Environmental Technology and Policy: A Futuristic Opportunity

For decades, Americans have been improving upon environmental technology for the

benefit of the planet, businesses, and the economic prosperity of the United States.

Environmental technology has had an impact not only on jobs in the United States, but also

around the world. As the earth has continued to be exposed to fossil fuels and other harmful

substances that are harming the planet and exasperating climate change, humans have developed

innovative environmental technology to solve these issues. That technology, though, is

threatening the jobs of many, especially in the coal industry. According to Jane Goodall, an

environmental activist, technology is part of the solution to solving climate change and a myriad

of other environmental issues (Goodall). Devices like solar panels, energy conversion from the

photons released from the sun, and natural gas are all innovative devices and substances that are

helping the planet. But it remains to be seen whether people who rely on jobs in the coal and

other environmentally harmful industries will be able to provide for themselves and their

families in the 21st century. Representatives who were elected by people with these common

jobs must choose whether or not to write policy and introduce bills that encourage growth in

environmental technology, or the long-standing, but ultimately harmful, coal industry.

Over the past decades, the energy sector has been a growing job market that is

consistently discussed in the form of legislation. Sunjoo Park, a research fellow at Indiana

University, has her PhD in Urban Studies and Political Affairs and wrote “State Renewable

Energy Governance: Policy Instruments, Markets, or Citizens,” In the article, she wrote how in

recent years states have adopted numerous Renewable Energy Policies that have been proposed

at both the local and federal level. It can be seen that Republicans are opposed to regulatory
legislation because of the threat, in their eyes, that it poses against a free market economy. In an

article written by Thomas Frank, an American political analyst, historian, and writer, he

mentioned that Rick Perry, the former Texas Governor and long time Republican, said, “It’s the

regulatory world that is killing America.” Many other Republicans like Ron Paul, Rick

Santorum, and Newt Gingrich agree with Perry’s evaluation of regulation designed to protect the

United States from economic turmoil similar to what happened in 2008 (Frank 1). This has long

been an idea of the conservative leaning politicians and leaders. For example, Calvin Coolidge,

the 30th president of the United States and a Republican, prompted a laissez faire approach to the

economy by cutting taxes and regulation to big and small businesses. According to The

Economist, Calvin Coolidge’s economic approach contributed to the Wall Street crash of 1929

(Shlaes). A lack of government regulation led to an economic crisis, which could have been

prevented if President Coolidge didn’t discourage that regulation. Government regulation over

the environment could help to prevent environmental crises in the future. Ideas of less regulation

extend into the Republican mentality of how the United States should be run which involves the

energy sector and the fight against climate change. In a piece written by Charikleia Karakosta, a

professor at the National Technical University in Athens, technology is vital in the fight against

climate change, but in order for that technology to be utilized correctly and effectively there must

be a consistent narrative among American politicians to acknowledge climate change as an

actual issue, and then prevent further climate damage. The piece then proceeds to suggest that

developing technology and expanding the clean energy market could create numerous

employment opportunities (Karakosta 1). Despite the idea that the energy sector could create

jobs, Republicans are still not keen on the idea of environmental regulation.They are starkly
against it. In an article published by the New York Times, Republicans in the House of

Representatives voted 168 times to undercut clean air and water laws in an effort to please the

anti-regulatory fervor that is prevalent in their party (New York Times 1). This appears to be

caused by the narrative among Republicans that the idea of global warming is false and

regulation could hurt small and big businesses alike.

While Republicans have made it clear they believe that environmental regulation would

inhibit economic prosperity, that claim is not true . An article written by Gernot Wagner, an

expert in climate change, climate economics, environmental markets and energy, said that the

1970 Clean Air Act and the amendments that followed have allowed for profits that are 30 to 1.

That can be seen in how the United States Gross Domestic Product was up 1.5 percent in 2010

alone because of the 1970 Clean Air Act (Wagner 1). Because the energy market has

continuously developed and produced jobs, policy should encourage the expansion of said

market not only for the sake of the planet, but American workers as well. In an article written by

Jeremy Brecher, an author, humanitarian, and activist for fighting climate change, advancements

in the fight against climate change could potentially create up to 4.2 million new jobs in the

United States, and help bolster the continued prosperity of tech companies investing in clean

energy (Brecher 8). So while Republicans would like to tout the idea of an anti regulatory energy

sector, the expansion of clean energy,with help from government legislation, would highly

benefit the United States economically and the planet environmentally.

