs.

The ball won't start rolling in earnest until the U.S. passes cap-and-trade legislation, but movement has already started. For example, check out this map we created of green businesses and their suppliers in Ohio:

Read more »

This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund. It's the fifth in a series on Why a Bill in 2008, and was also posted today on Grist.


1. Same Politics in 2009
2. Good versus Perfect
3. The Price of Waiting
4. The World is Waiting
5. Best Answer to High Gas Prices

Over the past few months, I've made the case for passing climate legislation in 2008. Now we're finally on the doorstep of Senate action on a comprehensive climate change bill. Floor debate over the Climate Security Act (was S.2191, now S. 3036) will begin Monday, June 2.

If opponents of meaningful action have their way, the debate will be nothing more than a short, partisan fight over gas prices. You can already hear the predictable scare tactics: "Why would we want to raise gas prices now, when working Americans are already suffering at the pump?"

Read more »

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

A new report by researchers at Tufts University (commissioned by NRDC) presents two ways of estimating the costs of inaction on climate change. Both lead to staggering totals - far more than the cost of addressing the problem:

New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone - hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs - will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today's dollars) by 2100.

This report on the cost of inaction is a good companion to our own report on the low cost of an effective policy to fight climate change.

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

Last Friday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sponsored a panel discussion on the economic impact of climate change legislation. I was on the panel, along with Bob Shackleton of Congressional Budget Office, Francisco de la Chesnaye of Environmental Protection Agency, Margo Thorning of American Council for Capital Formation, and Anne Smith of CRA International.

In responding to questions about my recent study of how climate legislation will impact the economy, I made two key points:

Read more »

This post is by Nat Keohane, Ph.D., Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at Environmental Defense Fund.

We just released a new report on how climate change legislation will impact the economy [PDF]. There have been many recent cost estimates, but ours provides something unique. To put the numbers in perspective, we looked at model projections in the context of government data on jobs, consumer expenditures, electricity consumption, and so on.

The models - all from highly respected, independent sources - don't agree on much. But they do agree on one thing: the overall impact on the economy will be very small.  All the models project that, over the next twenty years, the cost of climate policy will be just a few months of economic growth.

The good news coming out of this study is that we can afford ambitious cuts in global warming pollution.

Read more »