The Energy Pollution Resolution Devon Wright 1

America is the world’s second-largest contributor of energy pollution, following closely behind China. However,

several other countries are quickly developing and the rate of energy consumption is quickly climbing.1 Energy

pollution comes hand-in-hand with energy consumption, but the environment cannot endure so much pollution.

Should countries sacrifice national development for the sake of the environment? Unfortunately, a country that

experiences economic growth, will consume more energy. Yet, if a country consumes more energy, that doesn’t

necessarily mean that their economy would grow.

Traditional energy shares a unilateral causality with economic growth because energy consumption can’t stimulate

economic growth. Clean energy, on the other hand, may have a positive effect on economics: clean energy can help

supply the demand of energy for growing economies while cutting down one energy pollution. Developing and

maintaining a clean energy infrastructure has also shown to improve a country’s economy.

This article will discuss (a) the trade-off between economic growth and traditional energy pollution, (b) the

potential for clean energy to stimulate the economy, and (c) what America can do to apply this knowledge.

Trade-offs. A positive correlation exists between economic growth and energy consumption, which means the more

any economy grows, the more energy it consumes.2 In the article “Clean energy, non-clean energy, and economic

growth in the MIST countries” written by Tien Pao, Li Ying, and Fu Hsin, and published in Energy Policy, several

countries economic growth were observed and compared to their overall energy consumption. The four MIST

countries in specific were observed: (1) Mexico, (2) Indonesia, (3) South Korea, and (4) Turkey. Figure 1 and Figure

2 below show the GDP and energy use per capita for these four countries.

In Figure 1 we see two less developed countries, Indonesia and Turkey, and two more developed countries, Mexico

and South Korea. All four countries experience a steady growth from year 2000-2012. With the exception of

Mexico, who almost doubles its GDP, each country more than doubles its GDP in this time frame. In Figure 2 we

see the corresponding energy use per capita for each of these countries over the same time. Notice that each country

experiences a steady increase in energy use in relation to its increase in GDP.

The Energy Pollution Resolution Devon Wright 2

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400Figure 1 Gross GDP of MIST Countries

Mexico

South Korea

Indonesia

Turkey

Billi

ons o

f US

Dolla

rs

(Pao, Hsiao-Tien, Yi-Ying Li, and Hsin-Chia Fu. "Clean Energy, Non-clean Energy, and Economic Growth in the MIST Countries." Energy Policy, April 1, 2014, 932-42.)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

Figure 2 Energy Use Per Capita for MIST Countries

TurkeyIndonesiaSouth KoreaMexico

Kilo

gram

s of O

il Eq

uivi

lant

Figure 1 shows a steady increase in all four countries GDP over 12 years.(Pao, Hsiao-Tien, Yi-Ying Li, and Hsin-Chia Fu. "Clean Energy, Non-clean Energy, and Economic Growth in the MIST Countries." Energy Policy, April 1, 2014, 932-42.)

The four MIST countries are in different stages of economic development, yet they all experience an increase in

energy use. The conclusion that economic growth leads to an increase in energy consumption has held constant

when observing several other nations such as “OECD countries, G7 countries, OPEC countries, African countries,

Central America, Asian countries, the Commonwealth of Independent States, in European Countries, in developed

countries and developing countries.”3

Environmental protection agreements have been made which should restrict the amount of pollution each country is

allowed to emit, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental treaties such as these have largely been ignored if it

The Energy Pollution Resolution Devon Wright 3

interferes with overall economic growth.4 Unfortunately, the mindset of nations, when dealing with traditional

energy sources, is in order to achieve economic growth you much sacrifice the environment, or vice versa.

Clean Energy Stimulates Economy. Clean energy can help sustain a growing economy’s energy needs while at the

same time stimulating further economic growth. Increasing a countries investments in clean energy and reducing

spending on traditional energy will produce a sustainable economy. One of the main factors in determining a

country’s economic health is the unemployment rate and the amount of imports vs. exports. Obviously a country that

has a low unemployment rate, and that exports, or sells domestic goods, more than they import, or buys foreign

goods, will be more successful.

A study conducted by Robert Pollin for his article, “Building a Sustainable Full Employment Economy” in Social

Policy studied the amount of jobs created in different areas of spending for the United States. Figure 3 below shows

the level of job creation per each sector of government investment.

Fossil Fuels (oil, coal, natural gas)

Military Spending

Clean Energy (efficiency/renewables)

Education

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

5.2

11.2

16.8

26.7

Figure 3Jobs Creation in the U.S. through

$1 Million in Spending

Number of Jobs Created

(Data Source: Pollin, Robert. "Building a Sustainable Full Employment Economy." Social Policy 42, no. 4 (2012): 28-35. Accessed February 10, 2015. Ebsco.)

