US green economy generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions, new study finds

[Phys251]

US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.

This growing part of the economy is increasingly important since the United States has a greater proportion of the working-age population employed by the green economy. It also has a higher sales revenue per capita generated by the green economy than China or any country in the OECD or G-20, the study said.

But other nations are catching up and looking to capitalize on the potential. To remain competitive, the United States will have to develop energy, environment and education policies that support growth in areas like renewable energy.

To put the numbers from the study in context, the 9.5 million jobs represents over 4% of the working age population in the United States, while $1.3 trillion is a little under 7% of annual GDP.

CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.

The United States’ green economy grew 20% from 2013 to 2016, and that number is projected to keep rising as the battle to fight climate change accelerates. But the rest of the world is catching up, and the United States will need to enact new policies to safeguard the millions of Americans who depend on the burgeoning space, the researchers argued.

Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:

 

[washunut]

US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.





CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.



Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:

Lets remember that the study was not done by CNBC just reported there. In addition the article acknowledges that the numbers are hard to come by. Also remember that many of the anchors on th network are clearly not right leaning as you state. Remember that CNBC is a network owned by the folks at NBC and MSNBC.

None of this is to say that green is not a growing part of the economy.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]Energy[/FONT]
[h=1]Energy Returned on Capital Invested: Ohio “Shale” vs Green “Schist”[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest resource economics by David Middleton Ohio’s shale energy industry attracts nearly $78 billion in investment since 2011 11/20/2019 COLUMBUS, OHIO – Total investment in Ohio’s resource rich shale energy sector has reached $78 billion since tracking began in 2011, according to a Cleveland State University (CSU) study. Prepared for JobsOhio, the report represents the…
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

The global climate alarmism propaganda campaign has failed – fossil fuels have priority

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin While climate alarmist propagandists in the developed nations have for decades been focusing their attention on the contrived alarmist politics of “settled science” and “supporting the narrative” idiocy as well as “climate denier” denigration of those challenging the scientific absurdity of this alarmism campaign global energy reality was being taken…


2 weeks ago November 18, 2019 in Energy.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Fossil fuels dominate global energy – Democrats try to conceal & suppress this reality[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin There are now at least 4 major global energy and emissions 2019 reports addressing the unequivocal energy reality that fossil fuels dominate year 2018 world energy use and emissions and further that future world energy use and resulting emissions outcomes through at least year 2050 will continued to be dominated…
[/FONT]
November 17, 2019 in Energy.

 

[JasperL]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/02/energy-returned-on-capital-invested-ohio-vs-green-schist/"]

[/URL]Energy[/FONT]
[h=1]Energy Returned on Capital Invested: Ohio “Shale” vs Green “Schist”[/h][FONT="]Guest resource economics by David Middleton Ohio’s shale energy industry attracts nearly $78 billion in investment since 2011 11/20/2019 COLUMBUS, OHIO – Total investment in Ohio’s resource rich shale energy sector has reached $78 billion since tracking began in 2011, according to a Cleveland State University (CSU) study. Prepared for JobsOhio, the report represents the…
[/FONT]

Why is any of that relevant? The argument isn't that investment in oil and gas has ended, so why are you pimping Watts on this thread when it's off topic?

 

[Jack Hays]

Why is any of that relevant? The argument isn't that investment in oil and gas has ended, so why are you pimping Watts on this thread when it's off topic?

To refute the silly claim that "The green economy is driving growth and job creation . . . "

 

[JasperL]

To refute the silly claim that "The green economy is driving growth and job creation . . . "

You article does not address the green economy in the U.S. and growth in the sector in recent years.

Can't you keep Watts links over in the climate change forum where the rest of us who avoid that forum don't have to get trolled by that garbage? Sheesh, this is an actual paragraph from that nonsense. How can a literate person link to this and think it's persuasive?

The now well documented and established global control by the developing nations of the world’s energy and emissions outcomes is completely independent of climate alarmist politically hyped propaganda schemes employed by the developed nations involving the much overused “settled science”, “supporting the narrative” and “climate denier” labels employed to falsely chastise, threaten and silence those challenging the flawed and failed corrupt science of the alarmism campaign.

That's Poe's Law worthy drivel. Seriously - there's a reason some of us avoid the climate forum and it's because that kind of BS is offered as legitimate argument.

 

[Steve Case]

US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.

This growing part of the economy is increasingly important since the United States has a greater proportion of the working-age population employed by the green economy. It also has a higher sales revenue per capita generated by the green economy than China or any country in the OECD or G-20, the study said.

But other nations are catching up and looking to capitalize on the potential. To remain competitive, the United States will have to develop energy, environment and education policies that support growth in areas like renewable energy.

To put the numbers from the study in context, the 9.5 million jobs represents over 4% of the working age population in the United States, while $1.3 trillion is a little under 7% of annual GDP.

CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.

The United States green economy grew 20% from 2013 to 2016, and that number is projected to keep rising as the battle to fight climate change accelerates. But the rest of the world is catching up, and the United States will need to enact new policies to safeguard the millions of Americans who depend on the burgeoning space, the researchers argued.

Time for us to get on board the green economy!

You could subsidize people to dig holes and fill them up again or
pay them to manufacture buggy whips and slide rules and then
make claims about what an important part of the economy it
represents. The classic make work scheme is breaking windows
to create employment. In other words, the green economy isn't
producing anything that anyone wants or can't be bought at a
cheaper price from some other sector of the economy.

If it weren't for subsidies, the so-called "Green Economy" would
collapse overnight.

 

[Drawdown]

You could subsidize people to dig holes and fill them up again or
pay them to manufacture buggy whips and slide rules and then
make claims about what an important part of the economy it
represents. The classic make work scheme is breaking windows
to create employment. In other words, the green economy isn't
producing anything that anyone wants or can't be bought at a
cheaper price from some other sector of the economy.

If it weren't for subsidies, the so-called "Green Economy" would
collapse overnight.

To an extent your criticism is fair. For instance since they looked at cars, then if electric cars weren't available, most people who bought them likely would have bought something else. I am a little curious as to how they translated "energy management" in buildings into "green jobs" since that has been a big part of construction/operations since the 70's really.

 

[Bullseye]

US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.





CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.



Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:

So, basically, single digits. Whop-de-doo.

 

[Steve Case]

To an extent your criticism is fair. For instance since they looked at cars, then if electric cars weren't available, most people who bought them likely would have bought something else. I am a little curious as to how they translated "energy management" in buildings into "green jobs" since that has been a big part of construction/operations since the 70's really.

If you consider the production of electricity, it boils down to a comparison
of how many people it takes to produce a kilowatt hour of electric power
from green technology compared to traditional methods. In other words
the product available from traditional sources is more economical.

Electricity is electricity* but other products like electric cars have other
qualities that make them attractive. Virtue signaling is one, convenience
is another. I'd buy a two seat hatch back electric if they made one in a
New York minute. That it would ultimately cost more per mile to operate
wouldn't bother me.

Building energy management? They have to pad their report with dubious
claims and double count stuff in order to make a case. It comes under the
general category of misdirection and plain old garden variety B.S.

* Solar and Wind power isn't reliable.

 

[Jack Hays]

You article does not address the green economy in the U.S. and growth in the sector in recent years.

Can't you keep Watts links over in the climate change forum where the rest of us who avoid that forum don't have to get trolled by that garbage? Sheesh, this is an actual paragraph from that nonsense. How can a literate person link to this and think it's persuasive?



That's Poe's Law worthy drivel. Seriously - there's a reason some of us avoid the climate forum and it's because that kind of BS is offered as legitimate argument.

Ahem:

1. This is the climate change forum. Check facts first, then post.
2. What you claim is "drivel" is in fact a trenchant critique. It's probably a good thing you avoid this subforum. Your game isn't up to standard.

 

[JasperL]

Ahem:

1. This is the climate change forum. Check facts first, then post.
2. What you claim is "drivel" is in fact a trenchant critique. It's probably a good thing you avoid this subforum. Your game isn't up to standard.

You're right. My mistake for wading into this cesspool.

