Pete Altman's Blog: Moving Beyond Oil

In Wake of Oil Spill, Most Americans See Need for Clean Energy and Climate Legislation

2010-05-07T22:58:10Z

This week, NRDC has been making the case that the Gulf Oil spill is a disaster that should shock the Congress into acting on a big scale to reform our energy system and get moving on clean energy and climate legislation. After all if we really want to prevent future oil spills, we have to cut back on our reliance on oil and the best way to do that is to pass strong legislation.

We've called on President Obama and the US Senate to seize the moment.

It looks like the White House gets it, according to news reports over the last couple of days, such as this one from E&E News (subscrip required):

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today that he expects public opinion to grow in favor of an energy bill as gas prices make their traditional summer climb and while the oil spill continues in the Gulf of Mexico.

"With what you see is going on in the Gulf, you understand that drilling and drilling alone isn't going to solve our energy problems," Gibbs told reporters. Asked about prospects for a climate bill in the light of the spill, Gibbs said, "It's more ripe than it ever, in all honesty, has been."

Carol Browner, the president's top energy and climate adviser, made a similar connection between the climate bill and the Gulf Coast spill during an an interview with Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt," which airs this weekend.

And the American people get it as well, as a new poll by NRDC reveals. In it, we found that in the wake of the Gulf spill,

Voters strongly favor the passage of a clean energy and climate change bill, with more than six in ten (64%) agreeing the Senate should pass the bill and four in ten (39%) saying so strongly.

That's a pretty clear signal that the American public gets that we need to move America off of oil and dirty fuels, but that as NRDC Program Director Wesley Warren puts it, "Congress needs a response which is as big as the spill is."

Oil Spill? What Oil Spill?

2010-04-29T14:24:56Z

As oil gushed out of an underwater oil well ruptured by a deadly explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) published an essay on April 26 by AEI scholar Steven Hayward that called the environmental threats from off shore oil "largely obsolete."

And no, that’s not out of context. Here is the full paragraph:

The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969. There hasn't been a major drilling related spill since then, though shipping oil by tanker continues to be risky, as the Exxon Valdez taught us. To fear oil spills from offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of prop plane crashes in the 1950s.

Subtle spill?

You’ve just got to wonder about these ‘scholars’ sometimes. By the 26th, the Deepwater Horizon had already exploded and sank, 11 workers had died, and a mile-deep oil leak began spewing what is now known to be 5,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico. Given Hayward is publishing on websites – AEI’s, the Pacific Research Institute’s and the Weekly Standard’s – you’d think he might have been able to update his essay (or thinking) a bit.

But Hayward is connected with institutions that spend a lot of time making the case for polluters and against clean energy. I’ve previously blogged that Hayward and another AEI colleague were exposed two years ago for trying to pay IPCC scientists $10,000 to criticize the IPCC findings. Hayward is also a director of the oil-industry-alumni-staffed Institute for Energy Research (IER), a “think-tank” run by former Koch Industries and oil lobbyist Thomas Pyle. IER has of late specialized in bashing clean energy, ~~calling it~~ fueling claims it is a 'dirty lie.’

Now the dirty mess in the Gulf is re-exposing the very real risks of offshore oil drilling. As the oily slick from the sunken Deepwater Horizon grows daily, Gulf coast residents and the rest of the nation are watching, wondering whether the Coast Guard’s desperate last-ditch effort to control the slick by setting it on fire will save the fishing grounds, shores and economy of the Mississippi Delta.

While the images of the burning rig and spreading slick have already been enough to cause Democratic and Republican officials to question whether offshore oil drilling is really such a good idea, they apparently aren’t enough to persuade the dirty-energy advocates at AEI and IER.

ACES Puts US and World On Safer Temperature Path

2009-06-26T19:16:01Z

Duke University just released an analysis of the impact that ACES will have on global temperature, factoring in the impact that US leadership will have on the rest of the world. As many recognize, the only way to get serious global efforts to cut emissions moving is for the US to make clear its own commitment.