Expanding job production in America is a bipartisan initiative, but Republicans and

Democrats have different ways of going about the issue. While most Republicans are starkly

against the idea of environmental regulation, many Democrats have worked to protect the
environment and increase regulation. President Trump has recently proposed a budget that would

cut the amount of federal funds that would be appropriated for the Environmental Protection

Agency (Eugene 1). In response, Democrats have strongly condemned the president’s plans.

Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, said “This cut will impact the agency's

ability to protect human health and the health of our environment, and to ensure clean air and

clean water for our families and children” (Feldscher 1). McCollum’s statement encompasses the

Democrat-based idea that climate change is a threat, and the United States must embrace the idea

of encouraging technological growth that will have a meaningful impact against climate change.

The United States has elected a new President that has ‘huge’ plans to create new jobs

which to many are unrealistic. On the campaign trail, President Trump touted his plans to create

jobs and ultimately, “Make America Great Again”. While his campaign rhetoric and proposed

plans won him the election, it remains to be seen if his plans to create jobs are actually attainable.

According to a PBS Newshour article written by a reporter, Paul Wiseman, economists are

skeptical that Trump’s plans would create jobs. The source also explains that Trump plans to

invest in the coal industry, which would negate the predominantly Democratic plans to move

towards clean energy. While Trump’s plans to invest in the fossil fuel industry could create

800,000 new jobs over the next decade, it would inhibit the creation of 4.2 million new jobs by

investing in clean energy (Wiseman 1). President Obama, a Democrat, worked vigorously as

president to prompt legislation that would help with the climate change threat, and as a result

create technology. In his 2nd inaugural address, Obama claimed, “We will respond to the threat

of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future

generations...We must not cede technology to other nations that will power new jobs and new
industries (Obama).” Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to create an economically

prosperous country through legislative plans, but it remains to be seen if Republican anti

regulatory, anti clean energy plans would be as effective as their Democratic counterparts’ plans.

The idea of technological production has been applied to various markets in the country

which has caused an increase in job production. The agriculture industry is arguably one of the

most important industries in the United States and has been innovating its means for production

and the equipment in use for decades. Recently, according to Brajesh Singh, an author mainly

focusing on technology in the agriculture industry, agriculture has been focusing on Microbial

Biotechnology. This is one of the many things that the agriculture industry is developing, but as a

whole, technological advancements in the agriculture industry creates new business, supports

economic growth, and as a result creates jobs (Singh). In order for these jobs to be created and

the agriculture industry to continue to grow, programs like the Environmental Protection Agency

should not lose vital funding , because Agriculture relies on a clean environment, similar to how

technological advancement in the United States energy sector relies on the legislation that is put

forth by congress.

Many have felt the negative effects associated with the continued production of

environmental technology and the shrinkage of middle class jobs, but more jobs could be created

rather than destroyed as a result of environmental technology. Furthermore, the elimination of

certain jobs has ultimately been beneficial for the population as a whole. In Youngstown, Ohio (a

small rural community), 50,000 people lost employment in 1977 due to technology that

essentially automated their jobs in an oil company(Thompson). While this may seem like a huge

loss, the elimination of those 50,000 jobs has contributed to environmentally sustainable means
for energy. Moreover, automating certain jobs, like the ones in Youngstown, can be beneficial

rather than detrimental by reducing America’s dependence on coal and oil, two environmentally

disastrous energy means, but also by contributing to the health of Americans. Katriina Heikkila,

an assistant professor at the School of Social and Community Medicine, published a piece that

acknowledged that there was a correlation between a long and stressful work week with higher

cancer rates. These long work hours are caused by a lack of automation and efficiency which

could both be aided in the production of technology, that just so happens to benefit environment

as well as workers. Technological advancement and policy that encourages it isn’t negatively

affecting workers, it’s benefiting their productivity and their health, as well as the environment

(Heikkila). Katie Allen, the chief economic reporter for The Guardian, explained that more jobs

have been created over the last 140 years as a result of technology than have been destroyed

(Allen). Rather than focusing on the last decade which has seen an economic downturn, Allen

chose to look at the big picture which says that technology has ultimately helped more than it has

hurt in a plethora of ways which includes the environment. Policy should reflect this way of

thinking in order for U.S. citizens to reap the benefits of technological growth and economic

prosperity.