And the WUWT links weren't trenchant critique but Poe's Law level drivel that didn't address the OP at all that talked about the size and growth rate of the "green economy" just random crap you threw up against the wall.

But, again, my apologies for missing where this OP was posted. I'll try to do a better job of avoiding it in the future,

 

[Jack Hays]

You're right. My mistake for wading into this cesspool.

And the WUWT links weren't trenchant critique but Poe's Law level drivel that didn't address the OP at all that talked about the size and growth rate of the "green economy" just random crap you threw up against the wall.

But, again, my apologies for missing where this OP was posted. I'll try to do a better job of avoiding it in the future,

This subforum will profit from addition by subtraction.

 

[JasperL]

This subforum will profit from addition by subtraction.

Fine with me. The problem is people like you trolling a thread with BS WUWT links makes the forum unenjoyable. If it's more fun for you, that's a WIN WIN! eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Fine with me. The problem is people like you trolling a thread with BS WUWT links makes the forum unenjoyable. If it's more fun for you, that's a WIN WIN! eace

WUWT is one of the finest sites in the world. It is a light in the darkness of "settled science."
It has been my goal to contribute to a space where "climate consensus" advocates are denied the sense of entitlement they routinely bring to the debate.

 

[jimbo]

US 'green economy' generates $1.3 trillion and employs millions: Study :thumbs:

The green economy is driving growth and job creation in the United States, but as the rest of the world catches up, the U.S. will have to enact new and supportive policies to remain competitive, a new study from University College London found.





CNBC is a right-leaning, pro-capitalist news source, so it is noteworthy to hear them speak well of the green economy.



Time for us to get on board the green economy! :thumbs:

Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that the warmist theme was that we should ignore the effects of climate change results on the economy in the interest of saving the planet? The $10 gas was necessary. Never mind that the new green deal would cost a hundred trillion or so.

So now what? We should burn more fuel so that more money can be spent fighting climate change because that creates jobs and is good for the economy?

 

[Phys251]

WUWT is one of the finest sites in the world.

:2funny: :failpail:

 

[Jack Hays]

:2funny: :failpail:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Thanks – and a note for the future of WUWT[/h][FONT=&quot]On this traditional day of reflection and thanks, it is only fitting that I give thanks to the many many people who have made WUWT what it is today, and helped me personally. From memory (which is of course imperfect, so I have likely missed dozens if not hundreds) I offer my thanks to these…
[/FONT]
5 days ago November 28, 2019 in Announcements.

 

[PoS]

Fine with me. The problem is people like you trolling a thread with BS WUWT links makes the forum unenjoyable. If it's more fun for you, that's a WIN WIN! eace

Theyre not BS links, they provide important fact based contradictions to the climate change lies thats sweeping the world right now.

 

[ataraxia]

To refute the silly claim that "The green economy is driving growth and job creation . . . "

Even if you want to deny all of climate change science, That's fine. I am just puzzled why you would be so antagonistic toward cleaner energy taking off as an important sector of economic growth. If it is, would you consider it something bad?It's like you WANT energy to be dirty and polluting.

It's all just so odd and puzzling.

 

[Jack Hays]

Even if you want to deny all of climate change science, That's fine. I am just puzzled why you would be so antagonistic toward cleaner energy taking off as an important sector of economic growth. If it is, would you consider it something bad?It's like you WANT energy to be dirty and polluting.

It's all just so odd and puzzling.

I like clean energy. I don't like dirty and polluting propaganda disguised as research or argumentation.

I do not pretend that horses or mules are unicorns.

Prof. Michael Kelly: Energy Policy Needs ‘Herds Of Unicorns’

• Date: 11/11/19
• Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Utopian thinking is putting the economy at risk says Cambridge professor The UK’s decision to embark on a wholesale decarbonisation of the economy is beset by superficial thinking that ignores engineering reality. That’s according to Professor Michael Kelly, emeritus professor of engineering at the University of Cambridge. At the Annual GWPF Lecture Professor Kelly told […]

 

[Helix]

The wind farm outside of my hometown has definitely helped the local economy.

 

[Keridan]

This is where those many years of building up alarmism pays off - get 'em so scared they would actually believe an article like this