The Duke study concludes that ACES can help drive a global policy that would stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million and limit global temperatures increases to less than 2 degrees above 1990 levels.

What will that do as far as global warming impacts go? Here's a synopsis of the escalating impacts of global warming, based on IPCC reports. You can see for yourself what global warming effects the ACES bill will help us avoid:

The bullets ACES will help us dodge: global GDP losses of up to 5%; extinction of 40% or more of the world's species; decline of global food production; and so on.

Amidst all the posts regarding the economic benefits of the ACES bill, its worth remembering that it will put us on track to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

ACES Will Help Create More Jobs and Opportunities for Low-Income Families

2009-06-26T16:26:19Z

The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help spur $150 billion in clean energy investments, which will create 1.7 million good-paying jobs throughout the United States.

Clean energy jobs are labor intensive, and clean energy investments create more jobs across all skill and education levels than comparable investments in fossil-fuel energy sources.

Clean energy investments create 3.2 times as many jobs as fossil-fuel investments overall. Among workers with few educational credentials and little work experience, clean energy investments create 5.5 times as many jobs as fossil-fuel investments. Furthermore, 75% of those clean energy jobs provide opportunities for advancement and higher salaries, enabling workers to lift their families out of poverty.

How would this job creation, and new opportunities for low-income families work out state-by-state? Based on recent reports by the Political Economy Research Institute, we mapped out job creation figures for total jobs created as well as the number of those jobs that are accessible to workers with low educational credentials or few jobs skills. On the map below, total job creation figures are in black, the low credential job figures are in white.

Total US job creation: 1,713,500 jobs. Of those, 871,000 would be accessible to those with low educational credentials and/or few job skills.

Sources:

"The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" downloadable from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/clean_energy.html. "Green Prosperity: How Clean Energy Policies Can Fight Poverty and Raise Living Standards in the United States" downloadable from http://www.nrdc.org/energy/greenjobs/.

NRDC commissioned PERI to develop state-level figures for low-credential jobs for 21 states. Figures for remaining states were estimated by NRDC based upon the PERI data. For full methodology and explanation, click here.

Americans Save on Fuel Bills Under ACES

2009-06-26T15:03:48Z

The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act allocates funding to produce the next generation of clean, fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States, and when combined with clean vehicle performance standards adopted by the Obama administration, the American on-road fleet will become about 25% more fuel efficient over the next decade.

As a result, by 2020, Americans will drive more efficient vehicles and have lower household transportation costs. Even in the face of rising gasoline prices, cleaner vehicles will save money by sipping instead of guzzling gasoline.

For detailed methodology and explanations, and a printable map, click here.

Vets Support (and install) Clean Energy

2009-05-06T04:58:12Z

America's vets are raising their collective voices in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Pointing to the national security benefits of reducing America's reliance on dangerous foreign oil, VoteVets has been mobilizing its members in support of the bill.

NRDC has talked with vets who are also working - full-time - on America's shift to clean energy. Last year, our own OnEarth magazine featured a few good men and women working to help vets transition into green jobs upon their return from service overseas, a project that has evolved into GreenCollarVets.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to "skill development, education and employment opportunities in emerging Green Industries for transitioning military veterans."

More recently, we met a vet who came back from Iraq and is now installing solar power systems in Texas. David McCaulley's interest in the environment stemmed from growing up with his environmentally conscious father who, during their camping trips, would frequently remind David about the dangers of leaving

a negative impact on the planet. Of today's advancements in renewable energy and reducing dependence on foreign oil, David says his father "would be very pleased with what he sees."

As a Naval Reservist who was deployed to Iraq in 2007, David has a unique vantage point when it comes to America's need to cut dependence on foreign oil.

He has also collected clean energy-related stories and experiences from his time abroad:

Prior to my deployment, I went to Germany and I saw solar panels there and I got to see how their system is much more advanced than America's. No tthe technology-that is the same, but the government and municipalities there are using... solar power a lot better than we are. Where there used to be cows, there are now solar panels. Maybe at some point we could be at the same place.

