Environment

Latest story

113 Shares129 Views

Nature Has Value. Could We Literally Invest in It?

by

“Natural asset companies” would put a market price on improving ecosystems, rather than on destroying them.Picture this: You own a few hundred acres near a growing town that your family has been farming for generations. Turning a profit has gotten harder, and none of your children want to take it over. You don’t want to sell the land; you love the open space, the flora and fauna it hosts. But offers from developers who would turn it into subdivisions or strip malls seem increasingly tempting.One day, a land broker mentions an idea. How about granting a long-term lease to a company that values your property for the same reasons you do: long walks through tall grass, the calls of migrating birds, the way it keeps the air and water clean.It sounds like a scam. Or charity. In fact, it’s an approach backed by hardheaded investors who think nature has an intrinsic value that can provide them with a return down the road — and in the meantime, they would be happy to hold shares of the new company on their balance sheets.Such a company doesn’t yet exist. But the idea has gained traction among environmentalists, money managers and philanthropists who believe that nature won’t be adequately protected unless it is assigned a value in the market — whether or not that asset generates dividends through a monetizable use.The concept almost hit the big time when the Securities and Exchange Commission was considering a proposal from the New York Stock Exchange to list these “natural asset companies” for public trading. But after a wave of fierce opposition from right-wing groups and Republican politicians, and even conservationists wary of Wall Street, in mid-January the exchange pulled the plug.That doesn’t mean natural asset companies are going away; their proponents are working on prototypes in the private markets to build out the model. And even if this concept doesn’t take off, it’s part of a larger movement motivated by the belief that if natural riches are to be preserved, they must have a price.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Polluting Industries Say the Cost of Cleaner Air Is Too High

    by

    As the Biden administration prepares to toughen air quality standards, health benefits are weighed against the cost of compliance.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to announce new regulations governing soot — the particles that trucks, farms, factories, wildfires, power plants and dusty roads generate. By law, the agency isn’t supposed to consider the impact on polluting industries. In practice, it does — and those industries are warning of dire economic consequences.Under the Clean Air Act, every five years the E.P.A. re-examines the science around several harmful pollutants. Fine particulate matter is extremely dangerous when it percolates into human lungs, and the law has driven a vast decline in concentrations in areas like Los Angeles and the Ohio Valley.But technically there is no safe level of particulate matter, and ever-spreading wildfire smoke driven by a changing climate and decades of forest mismanagement has reversed recent progress. The Biden administration decided to short-circuit the review cycle after the E.P.A. in the Trump administration concluded that no change was needed. As the decision nears, business groups are ramping up resistance.Last month, a coalition of major industries, including mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, and timber, sent a letter to the White House chief of staff, Jeffrey D. Zients, warning that “no room would be left for new economic development” in many areas if the E.P.A. went ahead with a standard as tough as it was contemplating, endangering the manufacturing recovery that President Biden had pushed with laws funding climate action and infrastructure investment.Twenty years ago, generating electric power caused far higher soot emissions, so “there was room” to tighten air quality standards, said Chad Whiteman, vice president of environment and regulatory affairs at the Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, in an interview. “Now we’re down to the point where the costs are extremely high,” he said, “and you start bumping into unintended consequences.”Research shows that in the first decades after the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1967, the rules lowered output and employment, as well as productivity, in pollution-intensive industries. That’s why the cost of those rules has often drawn industry protests. This time, steel and aluminum producers have voiced particularly strong objections, with one company predicting that a tighter standard would “greatly diminish the possibility” that it could restart a smelter in Kentucky that it idled in 2022 because of high energy prices.Technically, there is no safe level of particulate matter, and ever-spreading wildfire smoke driven by a changing climate and decades of forest mismanagement has reversed recent progress.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesNew factories, however, tend to have much more effective pollution control systems. That’s especially true for two advanced manufacturing industries that the Biden administration has specifically encouraged: semiconductors and solar panel manufacturing. Trade associations for those industries said by email that a lower standard for particulate matter wasn’t a significant concern.Regardless, public health advocates argue that the averted deaths, illnesses and lost productivity that air pollution caused far outweigh the cost. The E.P.A. pegs the potential benefits at as much as $55 billion by 2032 if it drops the limit to nine micrograms per cubic meter, from the current 12 micrograms. That is far more than the $500 million it estimates the proposal would cost in 2032.So how are communities weighing the potential trade-offs?On a state level, it depends to a large degree on politics: Seventeen Democratic attorneys general wrote a joint comment letter in support of stricter rules, while 17 Republican attorneys general wrote one in favor of the status quo.But it also depends on the mix of industries prevalent in a local area. Ohio offers an illuminating contrast.Take Columbus, a longstanding hub of headquarters for consumer brands that in recent years has leaned more into professional services like banking and insurance. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, a coalition of metropolitan-area governments, called for the E.P.A. to impose the nine-microgram standard.“There may be some economic costs to major polluting industries, but there’s real health and environmental costs if we do nothing,” said Brandi Whetstone, a sustainability officer at the commission.Columbus would incur fewer costs from tighter regulation, having enjoyed strong job growth in recent years driven by white-collar industries. But local leaders also think that clean air is a competitive advantage, with the power to draw both new residents and new businesses that value it.Jim Schimmer is the director of economic development for Franklin County, which includes Columbus. He has been pushing a plan to turn an old airport the county owns into a low-emissions, power-generating transportation and logistics hub, complete with solar arrays and electrified short-haul trucks, and he thinks stronger rules on particulate matter could help.“This is such a great opportunity for us,” Mr. Schimmer said.The E.P.A. is about to announce new regulations governing soot — the particles that trucks, factories, wildfires, power plants and dusty roads generate.Mikayla Whitmore for The New York TimesThe Cleveland area is a different story, with a high concentration of steel, chemical, aviation and machinery production. Its regional planning council declined to comment on the prospect of stricter air quality rules. Chris Ronayne, the Democratic executive of Cuyahoga County, was cautious in discussing the subject, emphasizing the need for financial assistance to help companies upgrade to lower their emissions.“I think there is an attitude of ‘work with us, with carrot approaches, not just the big stick,’” Mr. Ronayne said. “Come at us, in a manufacturing town, with both incentives to help us get there as well as the regulation.”Ohio has an entity to help with that. The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority was created 50 years ago to clean up the brown clouds that came out of smokestacks, using a combination of grants and low-cost revenue bond financing to help businesses fund upgrades like solar panels and scrubbers that filter exhaust from industrial facilities like incinerators and concentrated animal feeding operations.Now, more funding than ever is available — through the Inflation Reduction Act, which set up a $27 billion “green bank” at the E.P.A. to finance clean energy projects. Christina O’Keeffe, the executive director of the Ohio agency, said she hoped that would allow her to get into direct lending as well when more companies needed her help to meet a stricter air standard. There are also billions in the offing to help heavy industries retrofit to lower their carbon emissions, which tends to help with particulate matter as well.Public health advocates argue that the E.P.A. should set its standard regardless of the assistance available to cover the cost of compliance.California, for example, has spent more than $10 billion to help factories and farmers pollute less. The state’s Central Valley is still the only area that is in “serious” violation of meeting the set standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of particulate matter. The country’s six most polluted counties, which include the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield, have annual readings above 16 micrograms.The Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, an advocacy group, has been pushing for more aggressive enforcement for decades. The group’s executive director, Catherine Garoupa, points out that despite the persistent air problems, the federal government has not imposed strict curbs, like holding back highway funding.“One of the huge imbalances in our region is that the trend has been to cater to industry, treat them with kid gloves, give them billions of dollars in incentive money for them to continue their practices,” Dr. Garoupa said. “They’re generating wealth, but not for the people that actually live in the valley and are breathing the air.”California has spent more than $10 billion to help factories and farmers pollute less.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesThe San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which includes four of the country’s six most polluted counties, has a different take. It filed a comment letter warning of “devastating federal sanctions,” including financial penalties, if the standard was toughened further.The chair of that air district is Vito Chiesa, a Stanislaus County commissioner who grows walnuts and almonds and used to lead the local farm bureau. His operation has to comply with any limitations on agriculture that might be imposed, like the prohibition on open-air burning of farm waste that the air district adopted after years of demands from public health advocates. He fears that further curbs without adequate support for smaller farmers would jeopardize his employees’ jobs.“I have like 15 employees out here, and I feel completely responsible for their families,” Mr. Chiesa said. “So how is it going to affect them? Our charge here on the air board is not to do death by a thousand cuts.”One point of agreement between proponents and many foes of a stronger standard: If the E.P.A. moves forward with tougher rules, it should also crack down on pollution sources, including railroads, ships and airplanes, under its sole jurisdiction. (The agency has proposed a stronger standard for heavy-duty trucks, around which a similar fight is playing out.)Rebecca Maurer is a City Council member representing a Cleveland neighborhood that has some of the area’s worst pollution. Her office frequently hears from constituents seeking help with housing that is safer for children with asthma, which occurs at alarming rates. The district encompasses an industrial cluster that includes two steel plants, an asphalt plant, a recycling depot, rail yards and assorted small factories.That’s the most visible source of emissions, but Ms. Maurer thinks her district’s many highways — and the diesel-powered trucks driving on them — offer the greatest opportunity for cleaning up the air, which requires state and federal action. And light manufacturing jobs are needed to employ the two-thirds of the county’s residents who lack college degrees, she said.“What we don’t want is another asphalt plant, and we don’t want e-commerce,” Ms. Maurer said. “We want something in between. We’re trying to thread this needle between these hugely polluting plants and low density, low-wage warehouse jobs.” More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    No, Diversity Did Not Cause Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse

    by

    Blaming workplace diversity or environmentally and socially conscious investments for the firm’s downfall signals a “complete lack of understanding of how banks work,” one expert said.WASHINGTON — A growing chorus of conservative pundits and politicians have said the failure of Silicon Valley Bank was the result of the bank’s “woke” policies, blaming the California lender’s commitments to workplace diversity and environmentally and socially conscious investments.These claims are without merit. The bank’s collapse was due to financial missteps and a bank run.Moreover, the firm’s policy on diversity, equity and inclusion — also known as D.E.I. — is similar to ones that have been broadly adopted in the banking sector. So is its approach to taking environmental and social considerations into account when investing — referred to as E.S.G. — although that has become a target of conservatives.In fact, Silicon Valley Bank is considered about average in the industry when it comes to these issues.Here’s a fact check.What Was Said“They were one of the most woke banks in their quest for the E.S.G.-type policy in investing.”— Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, in an appearance on Fox News on Sunday“This bank, they’re so concerned with D.E.I. and politics and all kinds of stuff. I think that really diverted from them focusing on their core mission.” — Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Fox News on SundayThis lacks evidence. First, experts have broadly agreed that the bank’s demise had little to do with “wokeness.” As The New York Times and others have explained, the collapse was due to a bank run precipitated by a decline in start-up funding, rising interest rates and the firm’s sale of government bonds at a huge loss to raise capital.The bank’s loans to environmental and community projects “were not an important factor behind the collapse of SVB,” said Itay Goldstein, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “There is no immediate indication that these loans precipitated the run by investors.”Silicon Valley Bank also was not an outlier in its diversity goals or its E.S.G. investments. U.S. investments in those assets are expected to rise to $33.9 trillion by 2026. A 2022 report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 59 percent of banks had lending programs specifically for women- and minority-owned businesses, financing that would fit under the “social” umbrella of E.S.G.George Serafeim, a professor at Harvard Business School, said that blaming the collapse on such initiatives reflected either “a complete lack of understanding of how banks work or the intentional misattribution of causality for the bank’s failure.”Maretno Harjoto, a professor of finance at Pepperdine University and expert in E.S.G. investing, agreed that “there is no truth” to the claims. He added that banks will often set E.S.G. and diversity goals due to pressure from investors and stakeholders.Silicon Valley Bank said in a recent report that it would invest about $16.2 billion over the next few years to finance small businesses and community development projects, affordable housing and renewable energy. That level of investment was equivalent to about 8 percent of its $209 billion in assets.But Silicon Valley Bank was hardly alone in pursuing these types of investments. Of the 30 largest banks in the United States — Silicon Valley Bank ranked No. 16 — all but one (First Citizens Bank) have made E.S.G. investments and released reports on them. And the three largest U.S. banks — JPMorgan Chase & Company, Bank of America and Citigroup — all dedicated 8 percent to 14 percent of their overall assets toward social and environmental investments in 2021. All three have committed to at least $1 trillion in sustainable investments by 2030.Among all banking institutions, Silicon Valley Bank actually ranked about average on E.S.G. issues, according to three metrics developed separately by the financial research firms MSCI, Morningstar and Refinitiv. Among the 30 top banks, its middling A rating from MSCI put it on par with 11 banks, while 11 others received the higher AA rating, characterizing them as leaders. The California lender’s score from Morningstar was among the worst of all 30 banks. And its Refinitiv score was worse than all but one financial institution and on par with Signature Bank, which failed this week.Silicon Valley Bank’s commitment to improving diversity among its leadership was fairly typical as well. The largest 30 banks in the United States all have a stated commitment to more inclusive career advancement.The bank’s latest inclusion report noted that 38 percent of senior leadership and 42 percent of its board members were women, and that 30 percent of leadership and 8 percent of its board were nonwhite.By these demographics, Silicon Valley Bank was one of the more racially diverse financial institutions, but not extraordinarily so. Analyses have found that about 19 percent of senior leadership in financial services were nonwhite and 30 percent were women.While The Times was unable to find data on the demographics of boards of directors in the finance sector overall, the boards of the eight banks in the United States considered systemically important were more racially diverse on average than Silicon Valley Bank. Of the 104 board members who govern these banks, 23 percent were members of a racial or ethnic minority and 39 percent were women. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change Is Probably a Drag on Growth, but It’s Unclear How Much

    by

    It’s been hot out there. Like water-main-breaking, train-slowing, corn-scorching, road-buckling hot — not to mention heat’s effects on human bodies, making it harder to work in construction and harvest crops.All of that must be playing into the gross domestic product reading for the second quarter, right?The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it’s very hard to track that impact in real time, but economists are working on doing it better.For more than a decade, researchers have constructed forecasts of climate change’s likely economic impact. A 2018 paper found, for example, that the annual growth rate of state-level economic output declined 0.15 to 0.25 percentage points for every degree the average temperature crept higher in the summer — which could take up to a third off economic growth over the next century. And that’s just in the United States.Those estimates, however, benefit from long-term data sets that allow analysts to compare the effects of temperature and extreme weather events over time. They also tend to project further into the future, which generally yields more eye-popping outcomes, and is more relevant for evaluating the effects of policy interventions meant to curb emissions.“As a profession, we’ve been really focused on future economic impacts from climate change, because we’ve been focused on how you should be taxing carbon emissions,” said Derek Lemoine, an associate professor of economics at the University of Arizona. “We’ve been less focused on what climate change is doing already, partly because we didn’t realize it would happen this quickly.”But Dr. Lemoine is working on doing exactly that, with the goal of estimating how climate change is affecting the economy at nearly the same time that statistics like G.D.P. are being compiled.Other researchers are working on developing measures of economic growth that integrate not just production of goods and services — which themselves can accelerate climate change — but environmental and social elements as well. More

  • 88 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    A Top A.F.L.-C.I.O. Official Joins Greenpeace USA

    by

    The move by Tefere Gebre, the No. 3 official at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., highlights what many labor and environmental officials say is a need to cooperate.Signaling the growing importance of ties between labor and environmental organizers on climate change, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s third-ranking official has announced that he was leaving to join Greenpeace USA.The official, Tefere Gebre, the labor federation’s executive vice president, will become chief program officer for the environmental group on Tuesday. He will oversee all of Greenpeace USA’s campaigns, communications, direct action and organizing and report to the group’s co-executive directors.“I’m not leaving the workers’ movement — I’m bringing workers to the environmental movement,” Mr. Gebre said in an interview.Labor and environmental groups have forged alliances to reduce carbon emissions while providing a safety net for workers whose livelihoods are threatened by the shift and ensuring that green jobs will pay well. But these coalition-building efforts have occasionally hit snags that have hobbled climate legislation like President Biden’s Build Back Better bill, which is stalled in the Senate.Mr. Gebre will continue those efforts, while taking a leading role on other issues related to environmental justice, like elevating the focus on people of color affected by pollution.“I care about little kids in the 110 corridor in Los Angeles without a vote of their own, who wake up with asthma,” he said, referring to the area of South Los Angeles along Interstate 110. “They have nothing to do with polluting the environment, but they pay the price for it. We have to make it a movement for them.”An independent organization affiliated with the international Greenpeace network, Greenpeace USA employs about 150 people with an annual budget of $50 million to $60 million, largely from the organization’s three million members.Among the group’s prominent campaigns, said Annie Leonard, the co-executive director who helped recruit Mr. Gebre, are one focused on democracy, such as protecting the right to protest amid a flurry of bills that could threaten it, and another focused on protecting oceans. Mr. Gebre will oversee all of that work.At the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Mr. Gebre worked extensively on community and civil rights issues and was a key liaison to environmental groups, but he said he had often become frustrated by the lack of enthusiasm of powerful union presidents.Internally, he said, he argued that the looming migration of hundreds of millions of people because of climate change could lead to xenophobia, right-wing populism and increasing authoritarianism and that climate was therefore a top priority for the labor movement.“Our movement will never grow under authoritarianism,” he said, adding, “Everyone shook their head, but there was no action.”Mr. Gebre, who was born in Ethiopia, came to the United States as a teenager after escaping to a refugee camp in Sudan in 1983. He rose to become the executive director of the Orange County Labor Federation in California, and has been executive vice president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. since 2013.As a top A.F.L.-C.I.O. official, he often clashed with members of the inner circle of Richard Trumka, the longtime president, who died in August. Mr. Gebre said he believed that the federation focused too much on electoral and legislative politics and not enough on movement-building and organizing, and that the labor movement was underinvesting in key industries like technology.Officials including Liz Shuler, the current president, have said that the choice between organizing versus political objectives like passing pro-labor legislation is a false one, and that the federation needs to succeed at both.“We are incredibly grateful for Tefere’s service and leadership as executive vice president,” Ms. Shuler said in a statement. “He understands that worker rights and climate justice can only be achieved together, and we will work closely with him in his new role.” More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    For Clean Energy, Buy American or Buy It Quick and Cheap?

    by

    President Biden says slowing climate change will create jobs. Tension between unions and environmentalists shows it’s not so simple.Patricia Fahy, a New York State legislator, celebrated when a new development project for the Port of Albany — the country’s first assembly plant dedicated to building offshore wind towers — was approved in January.“I was doing cartwheels,” said Ms. Fahy, who represents the area. But she was soon caught in a political bind.A powerful union informed her that most of the equipment for New York’s big investment in offshore windmills would not be built by American workers but would come from abroad. Yet when Ms. Fahy proposed legislation to press developers to use locally made parts, she met opposition from environmentalists and wind industry officials. “They were like, ‘Oh, God, don’t cause us any problems,’” she recalled.Since President Biden’s election, Democrats have extolled the win-win allure of the transition from fossil fuels, saying it can help avert a climate crisis while putting millions to work. “For too long we’ve failed to use the most important word when it comes to meeting the climate crisis: jobs, jobs, jobs,” Mr. Biden told Congress last month.On Tuesday, his administration gave final approval to the nation’s first large-scale offshore wind project, off Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, again emphasizing the jobs potential.But there is a tension between the goals of industrial workers and those of environmentalists — groups that Democrats count as politically crucial. The greater the emphasis on domestic manufacturing, the more expensive renewable energy will be, at least initially, and the longer it could take to meet renewable-energy targets.That tension could become apparent as the White House fleshes out its climate agenda.“It’s a classic trade-off,” said Anne Reynolds, who heads the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a coalition of environmental and industry groups. “It would be better if we manufactured more solar panels in the U.S. But other countries invested public money for a decade. That’s why it’s cheaper to build them there.”There is some data to support the contention that climate goals can create jobs. The consulting firm Wood Mackenzie expects tens of thousands of new jobs per year later this decade just in offshore wind, an industry that barely exists in the United States today.And labor unions — even those whose members are most threatened by the shift to green energy, like mineworkers — increasingly accept this logic. In recent years, many unions have joined forces with supporters of renewable energy to create groups with names like the BlueGreen Alliance that press for ambitious jobs and climate legislation, in the vein of the $2.3 trillion proposal that Mr. Biden is calling the American Jobs Plan.But much of the supply chain for renewable energy and other clean technologies is in fact abroad. Nearly 70 percent of the value of a typical solar panel assembled in the United States accrues to firms in China or Chinese firms operating across Southeast Asia, according to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and BloombergNEF, an energy research group.Batteries for electric vehicles, their most valuable component, follow a similar pattern, the report found. And there is virtually no domestic supply chain specifically for offshore wind, an industry that Mr. Biden hopes to see grow from roughly a half-dozen turbines in the water today to thousands over the next decade. That supply chain is largely in Europe.Many proponents of a greener economy say that importing equipment is not a problem but a benefit — and that insisting on domestic production could raise the price of renewable energy and slow the transition from fossil fuels.“It is valuable to have flexible global supply chains that let us move fast,” said Craig Cornelius, who once managed the Energy Department’s solar program and is now chief executive of Clearway Energy Group, which develops solar and wind projects.Those emphasizing speed over sourcing argue that most of the jobs in renewable energy will be in the construction of solar and wind plants, not making equipment, because the manufacturing is increasingly automated.But labor groups worry that construction and installation jobs will be low paying and temporary. They say only manufacturing has traditionally offered higher pay and benefits and can sustain a work force for years.Partisans of manufacturing also point out that it often leads to jobs in new industries. Researchers have shown that the migration of consumer electronics to Asia in the 1960s and ’70s helped those countries become hubs for future technologies, like advanced batteries.As a result, labor leaders are pressing the administration to attach strict conditions to the subsidies it provides for green equipment. “We’re going to be demanding that the domestic content on this stuff has to be really high,” said Thomas M. Conway, the president of the United Steelworkers union and a close Biden ally.The experience of New York reveals how delicate these debates can be once specific jobs and projects are at stake.Patricia Fahy, a New York State legislator, met opposition from environmentalists and wind industry officials over efforts to press developers to use locally made parts.Mohamed Sadek for The New York TimesA slip at the Port of Albany was created for ships with oversize cargo from overseas, including components for the wind industry.Mohamed Sadek for The New York TimesLate last year, the Communications Workers of America began considering ways to revive employment at a General Electric factory that the union represents in Schenectady, N.Y., near Albany. The factory has shed thousands of employees in recent decades.Around the same time, the state was close to approving bids for two major offshore wind projects. The eventual winner, a Norwegian developer, Equinor, promised to help bring a wind-tower assembly plant to New York and upgrade a port in Brooklyn.