Originally posted September 20, 2010

Climate policy and job creation

September 20, 2010

Readers of this blog should not be surprised that I love reading the Op-Ed pieces of Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. He is consistently one of the most engaging and knowledgeable media contributors in the world on topics of science education, technology policy, hi-tech employment, and issues surrounding global warming.

One of his long held theses is that by downplaying the significance of man-made climate change, the United States is killing job creation for its citizens. His view is that through support of “green” initiatives, the US government has the ability to spur a vast amount of job creation and counteract the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. His most recent piece in the Times, titled “Aren’t we clever” is no different.

The basic premise of this story is that Americans are really amazing at dreaming up new technologies but, ultimately, don’t benefit from these technologies because we aren’t instituting the right policies. The individualist, pioneering spirit that helped form our country is instilled in all of us today. And this manifests itself in our ability to dream up new technologies. He cites the company MBA Polymers. This American-based company has figured out a way to “harvest” plastic from trash and recycling using only 10% the amount of energy that is usedin developing plastics from crude oil! They have, to date, produced around 100 million pounds of plastic. This is an impressive feat! Their process is so good that, although they’ve only been around for about 15 years, they employ roughly 300 people. Unfortunately, most of their employees (~250) are overseas. While the money needed to develop this technology was partly provided by the US government, the US workforce, which is starving for new jobs, hasn’t benefited from their government’s investment.

Now, before you try to argue that this is just another case of cheap oversees labor, Friedman lays out the arguments that government policy would allow a company like MBA Polymers to flourish in the US. MBA Polymers needs a consistent supply of recyclables from which they can mine their plastic. So, they have set up most of their industrial sites in the European Union and China. These locations attract companies like MBA Polymers because they have a strong policy on recycling. (Recycling is good! We all like recycling! My grandmother has been recycling religiously for the past 25 years!)

So, if the US made sure that its citizens consistently recycled plastic bottles, computers, appliances, etc. MBA Polymers could add to its 25 American employees. And recycling is just part of a larger problem. If we, as a nation, took our energy and environmental policy more seriously, our overall unemployment rate would be much lower. The US has been so far behind in “Green Policy” and “Green” job creation, that the United Steelworkers Union is suing China for unfairly subsidizing renewable energy technologies, which results in job loss in the States and job gains in China. Say what you will about China and their policies, but at least they’re taking climate change and emerging green technologies seriously. Or, as Friedman puts it in his article, both the US and China have turned “climate change” into a four letter word. The US, in large part, has turned it into “J-O-K-E” while China has translated it into “J-O-B-S”.

Who do you think has the better approach?

-mrh