|
|
| Fig. 1: Comparison of 2019 employment per quadrillion BTUs in renewable energy versus fossil fuels. [6] (Source. N. Murphy) |
In 1956, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass published The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, the first academic work that predicted global warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. [1] Despite this early warning, U.S. CO2 emissions have remained high for the past three decades. In 2019, the U.S. released approximately 5.1 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The world as a whole emitted approximately 31.5 billion metric tons of CO2. [2,3] Modern analysis states that warming must be limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and that to avoid such warming, global emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030. [4] To achieve this goal, drastic changes in energy production would have to be made.
According to many opponents of the switch to green energy, moving away from fossil fuels would put thousands of workers out of jobs. This argument even makes an appearance in many presidential campaign agendas. In particular, former President Donald Trump stated that he would put our miners back to work and made protecting fossil fuel jobs one of the primary focuses of his campaign. [5]
The validity of this argument is refuted by examination of the number of jobs in fossil fuel energy versus the number of jobs in renewable energy. More specifically, the number of jobs per unit of energy generated provides valuable information on how a transition to clean energy would affect employment in the United States.
 |
| Fig. 2: 2019 employment per quadrillion BTUs in individual energy sectors. [6] (Source. N. Murphy) |
Employment statistics were sourced from the 2020 U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER), which covers data from the 2019 calendar year. [6] Energy consumption statistics for 2019 were sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. [2] Data from 2019 was chosen to avoid the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic while maintaining recency. The fossil fuels included in the analysis were coal, natural gas, and petroleum. The renewable energy sources included in the analysis were solar power, hydroelectric power, wind power, and nuclear power.
Although massive amounts of fossil fuel are mined each year, most of these raw materials do not go directly into electric power generation. For example, most crude oil is processed into gasoline or plastics. To focus the data analysis on electric power generation, we multiply the number of jobs in fossil fuel extraction by the percentage of fuel used for power generation: 90% for coal, 36% for natural gas, and 1% for petroleum. [2] We then add these new totals to obtain the number of jobs in fossil fuel electricity generation. No special weighting is necessary for renewable energy sources, as there is generally no extraction process. In the case of nuclear energy, all extracted fuel is used for electric generation. We then divide the adjusted job totals for each sector by the amount of electric energy generated by that sector, expressed in quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTUs). Fig. 1 shows the overall number of jobs per quadrillion BTUs in fossil fuels and renewable energy. Fig. 2 shows jobs per quadrillion BTUs in each individual sector analyzed.
In Fig. 2, there is a notable spike in jobs per quadrillion BTUs in solar power. This is accounted for by the outsized number of construction jobs in the solar industry, driven by a high demand for solar panel installation for personal use, such as home power generation. Petroleum also displays high numbers relative to the other fossil fuels. This is due to the fact that most petroleum power plants do not run at full capacity all year. Instead, they are used to bolster energy production at times of high consumption. [7]
This analysis shows that generation of renewable energy provides far greater opportunities for employment per unit of energy generated. While this is not a comprehensive argument for the switch to renewable energy, it disproves the notion that thousands of jobs would be lost as a result of such a switch.
© Nicholas Murphy. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] G.N. Plass, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change," Tellus 8, 140 (1956).
[2] "Monthly Energy Review, April 2020," U.S. Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0035(2020/4), April 2020
[3] "Global Energy Review 2020," International Energy Agency,2020.
[4] M. Allen et al., "Summary for Policymakers," in Global Warming of 1.5°C, ed. by V. Masson-Delmotte et al. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019), p. 3.
[5] D. Fears, "Trump Promised to Bring Back Coal Jobs. That Promise 'Will Not be Kept,' Experts Say," Washington Post, 29 Mar 17.
[6] "2020 U.S. Energy and Employment Report," National Association of State Energy Officials, 2020
[7] "Electric Power Monthly," U.S. Energy Information Administration, December 2017