“All of a sudden I focus on the fact that we’re talking about wind manufacturing,” said Bob Master, the communications workers official who contacted Ms. Fahy, the state legislator. “G.E. makes turbines — there could be a New York supply chain. Let’s give it a try.”In early February, the union produced a draft of a bill that would ask developers like Equinor to buy their wind equipment from manufacturers in New York State “to the maximum extent feasible” — not just towers but other components, like blades and nacelles, which house the mechanical guts of a turbine. Ms. Fahy, a member of the Assembly, and State Senator Neil Breslin, a fellow Democrat from the Albany area, signed on as sponsors.Environmentalists and industry officials quickly raised concerns that the measure could discourage developers from coming to the state.“So far, Equinor has gone above and beyond what any other company has done,” said Lisa Dix, who led the Sierra Club’s campaign for renewable energy in New York until recently. “Why do we need more onerous requirements on companies given what we got?”Ms. Dix and other clean-energy advocates had worked with labor unions to persuade the state that construction jobs in offshore wind should offer union-scale wages and representation. And New York’s system for evaluating clean-energy bids already awarded points to developers that promised local economic benefits.Ms. Reynolds, the head of the environmental and industry coalition in New York, worried that going beyond the existing arrangement could make the cost of renewable energy unsustainable.“If it became bigger and more noticeable on electric bills, the common expectation is that political support for New York’s clean-energy programs would erode,” she said.The communications workers sought to offer reassurance, not entirely successfully. “I said to them, ‘We’re trade unionists: We ask for everything, the boss offers us nothing, and then we make a deal,’” Mr. Master said. “‘But I do think there’s no reason why turbines should be coming from France as opposed to Schenectady.’”The final language, a compromise negotiated with the state’s building trades council and passed by the Legislature in April, allows the state to award additional points in the bidding process to developers that pledge to create manufacturing jobs in the state, a slight refinement of the current approach. (It also effectively requires that workers who build, operate or maintain wind and solar plants either receive union-scale wages or can benefit from union representation.)While the law included a “buy American” provision for iron and steel, the state’s energy research and development agency, known as NYSERDA, can waive the requirement.The agency’s chief executive, Doreen Harris, said she was generally pleased that the existing approach remained intact and predicted that the state would have blade and nacelle factories within a few years.Some analysts agreed, arguing that most offshore wind equipment is so bulky — often hundreds of feet long — that it becomes impractical to ship across the Atlantic.“There’s a point at which importation of all goods and services doesn’t make economic sense,” said Jeff Tingley, an expert on the offshore wind supply chain at the consulting firm Xodus.Importing parts has made economic sense for Britain, which had installed more offshore wind turbines than any other country by the start of this year but had made little of the equipment.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesBut that has not always reflected the experience of the United Kingdom, which had installed more offshore wind turbines than any other country by the start of this year but had manufactured only a small portion of the equipment.“Even with the U.K. being the biggest market, the logistics costs weren’t big enough to justify new factories,” said Alun Roberts, an expert on offshore wind with the British-based consulting firm BVG Associates.A 2017 report indicated that the country manufactured well below 30 percent of its offshore wind equipment, and Mr. Roberts said the percentage had probably increased slightly since then. The country currently manufactures blades but no nacelles.All of which leaves the Biden administration with a difficult choice: If it genuinely wants to shift manufacturing to the United States, doing so could require some aggressive prodding. A senior White House official said the administration was exploring ways of requiring that a portion of wind and solar equipment be American-made when federal money was involved.But some current and former Democratic economic officials are skeptical of the idea, as are clean-energy advocates.“I worry about local content requirements for offshore wind from the federal government right now,” said Kathleen Theoharides, the Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs. “I don’t think adding anything that could potentially raise the cost of clean energy to the ratepayer is necessarily the right strategy.”Mr. Master said the recent legislation in New York was a victory given the difficulty of enacting stronger domestic content policies at the state level, but acknowledged that it fell short of his union’s goals. Both he and Ms. Fahy vowed to keep pressing to bring more offshore wind manufacturing jobs to New York.“I could be the queen of lost causes, but we want to get some energy around this,” Ms. Fahy said. “We need this here. I’m not just saying New York. This is a national conversation.” More