I put absolutely zero stock into any poll that asks us to choose between strong economic growth and a healthy environment. It’s a false choice.

As the Center for American Progress’ Wonk Room blog pointed out last week, an MIT study showed states with stronger environmental policies “consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all the economic measures.”

The economic, energy, and climate crises we face are inter-connected, and so are the solutions. We can create jobs, secure our energy situation, and protect our natural resources for our children’s future. We need a long-term vision for America’s energy future that starts with comprehensive climate and energy legislation in 2009 with a cap on carbon pollution. It will provide better energy choices by driving investments to build, deliver and install clean energy solutions, create millions of new jobs and reduce our dependency on oil.

Kevin Knobloch is on vacation. Lexi Shultz, Deputy Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Program, is filling in for him this week.

It’s the wrong question. It focuses on a hypothetical tradeoff reflecting outdated thinking about how our economy and environment relate.

Gallup asked: “With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, or economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.”

In fact, economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. Here are the facts: Renewable electricity, energy efficiency and fuel economy all lower consumer costs, stimulate spending in more productive areas of the economy and create jobs. Government, academic and advocacy group studies (pdf) also conclude that cutting emissions through a well-designed cap-and-trade program and complementary policies would have a relatively small impact on economic growth. Conversely, adapting to the worst consequences of unchecked global warming would deal a major economic blow to the United States and the world.

A more useful – and more realistic – question would be to ask Americans what they think about policies that benefit both the economy and the environment. And more useful follow-on question would ask respondents what they think about avoiding the worst consequences – and most expensive costs – of climate change.

Other recent polls consistently show Americans support policies that would reduce global warming emissions, increase clean energy use, and put cleaner cars on the road.

To cite one recent example from the Yale Project on Climate Change and George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication (pdf):

• Large majorities say they want more renewable electricity and fuel economy, even if those policies cost them more money.
• 92 percent support more funding for research on renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power.
• 85 percent support tax rebates for buying energy efficient vehicles or solar panels.
• 80 percent said the government should regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
• 69 percent said the federal government should sign an international treaty requiring the United States to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050.

Gallup asks the same questions year after year so they can consistently compare results over time. But after 25 years, perhaps they should change this question or ask an additional one. Americans realize that the future of our environment and our economy are intertwined. It’s time Gallup gave them a chance to express that understanding.

We do not need to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy; the two goals can and should be compatible. Consider the case of clean, renewable energy, such as wind. In 2008, the addition of some 35,000 wind-related jobs was one of the few bright spots in the economy. During the same year, the industry brought 8300 MW of wind power online—enough to power more than two million homes—a great benefit for the environment. I just returned from an international wind meeting in Europe, and several companies told me they are very interested in investing in the U.S. wind market. This is just one example.

The United States is in transition to a new energy future. To protect the health of our planet, and to reduce our overwhelming dependence on imported fossil fuel, we need to use more wind and other renewables to generate electricity. A national Renewable Electricity Standard, which we are advocating in Congress, would send a signal to business that we are committed to this new energy future, speed up the transition, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

It will also create jobs. Using more renewables will spur the U.S. manufacture of components for wind, solar and other renewables. It will also require the construction of a high-capacity transmission network to deliver the power to consumers. There is no question that saving the environment will help boost the economy.

Good news America: we do not have to choose between economic growth and climate stability.

In his budget blueprint, President Obama has proposed a climate change policy that cleans up our environment, spurs investment that will create millions of jobs, and protects consumers from the rate increases that will come from making this transition to cleaner energy. With this plan, there is no need to wait for an economic recovery.

In addition, Obama's carbon cap-and-trade plan would not go into effect until 2012, so any negative results of greenhouse gas regulation will be postponed until then. Businesses will have almost three years to prepare, invest, and plan; these actions will create jobs now. In fact, the number of jobs created will be much larger than what could be achieved solely through direct government subsidies. The strong market signal generated by the pricing of carbon resulting from the President's cap-and-trade plan will harness the power of private capital and put it to work.

But there is even better news: when Obama's plan goes into effect, it will have immediate positive consequences for many working Americans. The funds raised from Obama's carbon pricing plan--roughly $100 billion per year--will be directly refunded through a tax credit. More than 95% of working Americans will receive a refund to cover the increases in price on their energy bills. For many, it will even be enough to buffer the higher costs of all products as a result of rising energy prices.

During this time of crisis, it is understandable that Americans want to prioritize their economic well-being over even severe environmental hazards. And it's true that some carbon pricing schemes could adversely affect lower-income workers. Luckily, Obama has put forward a plan that doesn't make us choose between economic vitality and environmental safety.

As General Electric’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt has astutely observed, our nation and our economy isn’t simply going through a downturn; it is going through a reset. Part of that reset is reevaluating which industries and public policy goals make the most sense for the long term. In this new paradigm, investments in renewable energy and economic growth go hand in hand.

Investing in the development of domestic renewable fuels and energy industries provides both short term and long term benefits. Immediately, such investments result in new construction jobs to build and install the infrastructure necessary to bring renewable fuels and power to the market. Over the long term, investments in renewable energy technologies will offer well paying job opportunities for college graduates with degrees in math and science and provide a buffer helping to shield America from the vagaries of world oil and energy markets.

A perfect example is the investment being made in renewable fuel technologies like ethanol. In 2008, America’s ethanol producers and supplies helped support nearly 500,000 jobs across the nation, added more than $60 billion to the GDP, and put some additional $20 billion into the pockets of Americans all across the nation.

These contributions just scratch the surface. The solid foundation being poured by today’s ethanol producers is the platform upon which 2G (second generation) biofuel technologies, primarily cellulosic ethanol, will be built. More than two dozen pilot and demonstration scale cellulosic ethanol projects are underway today. These facilities will prove out the technologies that will turn grasses and garbage into a cleaner, more sustainable alternative to petroleum. As these technologies are proven and commercialized, the economic and employment opportunities for Americans from all walks of life will be a cornerstone for long term economic, energy and environmental stability.

We must resist the temptation to focus only on the short term. The current reset the U.S. and the world are experiencing presents a once in a lifetime opportunity to reorder our priorities and plan for the future. Reducing oil import dependency and cutting carbon emissions are critical goals, and renewable energy technologies of all kinds provide the bridge between short term economic recovery and long term economic prosperity.

We absolutely do NOT have to sacrifice the environment during tough economic times, nor must we choose job creation and economic growth over environmental protection. That is because we can use (and are using) smart, targeted energy efficiency programs to create “clean and green” jobs that will boost the economy while helping to protect the environment and make a down payment on curbing climate change.

By voting to infuse $20+ billion into energy efficiency programs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Congress demonstrated its understanding that energy efficiency is “a policy for all seasons” and a win-win-win for the economy, the environment, and national energy security. The Alliance to Save Energy has estimated that the ARRA investments could create more than 100,000 jobs over the next two years and, over the life of the measures, reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 200 million metric tons.

Energy efficiency is a deceptively simple answer to a complicated set of circumstances. When we use less energy we spew less pollution and global warming emissions into the air. At the same time, energy efficiency technologies provide indirect help for the economy by reducing energy bills for households, governments, businesses, and other institutions alike, increasing the availability of funds for more productive expenditures. And in the transportation sector, increasing the energy efficiency of our vehicles enhances our national security by lessening our dependence on oil imported from volatile parts of the world.

Even in these days of drastically lowered stock values, energy efficiency is a good investment.

The McKinsey Global Institute says that an annual world-wide investment of $170 billion in energy efficiency through 2020 could cut global energy demand growth by at least half – the equivalent of 64 million barrels of oil a day, or almost one and a half times today’s entire U.S. energy consumption – and save $900 billion a year in avoided energy costs while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As just one domestic example, annual investments of about $300 million in energy efficiency in federal buildings have saved American taxpayers roughly $1 billion a year. And the federal ENERGY STAR program yields U.S. consumers and businesses a robust return, saving at at least $75 in energy costs for every tax dollar spent.

The Alliance to Save Energy has estimated that our “homegrown resource” – energy efficiency – is displacing the need for 50 quads of energy every year – representing fully half of the energy consumed today. We are “mining” more today from energy efficiency than we get from any other single energy source, including oil and coal. And we’ve only skimmed the surface.

In the current economic and environmental crises, energy efficiency remains the “evergreen” choice (pun intended!).

###

It is, of course, entirely understandable that in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the beginning of the environmental movement in the early 1970s, people, when asked to choose between the environment and the economy, choose the economy. They are, with good reason, afraid -- worried sick about whether they will have a job next week, will be able to pay their mortgage, their utility bill, their children’s tuition. The problem for the future of both Earth’s environment and its people is not with the answer, but with the question.

The media and pollsters thrive on exposing conflict, fault lines that produce drama in the headlines or in the executive summaries of the polls. The environment vs. economy choice is convenient but specious. If one asked the question differently--“which is more important, our ability to grow food to feed our families, to have safe air to breathe, enough clean water to drink, shelter from raging storms or the current level of the Dow Jones Industrial average?" How many folks would choose the stock market?

The current economic crisis is all about our trying to live beyond our means, about trying to grow an economy based upon speculative values that were not real, not sustainable. And it is not sustainable to believe that the soon-to-be nine billion humans on this Earth can survive on a speck of a planet hurtling through the emptiness of space without paying an immense amount of attention to the natural systems that make our lives possible.

The environment as a luxury? If the speculative bubble of our unsustainable use of Earth’s resources bursts, nature and people will suffer the collapse together.

Like it or not, between our numbers and the power of our technology, humans now have profound impacts on Earth’s natural systems. So what are the real questions we should be asking about the relationship of our stewardship of Earth’s finite resources and human well being in these difficult times? What kinds of real decisions are before us?

• Given that all the credible science says uncontrolled, human induced climate change will have disastrous impacts on the U.S. economy and political stability across the world, how can we use conversion to a lower carbon economy as an engine of economic recovery without producing new kinds of adverse environmental impacts?
  
• With or without climate change, the U.S. and many other countries face water shortages that will cripple economic growth? How can we better conserve and recycle the use of water and change the management of dams to better balance human needs with the health of downstream environments? How can we protect and restore natural forests and wetlands to hold and cleanse water while providing habitat for many species?
  
• How can we best support the ability of American farmers and foresters to provide safe and abundant supplies of food, fuel and fiber while reducing the impacts of farming on water and other resources?
  
• And how can we sort out the competing uses for coastal waters so that we can restore the natural abilities of marshes and reefs to shield us from the impacts of storms while providing the habitat for the restoration of valuable fish stocks.

At every level from local to global, the natural environment produces real and quantifiable human and economic benefits. Our environment is completely intertwined with the rest of our economy and investments in energy technology and in restoring natural areas will produce both economic and ecological returns.

The real question we should be asking today is whether the current economic crisis and the impending crisis of a rapidly warming Earth will, finally, bring us to realize (or perhaps remember) that we must live within our means and that investments in our environment are part and parcel of investments in a strong and sustainable economy.

The choice between economic growth and environmental protection is a false one. Protecting the environment will promote economic growth. This was made clear by President Obama himself earlier this month at an event honoring the 160th anniversary of the creation of the Department of the Interior:

“Throughout our history, there’s been a tension between those who’ve sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources,” President Obama said at the March 3 event. “But I’m here to tell you this is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve the environment for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.”

There are countless instances of investments in our natural resources repaying human society many times over. For example, America’s wetlands provide $100 billion in benefits from fisheries and recreation, act as a natural filter to produce clean water, and buffer our shores against devastating floods and storm surges. Protecting watersheds also protects our drinking water supplies: New York City made a commitment to protecting the Catskills watershed, which provides the city with much of its clean drinking water, when it became evident that replacing the watershed filtration system services provided by this watershed with a water treatment plant would cost $6 billion to $8 billion, plus annual operating costs of $300 million.

Similarly, conserving endangered species helps to keep the web of life intact, preserves the opportunity to discover life-saving pharmaceuticals from natural plant and animal materials, and protects our food supply by providing a genetic reservoir for cross-breeding with domesticated crop species to provide resistance against devastating pests and diseases. At least one in twenty U.S. jobs relies on a healthy natural resource base. The outdoor recreation industry alone contributes $730 billion annually to our economy. Millions of other jobs in agriculture, forestry, commercial fisheries and tourism also depend on healthy natural resources.

While environmental protection may incur some short-term costs, those pale in comparison with the potential long-term cost to human communities if we allow environmental destruction and pollution to escalate.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the current debate over global warming. While nearly everyone recognizes that we must act to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that causes global warming, we must also recognize that the natural resources which provide the vital ecosystem services upon which we all depend are already suffering adverse impacts from the global warming now underway.

Unless we also act now to safeguard wildlife and ecosystems from the harmful impacts of global warming, we risk losing their vitally important, and economically essential, ecosystem services. That is why it is so important to both our environmental and economic future that we dedicate a significant portion of the revenues from any cap and trade system to safeguard wildlife and ecosystems in the face of global warming. Both the Obama administration and Congress should commit to providing this dedicated funding in any comprehensive climate and energy legislation if the nation has any hope of rebuilding our economy and protecting our environment for ourselves and future generations.

For the time being, the Obama administration should be focusing ALL its attention on restoring confidence in the nation's financial system.

Until the public feels that the worst of the economic news is behind them, no real traction will be gained on health care, education, or climate policy reform. The salience of environmental issues always falls when the economy is in trouble or the country faces serious national security challenges. We're dealing with both right now.

It's taken the U.S. 100 years to get into the climate fix we're in; we're not going to get out of it in four years. We should address the problem that has EVERYONE preoccupied before trying to legislate a solution to climate change. Another year should do the trick on the former; then we can give the latter the attention it deserves.