In Figure 3 we see education, clean energy, military spending, and fossil fuels are compared by the number of jobs

they create. Education creates the most jobs per million dollars spent at about 27 jobs. Second is clean energy, which

produces about 17 jobs per million dollars spent. The two lowest sectors are military spending and fossil fuels at 11

The Energy Pollution Resolution Devon Wright 4

and 5 jobs respectively. Clean energy is more than three times as efficient as traditional energy investment at

producing jobs.

The data in Figure 3 combines three elements of job creation: direct, indirect, and induced jobs. First, direct jobs are

those jobs created by an activity itself, such as building and maintaining a wind turbine. Second, Indirect jobs are

those generated by businesses providing supplies to support direct activities, such as manufacturing the steel needed

for a wind turbine. Third, induced jobs refers to the expansion of employment resulting from direct and indirect jobs

and the spending of the money that new employees have begun to earn.5

Two main reasons account for the drastically higher efficiency in clean energy job creation. Clean energy is more

labor intensive, which means a clean energy business will utilize its people more than its machines. A clean energy

business will use more of its budget to hire employees rather than acquire more machinery. Clean energy also keeps

the money earned as domestic profit. Traditional energy requires the import of crude oil from foreign suppliers, but

the steel for a wind turbine would be purchased and manufactured domestically. Money that is kept in the U.S. will

remain in circulation, not in the hands of foreign companies, thus stimulating a countries domestic economy.

Investment in the military and fossil fuel sectors are $690 billion and $635 billion respectively. If 25% of that

investment, $330 billion annually, were transferred to the clean energy and education sector instead, we would see

an increase of 4.5 million jobs.6 An increase in employment would be experienced in all sectors and activities. $330

billion may seem like too much to take away from the military, but the cut in spending would result in the U.S.

investing as much in the military as it did before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Obama administration has

already pledged to end those wars and cut back on military spending.7 If the U.S. is to cut back on spending

regardless, why not allocate that money to a sector promising to create jobs and stimulate the economy?

Application. (See Notes at end)

Conclusions. While there is a trade-off of environmental health for economic growth, clean energy is the answer to

that dilemma. Not only is clean energy able to help meet the energy demands of a growing economy, it does so in a

way that doesn’t harm the environment the way traditional energy does, and stimulates the economy in a way

traditional energy can’t. The Unites States and other world leaders should re-allocate investment from the traditional

energy sector to the clean energy sector. A well invested clean energy infrastructure will keep money at home,

create more jobs as, and help ensure a cleaner world for following generations.

The Energy Pollution Resolution Devon Wright 5

End Notes

1. Lee, Jung Wan. "The Contribution of Foreign Direct Investment to Clean Energy Use, Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth." Energy Policy 55 (2013): 483-89.

2. Ibid., 932.

3. Ibid., 936.

4. Cullet, Philippe. "The Kyoto Protocol and Vulnerability." Human Rights and Climate Change, 2010, 183-95. Accessed February 25, 2015. http://www.ielrc.org/content/a1001.pdf.

5. Pollin, Robert. "Building a Sustainable Full Employment Economy." Social Policy 42, no. 4 (2012): 28-35. Accessed February 10, 2015. Ebsco.

6. Ibid., 29.

7. Ibid., 29.

8. Emodi, Vincent, Samson Yusuf, and Kyun-Jin Boo. "The Necessity of the Development of Standards for Renewable Energy Technologies in Nigeria." Smart Grid and Renewable Energy 5.11 (2014): 259-74.

9. Grunwald, Michael. "The Green Revolution." Time Magazine, June 16, 2014, 40-45.

10. Pao, Hsiao-Tien, Yi-Ying Li, and Hsin-Chia Fu. "Clean Energy, Non-clean Energy, and Economic Growth in the MIST Countries." Energy Policy, April 1, 2014, 932-42.

11. Rainey, Philip. "Business- Benefits of Renewable Energy Not Just Hot Air Wind Is Transforming the North's Electricity Market but Will It Reach Its Full Potential Asks Philip Rainey." The Irish News, June 30, 2014, Business sec.

Notes:

Some of the sources were used merely for background information. Do they really need to be cited, if so where and how?

The argument that clean energy is better for the environment than traditional energy seems like common-sense. It is mentioned as a plus but I took it out of the agenda and body as it just added unnecessary length to the paper. (Or does it? I’m way over 1,000 words…)

This article is targeted towards the general population in attempt at grassroots lobbying, to get the public informed about this issue so they can support it through local politicians and senators. Should I put in an “Application” section encouraging people to voice their opinion on the article to their political representative or leave it as it is?

Do we really have to double-space? My spacing looks much better single-spaced.