Green Energy Usage in the United States
By Chad Hyer
Published Winter 2022
Special thanks to Erica Bassett for editing and research contributions
Summary+
Greenhouse gas emissions are the largest contributor to climate change. Green energy solutions prove a promising approach to remedying these emissions, but major economic reliance on fossil fuels, complacent and dismissive attitudes towards climate change, and political polarization and gridlock have encouraged inaction regarding the adoption of green energy in the United States. Such inaction has led to a host of consequences that are detrimental to the United States' environment, economy, and international image. Some efforts by NGOs and for-profit companies have helped remediate such inaction. This brief aims to address the context, contributing factors, and consequences of this inaction and to dispel common misunderstandings surrounding green energy.
Key Takeaways+
Key Terms+
Carbon Neutrality—A scenario in which carbon dioxide production and removal are balanced out to maintain an optimal level of carbon dioxide in the environment and limit global warming.1
Cap-and-Trade—A system by which the government limits greenhouse gas emissions of companies by issuing permits to emmit set levels of greenhouse gases while still allowing for further emissions by purchase of unused permits from other companies.2
Climate Change—Shifts in temperatures or weather patterns over long periods of time. Climate change can be both natural or human caused. Most discussion of climate change in this brief will focus on human-caused global warming.3
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency; a US federal agency over the protection of human and environmental health.4
Fossil Fuel—Any fuel source extracted from decomposing plants or animals. Examples include coal, oil, and natural gas.5
Greenhouse Gases (GHG)—“Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.” Examples include carbon dioxide, methane, and others.6
Green/Alternative Energy—Any energy source that does not directly cause greenhouse gas emissions; alternative energy refers to energy sources that can be used in place of traditional fossil fuel energy sources.7
Paris Agreement—An international treaty signed by 196 parties in 2016 aimed at reducing the effects of climate change.8
Petroleum—A fossil fuel source produced from the decomposition of animals and plants over millions of years. Oil, for instance, is derived from petroleum.9
Context
What is green energy?
Green energy refers to a type of energy that is generated using methods that cause less damage to the environment than traditional fossil fuel based generation methods. Green energy sources are typically classified by their ability to produce energy without directly producing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and are usually generated from natural sources such as wind, solar, or hydropower. Green energy sources are also often described as renewable energy sources since they are generated using energy sources that are readily replenishable compared to nonrenewable sources such as oil. Not all renewable sources of energy, however, are green sources of energy. For example, biofuels, a popular renewable source of energy, still produce greenhouse gases and are hence not a green energy source.10 Hence, later discussion will focus on non-greenhouse gas–producing power sources.
Why is green energy a major topic of discussion?
Over the past 40 years, experts have observed that decadal temperatures have successively increased. For instance, average global temperatures in the decades from 2001 to 2020 are 0.99° C higher than from 1850 to 1900, and 0.19° C (19.19%) of this change has occurred in the years from 2003 to 2012.11 Furthermore, increases in temperature since 1970 are the highest 50-year increases in global temperature of any 50-year period in the last 2000 years.12 These increases in temperature have contributed to the retreat of glaciers and increases in global sea levels, heat waves accompanied by droughts and fires, and major tropical cyclones.13, 14, 15, 16
This climate change observed over the past decades and its effects are primarily (1 to 2° C) driven by GHGs in the atmosphere, with very little (-0.1 to 0.1° C) change produced by natural drivers such as differences in solar intensity, changes in earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, etc.17 GHG levels in earth’s atmosphere have increased since 1750, and these changes are “unequivocally caused by human activities” such as fossil fuel emissions, primarily used in energy production.18 The year 2019 marks the highest GHG levels in the past 2 million years, and trends indicate that these levels and global temperatures will continue to increase should action not be taken.19, 20
As GHG emissions are caused predominantly by the production of energy using fossil fuels, green sources of energy can be used to reduce GHG emissions.21 Alternative sources of energy often suggested include biofuels, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, geothermal power, and nuclear energy. Amongst these sources solar, wind, and hydroelectric tend to be the most accessible and popular, and they produce no GHG emissions.22 Thus, this brief will center its later discussion of green energy production on these sources.
