rssGoing Green a Long-term Obama Goal
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm
- 25 Comments
Sen. Barack Obama speaks at a rally on the football field of Abington High School in Abington, PA on Friday, Oct. 3, 2008.(David Katz, Campaign Photo)
Five million green jobs. One million hybrid cars on the road. Some $150 billion in clean-energy investment. Eighty percent fewer carbon dioxide emissions.
These are just some of the promises made by President-elect Barack Obama during the long presidential campaign. He is now focused sharply on the nation’s economic woes, saying that solving the grave economic crisis is his top priority. But Obama made many other promises in the name of “change” — expanding health-care coverage, improving education, devising an exit strategy for Iraq, shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Everyone wants to know which of these goals Obama will focus on when he takes office Jan. 20.
Illustration by:Matt Mahurin
So far, the president-elect has hinted that making the U.S. more energy independent is his No. 2 priority, after the economy. But that need not be incompatible with restarting economic growth. For example, developing alternative energies like wind and solar could lead to more green jobs.
Still, delivering on these energy promises won’t be easy. In the short term, reviving the economy could mean greater demand for oil, because U.S. manufacturers are largely powered by fossil fuels.
But, for the long term, many energy experts have recommendations about how to mesh energy and economic goals. They have pointed suggestions about what could be Obama’s most realistic targets in fulfilling his green promises.
Greener economic pastures
On the campaign trail, Obama said he would create 5 million green jobs by investing $150 billion in clean energy over 10 years. That translates into 500,000 jobs a year.
Brooks Yeager, executive vice president of Clean Air-Cool Planet, a non-partisan group, said that such a goal is not unrealistic. “There’s a lot of potential for growth in [green] jobs, but it depends on the mix of investments and policies.” One job-producing policy favored by Clean Air-Cool Planet would have the federal government invest in projects to retrofit existing buildings, to make them more energy efficient. This could create much engineering and construction work.
Yeager doesn’t believe that shifting to a renewable-energy-based economy would cause employment havoc in fossil-fuel industries. “In most economic models of how [this] system would work,” he said, “you don’t lose many jobs in these traditional … industries; you reduce their rate of growth.” Meanwhile, the rate of job growth in clean energy would increase, which would help offset job losses in traditional industries.
Not everyone agrees. The Institute for Energy Research, a think tank promoting free-market-based energy policies, is skeptical about any increase in green-job creation if the economy tries to kick its addiction to oil. “We’ve done some analysis with the green-jobs stuff,” said Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy, “and we don’t quite get it. … Nobody really knows where these green jobs are.”
Kish says that all the talk about an explosion in green jobs is speculative because the development of renewable-energy industries is so dependent on government subsidies.
“We’re never against tax incentives for [new industries] — that’s probably the least damaging way you can go about things,” he said. But he worried that such incentives would be paired with regulations requiring states to generate a portion of electricity from renewable sources. That, Kish contends, could artificially hike utility bills for consumers.
“Take somebody on a fixed income,” Kish said, “whose rent is going up and [cost of] food is going up. If his electric bill starts going up, too, because the government says [utilities] have to use a certain type of electricity, all he knows is that he’ll be paying more for utilities.”
The largest industrial trade union, the United Steelworkers in North America sees an upside in such regulations. Requiring that a portion of electricity be generated from renewable sources would mean more investment in existing and new green technologies, which, in turn, would create jobs, contends Roxanne Brown, assistant legislative director for the union.
“A part of the reason [clean energy] industries haven’t taken off as much as they have in other countries,” Brown said, “is because the investment is not there to help these industries grow. [Regulatory] policies would drive that investment.”
Brown contends that the jobs now being lost in construction and manufacturing are comparable to those that would be created if more solar- and wind-power plants were built, and additional buildings and infrastructure projects were made to comply with more energy-efficient standards.
Oily realities
Obama has said that reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil will be a priority of his administration. One proposal he’s made about this involves putting one million new plug-in hybrid cars on the road. But now that oil prices have fallen below $60 a barrel, this goal seems further out of reach.
With the average price of gasoline at around $2.20 a gallon, consumers could very well return to old, gas-guzzling habits, says David Pumphrey, director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This could make hybrid electric cars less attractive to the average consumer. Pumphrey told The Washington Independent last month, for example, that he expects to see a rise in SUV sales if gas prices remain low.
He conceded, though, that given the “uncharted territory” that gas prices have seen this year, it’s hard to predict what will happen. Gas prices have trampolined up and down more drastically than ever, reaching an all-time high of $4 a gallon over the summer and then plummeting to half that. What’s really unpredictable is what will happen to the oil industry as it struggles with a growing economic crisis.
The economic downturn, though, could be just what the doctor ordered when it comes to reducing dependence on foreign oil. As the economy worsens, demand for oil drops. Less productivity means less fuel consumption. This is why oil prices dropped so quickly.
The volatility of oil prices, says Yeager of Clean Air-Cool Planet, may also contribute to a decrease in oil consumption, because businesses may seek fuels that are more economically sustainable over time. “Ultimately, it’s important to get a steady price signal — one that incorporates the real cost of using or overusing [oil],” Yeager said.
Acclimatizing policy
On the campaign trail, Obama said he was committed to reducing U.S. CO2 emissions by 80 percent, to meet recommendations set by the United Nations. To achieve this goal, Obama has talked about launching a carbon cap-and-trade system, which would first enforce a cap on the annual amount of CO2 released by industry and then allow companies to trade or bid on permits to emit CO2. Cap-and-trade would reward companies that innovate their way out of emitting CO2 and punish companies that don’t.
Clean Air-Cool Planet offers recommendations to the Obama administration on what a cap-and-trade system should look like. The organization suggests holding CO2 auctions in which companies can bid for the right to pollute; the revenue from the auctions would be “recycled” back to taxpayers in the form of income-tax reductions. Using the revenue to cut income taxes would offset any additional costs consumers might face, Clean Air-Cool Planet contends. For instance, if a utility company uses new technologies to decrease emissions, it may have to charge consumers extra; but with revenue recycling, consumers could actually make money off of the deal.
“We think this mechanism is essential to a larger economic revitalization strategy” to pull the country out of recession, said Yeager.
Groups like the Institute for Energy Research think tank, however, contend that a cap-and-trade program is not a free-market solution. Cap-and-trade, writes Institute economist Robert Murphy,” relies on a political scheme to increase costs, and can therefore be justly viewed as a tax, stealthy or otherwise, on energy — the lifeblood of our economy.”
But there are other ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that free-market thinkers should embrace, contends John Topping, president of the Climate Institute, a large nonprofit working to raise awareness about climate change. He says that one of the first things Obama should do after Jan. 20 is lift restrictions on energy recycling. The U.S. generates about 6.5 percent of its energy from recycling the waste-heat that comes off industrial smokestacks. In most states, only utilities are allowed to harvest this waste-heat, which is produced by oil refineries, steel mills and other factories.
Opening this energy source to the free market could not only drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Topping says, it could result in huge savings for the country’s economy. “Reasonable estimates say that you could save somewhere between $70 billion and $80 billion annually and cut overall CO2 emissions by 20 percent,” said Topping.
One would think energy recycling would be a favorite of environmentalists and free-market advocates. But green activists argue that energy recycling would be tough to market, Topping speculates, because images of pollution don’t immediately convey environmentally friendly practices. For everyone else, there’s a fear that large utilities would have to pay more for access to waste-heat and then pass the higher cost on to customers.
The double-green bottom line
Regardless of the mechanism, greater energy efficiency is the one goal that analysts across the ideological spectrum can agree on as a worthwhile. Policies and market forces that promote energy conservation can produce economic and environmental savings.
If measures to improve energy efficiency were adopted in transportation, lighting, construction, infrastructure and fossil fuel sectors, says Climate Institute president Topping, we could kill a lot of birds with just one stone.
“You can make a really huge difference,” Topping said, “without sticking it to the American taxpayer or to the consumer.”
25 Comments
Comment posted November 18, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
I know that this is a very long term goal, but I truly believe that our economy can be saved by investing in our green energies. It may take 20 years, but for the longest time we failed to create new ideas and put them into use because of the costs and how people wouldn't make nearly enough money. We have to always look ahead and I really hope people will start to change with Obama and start to think not just about today or tomorrow but 30 or 100 years from now.
Comment posted November 18, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
What America needs is to become energy independent.Iran just asked OPEC to reduce production by yet another 1.5 million barrels per day.This past year and the record gas prices played a huge part in our economic meltdown and seriously damaged our society.We keep planning to spend BILLIONS on bailouts and stimulus plans.Bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil. Make electric plug in car technology more affordable. It cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to drive an electric plug in car. The electric could be generated from wind or solar. Get with it! Utilize free sources such as wind and solar. Stop throwing away money on things that don't work. Invest in America and it's energy independence. Create cheap clean energy, create millions of badly needed green collar jobs. Put America back to work. It is a win-win situation. We have to become more poractive citizens, educate ourselves and demand our elected officials move this country forward into the era of energy independence. Jeff Wilson's new book The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW outlines a plan for America to wean itself off oil. We need a plan and we need it now! http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Comment posted November 19, 2008 @ 6:29 am
we can move much faster than most people think in becoming green see this short video by barack obama on climate change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk
Comment posted November 19, 2008 @ 10:43 am
The failed economic model in use that contributed to the environmental problems normally would be difficult to replace in average or even slightly poor economic times. But, while the current situation is bad it provides us with the opportunity to change to a system based on sound economic principles grounded in ecology. The neoclassical economist and the political leaders who follow their ideas prefer philosophies such as “free-trade” and “limited government regulation” over reality. Because society’s economic institutions (University programs in economics and business, think tanks) and industry have enormous amount of investments there is a large resistance to change. So, now let us move forward and teach people the value of a sustainable system. People have demonstrated their ability to adapt and adapt we must. We all are concerned about the loss of our current economic benefits, I have been personally hard it and am near retirement. But, if we can finally get a local to global economic system correct for future generation the pain of change will be worth it. This will mean a path with fewer people, less consumption and pollution by the few combined with people re-learning what is really important. We can live simpler lives that are less stress full, less toxins, increased happiness, meaningful and rewarding. It means a commitment to health both for the planet and people. We can be good and proud stewards of all life. I am looking forward to a better future for all and recognize it will be hard work and patience to see the positive change come to fruition.
Comment posted November 19, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Temporary construction staffing allows contractors to save money by only hiring workers they need, in these tough economic times staying under budget is important to both contractor and skilled tradesmen. Past statistics have shown that when an economic recession occurs temporary construction workers are the first to go, but, when the tides starts to turn, even a little, temporary workers are the first to get hired back even before permanent workers.
As the United States economy tries to right itself, more commercial and industrial construction projects are starting to move beyond the planning stage and temporary construction workers are being sought in huge numbers across the country.
Grus construction personnel helps in many other areas of human resources, by providing services for payroll, interviewing, workers compensation, and unemployment Grus Construction Personnel can fill the temporary staffing needs of the largest industrial construction contractors and even the smallest commercial contractors by tailoring the services to match the needs of the client perfectly.
Grus maintains a large, full-time work force and we have personnel who will travel to out-of-town job sites. Workers are billed at varied wage levels to reflect their current abilities and to complete your project without unnecessary expense. Grus is an active member of the Associated Builder & Contractors Association (ABC) and we are committed to the success of the construction industry.
Grus Construction Personnel can be reached at 1-888-230-9908
Online at: http://www.gruspersonnel.com
Blog at : http://applyforconstructionjobs.blogspot.com/
Joseph Abrams, Staff Writer
Comment posted November 19, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
It is really so important to have Obama promoting these transformational environmental platform proposals to have adopted as a National Policy. To reduce the US dependence on foreign oil and redcuing US CO2 pollution by 80% will be challenging. His election was great for the nation, now we just have to follow through and implement the many ideas that can change our nation and provide
sustainable futures for all and future generations.
Action is needed, as soon as possible.
Comment posted November 19, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
“Groups like the Institute for Energy Research think tank, however, contend that a cap-and-trade program is not a free-market solution.” This is false thinking! Externalizing the cost of pollution, collecting the proper fees (not taxes) and distributing the proceeds to those harmed by the pollution (all of us) is very much in line with free markets. The novelty here is that all the players in the market have a say. The cost of energy is not increased; it is just properly book kept!
Comment posted November 21, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Why must protecting the environment “take a back seat” to the economic crisis? Can't reducing emissions help the economy? I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that turns manufacturers' waste heat into clean power and steam — thereby cutting greenhouse gases AND power costs. What we do is called cogeneration or wate heat recovery. And that's the best way to be pro-business and pro-planet at the same time. EPA and DOE estimates say we could cut our nation's global warming pollution by 20% with more energy recycling. Meanwhile, we'd slash costs due to greater efficiency. That's what Obama should be talking about more.
Comment posted February 10, 2009 @ 5:09 am
Let us give our support to generate more green jobs for the people!
Comment posted February 11, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
tu blog es excelente! te mando 357 felicitaciones!
Comment posted February 15, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Let’s all work together and now that the stimulus bill has passed, find out where to apply for these jobs. This site for …
Green Jobs
is focused on hiring for green jobs that will bring back our economy.
Go Green Go USA.
Comment posted March 4, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
Barack Obama should always protect people first then the second is the property. I know that he can do his best to better the economy and always remember that financial crisis is not the end of the world. LOL
“Five million green jobs. One million hybrid cars on the road. Some $150 billion in clean-energy investment. Eighty percent fewer carbon dioxide emissions.” regarding this, this is really a good idea because Hybrid cars shows lower depreciation rates and they are very quiet to run.
Comment posted May 15, 2009 @ 1:50 am
Wow you're the man Obama! The projects regarding Hybrid cars are really bright idea, because Hybrids isn't a fad, it can save a lot of money and also help the environment at the same time.So I think it will be a demand for many years.
Comment posted May 15, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Wow you're the man Obama! The projects regarding Hybrid cars are really bright idea, because Hybrids isn't a fad, it can save a lot of money and also help the environment at the same time.So I think it will be a demand for many years.
Comment posted January 22, 2010 @ 8:28 am
It is easy for this president to talk about the terrible problems with carbon emissions as fossil fuels can relate to the partisan issue of oil, but when it comes to clean water, it appears he is content to allow a two decade plan for invasive s in ballast water despite the carbon footprint associated with shipping fossil fuels and foreign manufactured consumer goods. Perhaps if environmental trade agreements were established with countries in the new world were ballast water was not as problematic, the carbon footprints and dirty water trail left by ships taking oil to China from South America, allowing for the Chinese to hide their manufacturing emission, before using the dirty water trail and carbon emission of their ships to bring foreign manufactured goods into our country while Americans are out of work. Maybe strong manufacturing economies on our borders might offer more security. It is a fact that our current Secretary of State was not concerned with natural water movement for interstate transportation of fish, while she was involved with drawing up regulation for testing fish only, before release of the fish and their transport waters into NY waters, despite lack of federal endorsement across state lines and NY state receiving information about chemical use and chemical sales across state lines by these same farmers, from Arkansas or the added natural waters in transit. It also might be noted that the great lakes are imperil for invasive carp released from a southern fish farm, and yet although many politicians are calling for closure of a canal in our presidents home state, he is against it because of the economic damage in his home state regardless of the risk for economic disaster for many states in our country that will dwarf that of his home state. Interesting that one theory is the carp may spread from eggs in ballast system used by canal barges. As we recover from the economic crisis with States spending huge amount of money to protect their waters from invasive s because of inaction by our federal government despite historic legislation during 2008 for change, it should be recorded in history that as shipping again begins to increase the flow of foreign goods this administration has not addressed the need for legislation knowing our waters are still being destroyed. One can only wonder if a policy, of depending on China to buy our treasury notes will not allow us the freedom to protect our water, as China the largest ship builders in the world began to ramp up importation of their foreign manufactured goods to our large retail employers, the largest having their parent company in a state were our current Secretary of state is a former first lady.
Comment posted January 22, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
It is easy for this president to talk about the terrible problems with carbon emissions as fossil fuels can relate to the partisan issue of oil, but when it comes to clean water, it appears he is content to allow a two decade plan for invasive s in ballast water despite the carbon footprint associated with shipping fossil fuels and foreign manufactured consumer goods. Perhaps if environmental trade agreements were established with countries in the new world were ballast water was not as problematic, the carbon footprints and dirty water trail left by ships taking oil to China from South America, allowing for the Chinese to hide their manufacturing emission, before using the dirty water trail and carbon emission of their ships to bring foreign manufactured goods into our country while Americans are out of work. Maybe strong manufacturing economies on our borders might offer more security. It is a fact that our current Secretary of State was not concerned with natural water movement for interstate transportation of fish, while she was involved with drawing up regulation for testing fish only, before release of the fish and their transport waters into NY waters, despite lack of federal endorsement across state lines and NY state receiving information about chemical use and chemical sales across state lines by these same farmers, from Arkansas or the added natural waters in transit. It also might be noted that the great lakes are imperil for invasive carp released from a southern fish farm, and yet although many politicians are calling for closure of a canal in our presidents home state, he is against it because of the economic damage in his home state regardless of the risk for economic disaster for many states in our country that will dwarf that of his home state. Interesting that one theory is the carp may spread from eggs in ballast system used by canal barges. As we recover from the economic crisis with States spending huge amount of money to protect their waters from invasive s because of inaction by our federal government despite historic legislation during 2008 for change, it should be recorded in history that as shipping again begins to increase the flow of foreign goods this administration has not addressed the need for legislation knowing our waters are still being destroyed. One can only wonder if a policy, of depending on China to buy our treasury notes will not allow us the freedom to protect our water, as China the largest ship builders in the world began to ramp up importation of their foreign manufactured goods to our large retail employers, the largest having their parent company in a state were our current Secretary of state is a former first lady.
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT OUGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK
There is another way to create lobs and go green other than negotiating hidden carbon emmissions and currency manipulation with a communist country.
(1 ) knowing the way this administration has treated the gulf disaster by trying to hide the damage, adding toxic dispersant, creating a still far greater unknown risk to the environment, establishing a direct link to the aquatic food chain as it sinks and is moved through shipping lanes by ballast systems, (2 ) the lack of concern for protecting our Great Lakes from the Asian carp, escaping the waters of our presidents home state, (3) a military ballast water plan following the IMO ( a group representing foreign economic interest) lead for 10 years, with our secretary of state calling for quick ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty which help to lock our ballast water laws into international economic interest, (4) delaying any new legislation in congress with another scientific study for allowable limits of organisms in ballast water so the military can apply them to their plan which would be subject to the next commander and chief again calling for “change”. (5) political support for senator Boxer who killed ballast water legislation in 2008. (6) asking governor Patterson who in his short time created the toughest state ballast water laws to step aside ( 7) and the president has public a rift with rep Oberstar who was instrumental in 2008 ballast water legislation, destroyed by Boxer, about how to create jobs when a report for congress suggest that ballast water laws would cause the price of foreign goods to rise. (8) middle east immediately commandeered tankers and began clean up (estimated 85% recovery) use of ships for clean up this way suggested to white house in the beginning. (9) controversial environmental stance for fish farming in the gulf (probably dose not matter now). (10) The presidents Great Lakes restoration and oceans initiative plan is to abide by IMO and international treaties not create a new plan for America with strong American legislation signed into law.
Comment posted August 9, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
i would love to see all that happening. i am quite skeptical when it comes to a greener America. Well, i have a green job working at a shredding company.
Comment posted September 6, 2010 @ 4:35 am
I know that this is a very long term goal, but I truly believe that our economy can be saved by investing in our green energies. It may take 20 years, but for the longest time we failed to create new ideas and put them into use because of the costs and how people wouldn't make nearly enough money. We have to always look ahead and I really hope people will start to change with Obama and start to think not just about today or tomorrow but 30 or 100 years from now.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