Environmental technology has elicited both negative and positive reactions from people

around the globe. Some people have endured negative outcomes as a result of environmental

technology. Based on their legislative actions regarding environmental regulation, which

encourages the growth of technology, and their continued support of advancements in agriculture

and medicine, Democrats are more keen on advancing essential environmental technology in the

energy sector than Republicans. In order for the United States to see economic benefits from
environmental technology, individuals with Democratic agendas must be elected to Congress and

the White House. President Obama, a Democrat, encouraged technological advancements in

energy. President Trump, a Republican, encourages the dismantling of technological

advancements in energy and encourages coal production. If the United States elects

representatives who share the same mentality as President Obama and other Democrats, job

production and positive automation will become a reality among U.S. citizens. Automation in the

job market will ultimately aid in the demise of strenuous, menial, and dangerous jobs that plague

the market and the environment which will give way to 21st century positions that will allow the

world to end things like climate change, disease, and world hunger.

WORD COUNT: 1996 (NOT INCLUDING BIBLIOGRAPHY)

 Bibliography

Allen, Katie. “Technology Has Created More Jobs than It Has Destroyed, Says 140 Years of
Data.” ​The Guardian​. The Guardian, 15 Aug. 2015. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Brecher, Jeremy. "A U.S. Program for Controlling Climate Change and Expanding Job

Opportunities." ​Challenge (05775132)​, vol. 58, no. 2, Mar/Apr2015, pp. 175-186.

EBSCO​host​, doi:10.1080/05775132.2015.1016321.

Feldscher, Kyle. “House Democrats Criticize Proposed EPA Budget Cuts.” ​The Washington

Examiner​. The Washington Examiner, 25 May 2016. Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

Frank, Thomas. “Republicans: We Don’t Need No Regulation.” ​The Guardian​. The Guardian, 6

Jan. 2012. Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

Goodall, Jane. “ Jane Goodall: Technology Can Help Save Environment.” ​USA Today​. USA

Today, 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 4 Apr. 2017.

“G.O.P. vs. the Environment.” ​The New York Times​. The New York Times, 14 Oct. 2011. Web.

2 Apr. 2017.

Heikkila, Katriina. “Long Working Hours and Cancer Risk: A Multi-Cohort Study.” ​British

Journal of Cancer​. British Journal of Cancer, 2016. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.

Karakosta, Charikleia. "A Holistic Approach for Addressing the Issue of Effective Technology

Transfer in the Frame of Climate Change." ​Energies (19961073)​, vol. 9, no. 7, July 2016,

pp. 1-20. EBSCO​host​, doi:10.3390/en9070503.

Obama, Barack. “ 2nd Presidential Inaugural Address.” Inaugural Address, 20 Jan. 2012, The

Capital Building, Washington D.C.

Park, Sunjoo. "State Renewable Energy Governance: Policy Instruments, Markets, or Citizens."

Review of Policy Research​, vol. 32, no. 3, May 2015, pp. 273-296. EBSCO​host​,

doi:10.1111/ropr.12126.

President Barack Obama announced a new funding initiative Friday, calling on congress to fund

'precision medicine' research that will tailors treatment to an individual's genes. (Jan.

30)​. Associated Press, 2015. Associated Press Video Collection. EBSCO​host​,

search.ebscohost.com.

Rotman, David. “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs.” ​MIT Technology Review​. MIT
Technology Review, 12 June 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Scott, Eugene. “Mixed Reception on Capitol Hill to Trump’s Proposed Budget.” ​CNN​. CNN, 16

Mar. 2017. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.

Shlaes, Amity. “Calvin Coolidge and the Great Depression When Less Led to More.” ​The

Economist​. The Economist, 23 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

Singh, Brajesh K. "Creating New Business, Economic Growth and Regional Prosperity through
Microbiome-Based Products in the Agriculture Industry." ​Microbial Biotechnology​, vol.
10, no. 2, Mar. 2017, pp. 224-227. EBSCO​host​, doi:10.1111/1751-7915.12698.

Thompson, Derek . “A World Without Work.” ​The Atlantic​ July 2015: 51–61. Print.

Wagner, Gernot. “ Why Republican Attacks on Environment Laws Are Flawed.” ​The Guardian​.

The Guardian, 15 Nov. 2011. Web. 2 Apr. 2017.

Wiseman, Paul. “Trump Says He’ll Bring Jobs back to America. Economists Are Skeptical.”

PBS Newshour​. PBS Newshour, 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.