Who are the major contributors to GHG emissions globally?
GHG emissions are a worldwide problem, but historically, the United States has been responsible for high GHG emissions. From 1890 to 2005, the United States was the largest producer of CO2 (a GHG) in the world until it was surpassed by China in 2006. However, the United States still produces more CO2 per capita than China and the majority of the world, with the United States producing 16.1 tons of CO2 per capita (t/CP) compared to China’s 7.1 t/CP and the world’s 4.7 t/CP in 2019. Furthermore, in 2019, the United States produced about 5.28 billion tons of CO2 compared to the world contributor average of 160.5 million tons. These CO2 emissions levels are also about double that of the next highest contributor, India, at 2.6 billion tons.23 The United States is also the largest producer of crude (unrefined) oil in the world and has been the largest consumer of oil since before 1966.24, 25 Likewise, the United States is the largest producer of dry natural gas.26 This production of oil and natural gas supplies fossil fuels to consumers in the United States and around the globe, encouraging the use of fossil fuels in energy generation and greatly increasing GHG emissions. Hence, discussion will be primarily focused on the United States.
What are the primary sources of the United States’ GHG emissions?
GHG emissions in the United States are caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels in the production of energy for transportation (29%), electricity (25%), and industry (23%), whereas commercial and residential GHG emissions constitute 13% and agriculture 10%.27 Hence, companies and vehicles are the largest contributors to GHG emissions in the United States. American households, however, produce on average nearly twice as much GHG emissions compared to similarly wealthy European households.28 Contributing to the United States’ high GHG emissions is the fact that 79% of US energy is produced using fossil fuels.29
How does the United States compare to other countries regarding addressing GHG emissions?
Addressing human-caused climate change and increasing GHG levels, the international community founded the UNFCCC and has put forward measures such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which are aimed at limiting GHG emissions and encouraging carbon neutrality. The Kyoto Protocol (initially signed in 1997, amended in 2012, but not ratified by the United States) set emissions targets and incentivized pursuing green energy solutions among more developed countries.30 The Paris Agreement (signed in 2015 by 196 different parties, including the United States) set a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by the mid-21st century by encouraging all countries (including less developed countries) to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in favor of greener, alternative energy sources.31 Recent United Nations–sponsored surveys indicate that 64% of people across 50 surveyed countries (both countries that signed the Paris Agreement and in countries that did not sign the Paris Agreement) believe climate change is a global emergency.32
In 2017 the United States announced their withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.33, 34 This setback to the Paris Agreement is an important example of a trend of hesitation regarding green energy in the United States compared to other countries. This trend will be further discussed in this brief.
What are citizens’ opinions on climate change and energy usage in the United States?
Regarding attitudes towards climate change in the United States, the majority of United States' citizens believe in climate change, but are more likely, on average, to have a dismissive or doubtful attitude towards climate change than citizens of any other country surveyed.35 Regarding energy usage, a 2021 Yale Climate Communication survey indicates that 59% of citizens of the United States believe that the amount of fossil fuels used should be decreased —on average much lower than other equally developed countries (76% in Spain, 75% in the UK, and 73% in Italy).36 Gallup polls from 2021, however, suggest a more split opinion on how the United States should produce its energy with, in general, a clearer majority of respondents indicating that fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas should be used just as much or more often (51% coal, 60% oil, 82% natural gas). Gallup polls also suggest that the majority of United States citizens favor increases in the use of wind and solar energy.37 These statistics suggest that US citizens tend to favor increasing access to energy generally and consider green energy options favorable as a complement rather than a substitute for fossil fuel energy sources.
What is the United States’ policy on energy?
National policies on energy have a large effect on GHG emissions and the development of green energy solutions. Policies can either encourage green energy investment by using direct and indirect subsidies or by discouraging the use of fossil fuels through emissions regulations or taxes. Historically, the United States’ energy policy has not put adequate emphasis on green energy. Congressional discussion about climate change and green energy produced a series of milestone bills in the 1990s and early 2000s. The most successful of these bills have been wind and solar tax credits passed in 1992 and 2005 and mandated emissions reporting in 2007, although these credits have since been set to be phased out by a law passed in 2015.38
Regarding other examples of the United States’ energy policy, historically, there has been a trend of inaction and hesitance. For example, the Senate adopted a resolution in 1997 opting to only join climate treaties with equal emissions standards for developing countries and with no perceivable threat to the United States’ economy.39 As a result, despite being involved in the drafting of the Kyoto Protocol, the United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol.40 Furthermore, multiple cap-and-trade bills aimed at providing CO2 emissions limits to companies have not been ratified in both houses of congress (2003–2007, 2008–2010).41 Besides the consistent failures to pass bills promoting green energy and the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, a trend of environmental deregulation was pushed by the 2016 administration. For example, the 2016 administration released the Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace the Clean Power Plan of the former 2012 administration. This new rule weakened the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s oversight of power plants and significantly hindered the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions of GHGs.42, 43
Currently, the 2020 administration’s policies place greater emphasis on environmental regulation. For example, the 2020 administration aims to have a carbon-neutral power sector by 2035.44 Furthermore the United States has rejoined the Paris Agreement.45 While there have been increases in environmental regulation, some current policies still do not align with international goals to limit temperature increases to 1.5° C. Current US policy and practices regarding GHG emissions are consistent with an increase of 2–3° C.46
Contributing Factors
Economic Reliance on Fossil Fuels
Energy as an industry constituted 1.2 trillion dollars of the United States' GDP in 2019 (5.7%).47 The energy industry directly affects many facets of the economy (e.g., industrial production, transportation, agriculture, etc.), and access to inexpensive energy is essential to maintaining low production costs. Energy’s direct connection to production has produced a trend of dramatic increases in energy production and consumption over the last 50 years, and this trend is likely to continue to increase as access to technology increases and industrialization continues.48 The United States produces 79% of this energy using fossil fuels, making fossil fuels a major contributor to the economy.49 Conversely, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal only contribute about 7.23% of energy in the United States, limiting the scope of their economic impact.50 Fossil fuels also contribute massively to US exports, with 3 of the top 10 exports being fossil fuels in 2020 and many other exports being fossil fuel–derived or related.51 This predominance of fossil fuels in the United States economy makes shifts away from fossil fuels a slow and difficult process, contributing to GHG emissions, hesitance to develop green energy sources, and a heightened climate crisis. Primary fossil fuel contributors to the United States economy and climate change include oil, natural gas, and coal.
Oil
Oil is a major contributor to the United States economy and GHG emissions. Regarding oil in energy, 35% of the United States' energy consumption is sourced from petroleum. 52 Energy produced from petroleum combustion is typically used in the transportation sector, with finished motor gasoline, distillate fuels such as diesel, and jet fuels providing 96% of energy for transportation in 2020.53 Such high reliance on petroleum in transportation proves a major contributing factor to GHG emissions and inaction in the development of green energy sources. Transportation as an industry contributes the most to the United States’ GHG emission with 29% of all GHG’s being produced by fossil fuel burning vehicles in 2019.54 As transportation contributes the most to GHG emissions, there is a major need to reform the industry. This need for reform proves a major problem, largely due to a lack of access to refueling stations for alternative energy sources such as hydrogen or to issues regarding the feasibility of electric car recharging.55, 56
Since 2018, the United States has been the largest producer of oil, and this production fuels a major petroleum export industry.57 In 2020, processed petroleum fuels, crude oil, and petroleum gases were, respectively, the United States' first, second, and fifth largest exports totalling more than $144 billion (about 10% of total United States' exports).58 This figure does not include other petroleum-derived exports, such as plastics and other petroleum products, or other petroleum-related exports such as automobiles.59 As a result, the export impact of oil is presumably greater than 10%. This high reliance on oil as an export commodity further encourages its use as an energy source and consequently encourages GHG emissions, makes transitioning to cleaner energy sources more economically difficult and impactful, and contributes to opposition to advancements in green energy.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is a major contributor to the United States economy and GHG emissions. Since 2011, the United States has been the largest producer of dry natural gas.60 Regarding natural gas in energy, 34% of the United States' consumption of energy is sourced from natural gas,61 and 40% of all electricity generated in the United States is sourced from natural gas. Furthermore, natural gas heats about 50% of homes.62
Regarding natural gas as a source of GHG emissions, natural gas produces about 117 pounds of CO2 per million British thermal units (lbs/Btu) of energy produced (measure of energy efficiency in terms of GHG emissions) compared to oil’s 157.2 lbs/Btu.63 While this 25.6% increased efficiency compared to oil emissions is a positive, natural gas is still a large GHG emitter, and this perceived increase in efficiency contributes to a general misconception among US citizens that natural gas is a clean source of energy. According to a Gallup poll in 2021, 49% of United States' citizens were in favor of increasing production of energy using natural gas with 33% in favor of maintaining production levels and only 19% favoring a decrease in production.64 These findings suggest an overall positive view of natural gas as an energy source and are most likely caused by the publicization of natural gas efficiency statistics. These statistics, however, ignore the fact that natural gas is sourced from methane, another GHG that is 80–90 times more potent than CO2 in atmospheric warming.65 Research shows that leakage of methane during the extraction of natural gas is much higher than previously estimated, and that this leakage makes hitting Paris Agreement climate goals impossible despite the decrease in CO2 emissions associated with burning natural gas rather than oil or coal.66
Coal
Traditionally, coal has been a major source of energy in the United States but has been on the decline due to its heavy pollutive nature. Coal-sourced energy consumption claims about 10% of United States' energy consumption.67 This production constituted about 24% of electricity generation in 2019 but contributed 61% of CO2 emissions from electricity generation.68 Coal as a fossil fuel is the most inefficient in terms of CO2 production compared to energy production, ranging from 214.3–228.6 lbs/Btu compared to oil’s 157.2 lbs/Btu.69 Between 2019 and 2020, coal production decreased by 24%, but coal is still a large contributor to GHG emissions. Reluctance in some states to move away from coal reduces the rate of green energy development as an economic substitute.
Public Attitudes & Opinions Towards Climate Change
US citizens on average have lower levels of concern regarding the climate.70 Furthermore, higher levels of dismissive or doubtful attitude towards climate change are present in the United States than in many countries around the world.71 Despite being a highly educated, wealthy nation, belief in climate change in the United States is much lower on average than in similarly educated and wealthy nations.72 These lower levels of concern negatively impact the United States' progress towards developing green energy sources. These attitudes can largely be attributed to disinformation campaigns in the United States by fossil fuel companies and to general misconceptions regarding green energy.
Disinformation Campaigns by Fossil Fuel Corporations
As previously mentioned, much of the United States' economy is affected by fossil fuel production and consumption. Hence, fossil fuel producing corporations stand to lose influence should green energy options become a substitute for fossil fuels in energy production. As a result, such corporations have taken an active role in first, portraying fossil fuels as a positive source of energy and as an important part of the economy and second, in releasing disinformation about green energy sources and climate change.
Regarding the positive portrayal of fossil fuels, corporations tend to rely on misrepresenting statistics when providing information to consumers or politicians through their official reports and summaries. One such example has already been mentioned—the “clean” nature or natural gas. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute touts natural gas as producing one half of the amount of CO2 emissions compared to coal and claims that switching to natural gas is “the leading reason why levels of carbon dioxide are at their lowest in nearly 25 years.”73 While the statistic about natural gas emissions compared to coal emissions is true, this claim ignores research showing that methane emissions from natural gas extraction outweigh benefits gained from CO2 reductions.74 Furthermore, the claim that the decrease in CO2 emissions is predominantly from using natural gas is misleading. Increases in energy efficiency and the use of greener energy sources have also contributed to this decrease in emissions, and research shows that increases in the use of natural gas have not supplanted but supplemented the burning of coal.75 Furthermore, such increases in “clean” natural gas consumption show trends of producing 70% more power through natural gas by 2030 than is compatible with 1.5° C goals.76
Regarding disinformation about climate change, fossil fuel producing companies have actively tried to discredit climate change as a serious issue. For example, from 1998 to 2004 alone, ExonMobil spent $16 million funding groups and research in opposition to climate change.77 Their stated goal, known as the Exxon Position: “emphasize uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect.”78 This campaign has slowed the adoption of green energy solutions and has perpetuated increased GHG emissions by encouraging attitudes of delayism and denial.79 Proposals in favor of GHG reductions and of green energy sources such as carbon pricing in the 1990s, the Kyoto Protocol, and cap-and-trade bills have been either rejected or weakened as a direct result of such disinformation campaigns and lobbying by fossil fuel companies.80 As a result, the US House Oversight Committee has called on top executives from many major fossil fuel corporations to testify before Congress to examine the effects of these campaigns, and these corporations are experiencing a wave of lawsuits from many cities and states across the United States over these disinformation campaigns.81 Disinformation campaigns have very likely discouraged progress towards adopting green energy solutions, and these congressional hearings will shed further light on the impact of these campaigns.
Misconceptions Regarding Green Energy
A host of misconceptions regarding green energy have also contributed to inaction regarding the expansion of green energy solutions. These misconceptions are largely centered around the cost, reliability, and scalability of green energy solutions.82 These concerns have largely been addressed by technological advancements in green energy, but their perpetuation in the minds of US citizens has encouraged inaction regarding green energy.
Misconception 1: Green energy is more expensive than energy produced by fossil fuels.
In 2009, wind energy cost $135/MWh, and solar cost $359/MWh compared to coal at $111/MWh and natural gas at $83/MWh. Due to improvements in green energy technology, wind energy cost $42/MWh, and solar cost $43/MWh compared to coal at $102/MWh and natural gas at $58/MWh in 2018.83 Previous expectations of energy prices still have a major effect on people’s perception of current energy prices, and this massive change in price levels occurred very quickly. Hence, the misconception that green energy is more expensive than fossil fuel produced energy has persisted, and uninformed consumers have assumed that a shift to green energy sources would increase their energy costs, negating a potential preference towards green energy.
Misconception 2: Green energy is not reliable.
A common criticism of green energy sources such as solar and wind is that they are reliant on the sun being out or wind blowing to produce energy. While it is true that there can be long stretches of time without sunlight (e.g., night/overcast conditions) or periods without adequate wind, when scaled and during peak production, solar and wind can supply more energy than is in demand, which can then be stored for use during times of lower performance.84 New methods of storing this excess energy such as pumped hydroelectric storage and efficient battery technologies (boasting 85–90% efficiency regarding input to output ratio) have made controlling the output of green energy sources to match energy demand inexpensive (with decreases in cost of lithium ion battery systems by 85% from 2010 to 2018) and efficient, even during periods of lower performance.85, 86, 87 Green energy systems and battery storage systems are also scalable, meaning that storing enough energy for energy demands during times of lower performance or for emergency scenarios is simply a matter of building enough storage for future predicted needs and using enough green energy sources to maintain the surplus needed to keep storage full. These methods, however, are not widely known by consumers, so the misconception prevails, leading consumers to be hesitant to promote green energy.
Political Polarization and Gridlock
According to Pew Research surveys in 2020, 78% of Democrats/Democrat-leaning individuals believe that climate change should be a top priority for the government compared to 21% of Republicans/Republican-leaning individuals.88 Research also shows that the largest driver of attitudes regarding climate change is political affiliation or ideology.89 This discrepancy in public opinion negatively affects the ability of the government to address issues with climate change and to promote green energy solutions.
While there are groups and individuals in both parties whose beliefs are not in line with these overarching trends, current trends of political polarization indicate an ever decreasing propensity to compromise among both parties and an increasing propensity to vote on issues purely along party lines.90 For example, the Green New Deal in 2019 was intended to provide government support for green energy but was not passed on a vote of 57–0, with 57 Republicans opposed and 43 Democrats voting present to avoid intraparty division.91 This proves difficult for progress towards green energy solutions as periods of unclear majority produce gridlock, and periods of one-party control are temporary. As a result, pro-green energy policies have not been lasting, as evident in shifts in the United States' environmental policies between the 2012, 2016, and 2020 administrations.92, 93
This polarization contributes to the success of fossil fuel corporations’ disinformation campaigns, to misconceptions regarding green energy, and to a continued reliance on fossil fuels as a major sector of the economy, so such polarization proves to be a major contributing factor to inaction regarding the development of green energy.
Consequences
Environmental Consequences
Current observed climate change is predominantly caused by GHG emissions as a result of the use of fossil fuels.94, 95 Hence, the consequences of climate change are also the consequences of underutilizing green energy. The adoption of green energy sources reduces GHG emissions and combats the effects of climate change. It thus follows that inadequate investment in green energy in the United States will ultimately result in a heightened climate emergency. Research has shown that the increases in temperatures due to climate change have already contributed to the retreat of glaciers, increases in global sea levels, heat waves with droughts and fires, and major tropical cyclones.96, 97, 98, 99 These changes prove detrimental to countries throughout the world as well as to the United States.
Regarding rising sea levels, almost 40% of the United States population lives in coastal areas.100 Hence, rising sea levels threaten a large portion of the United States population. Rising sea levels are known to threaten infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power plants, water treatment facilities, near-coast freshwater sources, etc. Furthermore, higher sea levels put populations at greater risk of dangerous storm surges and can damage coastal ecosystems.101 Current models predict that how much sea levels will rise in the coming century will be directly dependent on GHG emissions levels. With a low emissions pathway, sea levels are expected to rise by 12 inches above 2000 levels by 2100, whereas, with a high emissions pathway, they are expected to rise as much as 8.2 feet.102 This trend is also evident by the historic increase in the rate of mean sea level rise from 1.9 mm/year from 1971 to 2008 to 3.6 mm/year from 2008 to 2018.103 Hence, unless green energy options are pursued, global sea levels will rise at more dangerous rates, risking coastal populations.
Regarding heat waves and droughts, rising global temperatures have contributed to drought conditions, especially in the western United States.104 In 2020, a third of the United States faced drought, resulting in crop failures, reduced pasture yields, increased number of dust storms, reduced fresh water levels, and increased severity and number of wildfires.105 As a result, the length of wildfire season (the season in which wildfire risk is at its highest) is three and a half months longer than previous decades, and the annual number of large wildfires has tripled in the western United States.106 Such droughts and fires can prove devastating to communities, and conditions are predicted to continue to worsen into the 2050s and possibly beyond.107 Hence, failing to address rising global temperatures by not adopting green energy solutions will heighten current and future drought conditions, increasing the risk of fires and harming agricultural communities.
Economic Consequences
Green energy solutions and the environmental consequences of climate change are inherently connected to the economy. The adoption of green energy has both implications in reducing the costs of environmental consequences and in providing opportunities for economic growth. Hence, such implications must be considered when contemplating green energy solutions.
Green energy sources prove an opportunity for sustainable economic growth. Currently, there is a large potential economic demand for green energy in domestic and foreign markets, so US businesses stand to gain from producing green energy domestically and selling green energy technologies abroad.108 Consumer preferences are a major contributing factor to economic demand, and studies have shown that people in both the United States and abroad are interested in green energy. According to Gallup polls, 66% of Americans are in favor of increasing emphasis on wind energy, and 73% feel similarly about increasing emphasis on solar energy.109 Likewise, the majority of consumers in G20 countries are in support of greater investment for green energy.110 It can be inferred from this interest that consumers in the United States and abroad are interested in buying energy produced from green energy sources. Polls since 2011 also show that the majority of consumers are interested in emphasizing green energy over oil and gas expansion and that this majority continues to grow.111 This shows that fossil fuels are becoming increasingly unpopular while the opposite is true for green energy. Such a trend also implies that consumers would rather buy energy produced greenly than by fossil fuels. Hence, investment in green energy utilizes rising economic demand, providing an opportunity for individuals and companies to reap economic benefits in both domestic and international markets, and such investment encourages economic growth. Therefore, investments in fossil fuels over green energy to meet energy needs do not properly utilize rising demand and forfeit potential economic growth.
Green energy industries also prove a major source for new, higher paying jobs. Employment in green energy industries increased by 3.6% in 2018 (contributing 4.2% of all job growth in the United States).112 Furthermore, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts an increase of 105% in solar jobs and 96% in wind jobs by 2026.113 Growth models also predict that, if the United States emphasizes green energy solutions, green energy industries could support net job growth of more than half a million jobs a year, injecting $1.7 trillion into the economy and providing a needed economic rebound from the 2020 COVID-19 recession.114 Furthermore, jobs in green energy pay better, comparatively, and typically do not require higher education, with 45% of people employed in green industries only having a high-school diploma while also making 8% to 19% more per year than similarly educated individuals in other industries—a great potential boon to low income and less educated workers.115
Green energy solutions also prove a viable solution to decreasing energy costs in the United States. Currently, green energy sources such as wind and solar produce electricity at cheaper costs than fossil fuels, respectively costing $42 and $43/MWh compared to coal and natural gas’s $102 and $58/MWh.116 Models also predict a 10% decrease in wholesale power costs should the United States produce 90% of its energy using green sources by 2035.117 Such decreases in costs would prove beneficial to both consumers and producers and would also encourage economic growth.
Examining green energy transition models, it is evident that investment in green energy would prove beneficial to the United States' economy. Hence, a lack of green energy usage equates to a more expensive and less efficient energy model that, comparatively, lacks similar potential economic growth opportunities.
International Consequences
Inaction by the United States regarding green energy also has inherent consequences regarding international image and US foreign policy goals “to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.”118
The greatest and most recent impact on the United States' international image regarding green energy centers around the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement in 2017. The Paris Agreement represents a landmark international treaty on addressing climate change and is the first treaty of its kind to call upon all nations to use methods such as green energy to curb GHG emissions. The Paris Agreement was adopted by 196 parties in 2015 (the vast majority of world powers), and United Nations’s surveys indicate that the majority of the world’s population calls for action to address climate change.119, 120Hence, upon withdrawal, the United States received criticism from leaders from many countries (including Canada, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and Russia) with statements indicating regret, disappointment, and that the United States had made a mistake.121 In leaving, the United States angered other nations and isolated itself, abdicating international leadership to other parties.122 The consequences of this abdication are not consistent with and pose potential risk to the United States' foreign policy goals.
Regarding this abdication, the People’s Republic of China has stepped up in an attempt to fill this leadership vacuum. China, despite its role as the largest GHG emitter in the world, responded to the exit of the United States by making the first ever joint statement with the European Union, committing to full implementation of the Paris Agreement and consequently deepening Euro-Chinese relations.123 Consistent with its upped commitments, China is now the largest producer of green energy, is becoming the largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines in the world, and is positioning itself to take advantage of the economic and political benefits of using green energy.124
In stepping up to fill this gap, China is able to attain international influence and fill positions once held by the United States.125 Such efforts by China to increase foreign influence are part of “the long game: China’s grand strategy to displace American order” as coined by Rush Doshi, former director of the Brookings China Strategy Initiative and the current presidential administration’s National Security Council Director for China. This long-term “game” is inherently detrimental to United States' foreign policy goals.126 Hence, inaction by the United States regarding green energy risks further international displacement by China.
Despite rejoining the Paris Agreement, the United States forfeited previous progress in green technology and international support. For example, the European Union and China have already expanded their renewable industries and stand poised to reap the benefits of an estimated $23 trillion in climate related international business opportunities.127, 128 Such influence in international money and investment markets also translates to influence in other international settings.
