Do Green Investments Spur Growth or Emission Cuts?

Two reports from the federal government suggest that investing in environmentally friendly technologies and practices boost the economy and reduce pollution

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Green investments are spurring significant growth across the U.S economy while decreasing industry's overall emissions per dollar of goods and services, according to two reports released Wednesday by the federal government.

Meanwhile households have replaced industry as the country's largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, according to government data.

The first report defines and measures the size of the domestic green economy; the other assesses how America's greenhouse gas emissions have changed over the past decade.

Together they provide "valuable analytic tools" necessary to understand the emerging green economy and guide future policy, said Rebecca Blank, undersecretary for economic affairs at the U.S. Commerce Department.

"There are many unknowns about how we are going to build a new energy economy," she said during a press conference unveiling the data. "These reports suggest we are making some progress."

The first report, "Measuring the Green Economy," analyzed the most recent Economic Census, produced in 2007 by the Census Bureau, and found green services and products totaled between $371 billion and $571 billion, or 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. economy that year.

That's a small slice of economic pie, Blank acknowledged. But the sector is "well-poised" for growth, and the agency expects the next economic census, in 2012, will show significant gains.

"We are standing in front of a fire hose of business," said Sandy Wiggins, president of E3 Bank, which aims to redirect capital to the green economy and expects to make its first loan in July. "I don't think there's a single industry that can't benefit from this transition."

The second report, "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Intensities Over Time," shows that a considerable number of economic sectors - particularly manufacturing - have grown more energy efficient over time.

The report's innovative feature, Blank said, is its analysis not just of total emissions, but emissions per dollar of economic output - what the agency calls "CO2 intensity."

"As CO2 intensity falls, (we can say) a sector is becoming more efficient," she said. "We can see what industrial sectors are becoming more efficient over time."

Overall domestic carbon dioxide emissions have grown slightly over the past few decades, according to federal figures. But the economy has grown faster, suggesting it is becoming more energy efficient over time.

The analysis has uncovered some significant trends within the economy that will help guide policy, Blank said.

For instance, in 1998 manufacturing emitted more CO2 than any other sector, accounting for 30 percent of total domestic emissions. But by 2006, households had become the largest emitting sector. During those years, while manufacturing was reducing emissions per dollar of output, household CO2 emissions increased almost 13 percent, from 1.6 billion tons of CO2 to 1.8 billion tons.

"This underscores the value of energy efficiency programs, as well as the Energy Star program," Blank said, adding that she expected household emissions to have improved from 2006 to 2010, given recent government incentives to weatherize and improve efficiency.

Manufacturers are getting that message, said Bruce Quinn, vice president of Rockwell Automation, a Milwaukee-based manufacturer of factory automation equipment. Quinn said a "fundamental shift" is underway in industry: so-called "sustainable manufacturing" is no longer seen as a social responsibility, but as an economic and competitive necessity.

The days when managers accepted high energy bills as an unfortunate but necessary cost of doing business are gone, he added. Today manufacturers view energy demands, he said, "as a specific input to production, much as they do with other components such as materials and labor."

Together, the reports shed light only on historical trends, Blank acknowledged. They don't yet assess the return on the Obama administration's multi-billion-dollar investment, via the stimulus program, in the green economy.

But they will, Blank said.

"We must know where we are starting from in building the green economy," she said. "These reports give us benchmarks about the recent past, and green yard sticks to measure progress in the future."

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe