Green Jobs vs the Environment

Part of the controversy surrounding responsibility to the environment stems from the fact that a typical knee-jerk reaction is to forget the trade offs made in pursuing a green agenda. Green Jobs vs the Environment highlights how the goal of lessening the impact on the environment can run contrary to fostering green industries and the resulting green jobs. The article discusses the impact of high US tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels, and how protecting American green business interests may ultimately result in a greater toll on the environment as a whole.

The author, Adam Ozimek, contends that instead of shifting demand for solar panels to US producers, the tariff placed on Chinese-made solar panels will have the undesirable effect of subsidizing lower priced 'dirty' energy such as coal. While the tariff has resulted in less demand for Chinese solar panels, Chinese companies have started purchasing key components abroad in order to avoid the tariff. Also, imports from other countries in southeast Asia such as the Philippines and Malaysia have increased, with the net result being higher prices for US consumers, not increased growth for US producers. The author goes on to quote from an earlier article of his, claiming that propping up fledgling US green industries is not sustainable long term. Ozimek implies that if these industries cannot thrive in a free market, that they would only become a future liability and an anchor 'to preserve the inefficient status quo.'

What is missing from Ozimek's analysis is that China's goal of 'dumping' solar panels below cost in the US market likely had little to do with environmental concerns and was instead motivated by the long-term strategic goal of limiting future output. China pursued a similar goal with regard to the mining of rare-earth materials. By flooding the market with a surplus of rare-earth metals, driving many of the producers of rare-earths out of the market, China secured a strangle-hold on the industry and immediately started to curtail production. With many applications in military and consumer electronics, not having a reliable source of these materials poses an economic and strategic threat to the US.

Few would argue that the environment is not under assault on every front, but it remains important to factor in practicalities not always compatible with a green ideology. Should protecting American green industries be a priority, or do we embrace the lowest cost green energy available, regardless of the producer? At what point does ceding control to environmental regulations become untenable? With the current focus on anthropogenic global climate change, how likely is it that new green regulations could be replaced if proven unpopular or unrealistic economically?