Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
GREEN STATE, BROWN STATE
by Tom Laskawy
On the front page of today's NYT, we learn that Midwestern Democrats hate the climate. Or something. The ostensible point of the article was to highlight the geographical split between the climate change policy makers from the Obama administration and in the House - who are predominantly from the East and West Coasts - and the moderate Midwestern and Plains state Democrats in the Senate who, according to the NYT, actually care about jobs. For the record, the article, while admitting that President Obama is, you know, Midwestern, ignored the fact that Ray Lahood and Tom Vilsack, Secretaries of Transportation and Agriculture respectively are 1) also from the Midwest and 2) will have a significant role in devising an economy-wide solution to climate change.
And this is not to underplay the legitimate concerns that representatives from coal-dependent manufacturing states have. But this mostly just points to the greater weakness of the article - the way it plays into the idea that addressing climate change will be some kind of job-killing catastrophe. This from the same newspaper that could write a feature on the tremendous job creation underway in Iowa related to wind-turbine manufacturing - a serious growth industry given that the nearby Plains States are considered the "so-called Saudi Arabia of wind." Keep in mind that enormous wind turbines will likely never be imported from abroad since one of these monstrous steel blades can barely fit on an oversize tractor-trailer much less be flown around the world on a 747. Indeed, the industry's potential for the Midwest led President Obama to visit a turbine factory in Ohio just the other week.
The economic upside to addressing climate change isn't just a fevered dream of environmentalists, mind you. The McKinsey Group has actually done a lot of work on this subject through its McKinsey Global Institute. Back in June, they published a report on just how much it would cost to maintain atmospheric carbon below 500ppm - the cutoff for avoiding Doomsday. Here's the key takeaway (h/t Joe Romm):
The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005. Borrowing could potentially finance many of the costs, thereby effectively limiting the impact on near-term GDP growth. In fact, depending on how new low-carbon infrastructure is financed, the transition to a low-carbon economy may increase annual GDP growth in many countries.Not exactly the feeling you get from the NYT article.
So, I'm not concerned about the cost in jobs of saving the climate. What does concern me is the extent to which members of this Senate "Gang of 10" climate moderates are smelling fear rather than opportunity. The low-carbon economy offers the chance to remake the automakers and actually revive manufacturing in the Midwest since (at least in much of the alternative energy world) manufacturing proximity actually matters again. Perhaps the Gang of 10 should talk directly to Ed Markey - Democrat of Massachusetts and the person who will be writing the House legislation - rather than to a NYT reporter. Markey would probably say the same thing to them that he said to John Broder.
Every single wind turbine takes 26 tons of steel to construct... A lot of new jobs will be created if we craft a piece of global warming legislation correctly, and that is our intention.You'd think they'd be jumping for joy.
COMMENTS (15)
"Keep in mind that enormous wind turbines will likely never be imported from abroad since one of these monstrous steel blades can barely fit on an oversize tractor-trailer much less be flown around the world on a 747."
You do realize that makes no sense right? Do you think cars get flown in from Japan?
Posted by: Rob | January 27, 2009 11:06 AM
It was supposed to be a joke. But they don't ship them in either...
Posted by: Tom Laskawy | January 27, 2009 11:14 AM
"the idea that addressing climate change will be some kind of job-killing catastrophe."
Exactly. Last time I looked the jobs were leaving anyway. So I suppose we could do nothing and go long on coal or actually try to innovate and create new jobs.
Posted by: Bob Oso | January 27, 2009 11:15 AM
the thing is, putting ridiculously expensive requirements on companies isn't a good way to create economic growth. if you blew up every manufacturing plant in the US, forcing them to re-build them would cause them to hire a lot of workers, increasing net jobs. but it would also cost the companies a lot of money.
there are good environmental reasons to put prices on carbon, but let's not pretend it will help our economy.
Posted by: jamie | January 27, 2009 11:15 AM
...since one of these monstrous steel blades...
I'm always disappointed by the way that people associate wind power with gigantic three-blade towers that are fixed in one direction. If we're going to make large-scale wind farms work, VAWT design is going to be a big piece of the puzzle.
That, and they look way cool.
Posted by: Midwest Product | January 27, 2009 11:23 AM
Midwest Product, January 27, 2009 11:23 AM:
That would be because those giant three-blade towers are ready for prime time with a cost per kWh in the most wind-rich states that falls below the cost of many of our current electrical power sources ... indeed, cheaper than coal, if we count the massive free ride coal gets on external costs.
And of course, describing them as fixed in one direction is a bit confusing ... people will get the idea they cannot face into the wind.
jamie, January 27, 2009 11:15 AM:
Kick dead straw-horses, much?
OK, how about doing this instead: lets observe that if done right, it will in fact be good for the economy. It will help close a massive hole in our external balances, it will lead to the development of technology that we can export, and of course it will reduce economic costs. Just because we don't ask Peabody Coal or electrical utilities generating coal-fired electricity to pay the costs of the coal does not eliminate the costs ... it just gives them a free ride on the rest of the economy.
Posted by: BruceMcF | January 27, 2009 11:46 AM
Jamie, it's a long perpetuated error to assume such a difference between good for the environment and good for the economy. The reason to add costs to companies is that they more accurately reflect economic realities of carbon. I recommend the Stern Review which estimates that climate change will create costs of about 5% of world GDP, much greater than the costs to address the problem.
The environment is made up of innumerable economic inputs. Harming the environment decreases, bit by bit, the value of these inputs. Environmental harm is intrinsically bad for the economy.
Posted by: Andrew | January 27, 2009 12:21 PM
We don't import wind turbines? Really?
Please explain, for example, http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/03/10/story8.html
Posted by: ostap | January 27, 2009 12:40 PM
we learn that Midwestern Democrats hate the climate. Or something
If you lived there you would hate the climate too. Now what is their position on AGW?
I am just kidding.
Posted by: Floccina | January 27, 2009 12:52 PM
Hopefully, this will be an opportunity. Once the Gang gets their photo-ops for the reactionaries back in their home states, they can go to Markey's office and come out with a "compromise" inserting some vague language about jobs for Americans, and then hold another press conference about all the jobs that the bill would have created in the first place.
As the old saying goes, you can accomplish anything in Washington if you don't mind giving someone else the credit.
Posted by: tom veil | January 27, 2009 2:15 PM
welcome to water.ca check out our special reports and watch for daily news. stay on top of water!
Posted by: bob brouse | January 27, 2009 4:10 PM
Green should be it. We are sinking in our own contamination. Water is all we have for our survival
Posted by: Josee Dechene | January 27, 2009 4:12 PM
IIRC, doesn't the Midwest use a lot of coal for power generation?
Posted by: ronin | January 27, 2009 5:25 PM
Iowa got the jump on other Plains states on wind because like Texas it set up a more enlightened, pro-wind regulatory climate than say the Dakotas. The current map of installed wind power still bears little relation to the potential. 2007 table here, (I'll get round to updating it someday.)
The Spanish company mentioned in the story that makes turbines in Iowa, Acciona, is a construction conglomerate that correctly saw the end of the Spanish building boom coming a few years ago, and decided to diversify. This is typical; the industry has become mainstream: GE, Siemens, etc. Like T. Boone Pickens, these corporations are less high-minded than the pioneers but have deeper pockets.
Remember that the full development of wind power in the Great Plains still needs quick action on an interstate electricity grid.
Posted by: James Wimberley | January 28, 2009 5:00 AM
"the way it plays into the idea that addressing climate change will be some kind of job-killing catastrophe."
Well, one of the reasons I'm against cap-and-trade is that it would be a job-killing catastrophe, or it would be too weak to do any good.
"So, I'm not concerned about the cost in jobs of saving the climate."
Hence why you don't care if we go the cap-and-trade or carbon tax route.
Posted by: Petey | January 28, 2009 8:20 AM