Beyond just harming the United State’s international image, United States inaction regarding green energy also encourages similar behavior in other nations. After the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement, other nations weakened their pledges to reduce GHG emissions. For example, the UK decided to retract pledges regarding its goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, although it is unclear how much of this decision was based on the United States' withdrawal.129 Regarding this phenomenon, Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “ . . . without the largest economy in the world, it’s very, very hard to talk about any kind of climate agreement.”130 This statement is especially true for less developed countries, as a transition to green energy will prove especially difficult without the United States' support for green energy. The cessation of funding by the United States of the UN Green Climate Fund proves a great hindrance to the development and implementation of green energy in less developed nations and effectively holds back international progress towards developing green energy.131 Such inaction, thus, not only harms the United States but the whole world.
Practices
ACORE: American Council on Renewable Energy
Founded in 2001, ACORE is a nonprofit aimed at accelerating the economic transition towards green energy. ACORE encourages collaboration between the finance sector, green technology companies, policy makers, utility companies, allied nonprofits, and buyers to help coordinate and optimize green investment and impact. Through publishing research, ACORE also seeks to educate policy makers and consumers to promote green energy’s entrance into mainstream power production. ACORE claims to be the “first organization dedicated to expanding the US pan-renewable economy.”132
Regarding ACORE’s accomplishments, 165 GW of green energy have been implemented since ACORE’s founding, and upwards of $600 billion has been invested in green energy.133 Since 2018, ACORE has had a goal of raising $1 trillion in private sector investment for green energy by 2030. So far, $167 billion of this has been realized, requiring an increase to $92.6 billion a year to continue to achieve this goal.134 ACORE, however, does report that 68% of surveyed investors plan to increase green investment in 2021 by more than 10% of 2020’s levels, and investor and developer confidence in green solutions is up 8 and 9% from previous years.135 ACORE also, however, reports large decreases in tax equity for financing green energy solutions and a 12% decrease in green investment comparing 2019 and 2020, with only $54.4 billion of investment in 2020.136 Overall, ACORE’s goal to promote $1 trillion in private green investment is ambitious, and initial progress has not been on track, but investment trends do appear promising. Increases in government support of green energy solutions combined with increased consumer education about and confidence in green energy solutions are likely necessary for ACORE to achieve its current goals.
Enphase Energy Inc
Enphase Energy Inc, founded in 2006, is a for-profit solar company,137 and as of Q4 in 2021, they are the fastest growing solar stock in the United States.138 Enphase aims to develop novel solar solutions for consumers across the United States and the world to increase access to green energy and advance a sustainable future.139 Enphase’s approach to providing solar solutions to consumers and businesses has largely centered around its development of a solar system better able to regulate and optimize solar collection, storage, and power direction.140 Key to improved regulation, Emphase claims, is its microinverter solar panels capable of limiting the effects of fluctuation in sun exposure on power production and limiting the consequences of technological glitches.141 The company also boasts efficient and modular lithium iron phosphate batteries that can be scaled to fit energy surplus rates and storage needs.142 In conjunction with better panels and storage methods, Enphase uses a phone app that allows consumers to monitor and control solar power flows, allowing for smart allocation to consumption, storage, or grid export.143 Such technological advantages pushed by companies like Enphase help increase the effectiveness of green solutions like solar and increase consumer trust.
Regarding Enphase’s accomplishments, Enphase has successfully shipped more than 39 million microinverters worldwide, providing more than 1.7 million homes with access to solar power.144 This project has helped offset up to 20.8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.145 Enphase has also worked to increase access of low-income communities to solar power in the United States, providing 29 MW of energy to about 8200 families.146 Enphase, however, is not immune to recent supply chain hiccups affecting the solar industry in the United States.147 Likewise, the ability of green companies like Enphase to grow is greatly affected by governmental policies. Overall, however, Enphase’s efforts have proven beneficial to green energy advancements, and Enphase’s recent growth trends are promising.148
Preferred Citation: Chad Hyer. “Green Energy Usage in the United States.” Ballard Brief. January 2022. www.ballardbrief.org.
Viewpoints published by Ballard Brief are not necessarily endorsed by BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