David hopes for his five children to grow up in a country where "we're self-reliant and not dependent on foreign energy sources." He sees the potential for growth "because there are a lot of different areas-a lot of potential for kids coming out of school in the side of engineering... we need people experienced in electricity, plumbing for solar thermal jobs, marketing and sales.... Those are five areas right there with opportunity directly related to solar energy."

Like most employees whose work is good for the environment and the economy, David is "proud to be a part of this and I enjoy what I do from the beginning to the end."

After the election: What clean energy can do for America

2008-11-03T17:48:21Z

You can't miss the fact that both Time and Newsweek chose the week of the Presidential election to run pieces on how the economic downturn will affect efforts to solve global warming.

Yes, most eyes are on the election through Tuesday night (cross your fingers it's only through Tuesday night) but both magazines recognize that - come Wednesday morning - the questions will start focusing on how the new Administration and Congress will deal with the limping economy and energy prices, and what this means for investing in clean energy and solving global warming.

Both magazines offer compelling reasons why clean energy investments should be a priority even during rough economic times, and both balance this by pointing out that tighter credit markets make it harder to invest in clean energy.

Unfortunately, this framework misses the question we should be asking: What can investments in clean energy and global warming solutions do for the ailing U.S. and world economies?

In Will Green Progress Be Stalled by the Bad Economy?, Time Magazine looks largely at how the economic crisis could cloud the outlook for clean energy. But the article also notes that the commitment to push for policies to limit global warming pollution remains a priority for many European leaders and the US presidential candidates. Given this, Time reports

"'The stage is set for a wholesale change in the way the U.S. approaches climate change,' says Terry Tamminem, the former environmental advisor to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger..."

Newsweek's "Why It's Time for a 'Green New Deal" looks more closely at the "green" investments question in making the case that clean energy is the right antidote for an anemic global economy, saying that there are

"...powerful voices being raised amid the din of despair, saying that now is precisely the time to seize the initiative and launch the "global revolution"... And not just because it will stave off disasters two or three decades away, but also because it can provide the impetus to pull the global economy out of the slump it's in now and put it on a more solid foundation than it's had in at least a generation."

If you happen to be a reporter (or anyone else who cares about getting the whole story), here are a few facts that should be part of any conversation about what to do next about our economic woes:

Clean energy jobs are already here. 750,000 Americans already have jobs tied to clean energy development, according to a recent report by the US Conference of Mayors.
Clean energy jobs are good jobs. Dollar for dollar, investing in clean energy (efficiency and renewables like windand solar) creates more jobs than investing in traditional energy sources like oil and gas, according to testimony by economist Dr. Robert Pollin, of the Political Economy Research Institute.
A common-sense national policy on global warming and energy will drive further market investments in clean energy. The U.S. could reduce a huge amount of its global warming pollution at little or no net cost, but Congress has to send the right policy signals so that markets channel more of their capital into clean energy technology and deployment than traditional energy supplies, according to an in-depth analysis by the highly respected consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
A "pay-as-you-pollute" arrangement could mean huge capital for green investments. By charging big polluters for their global warming pollution, Congress could raisearound $150 billionper year to develop and deploy clean energy systems throughout the U.S., writes our own Andy Stevenson.

So rather than asking how today's economy will affect prospects for global warming solutions, we should be asking - and acting on - how solving global warming will affect prospects for tomorrow's economy. Just remember that Wednesday morning!

The Next Superheroes (Part II) - Millions of Them

2008-09-09T16:30:00Z

How can we address the energy crisis, the economic crisis and the climate crisis in one swoop? By investing in clean energy, according to a new report by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

The report, released today by labor, environmental and policy groups (including NRDC) shows that investing in clean energy systems like wind and solar power, rapid transit and energy efficiency creates nearly four times as many jobs as investing in more oil production.

The job-generating power of clean energy is due to the fact that it is labor-intensive – lots of workers are needed to build, deliver and install new clean energy equipment and technologies. What’s more, these solutions create three times as many good jobs – those that pay at least $16 dollars an hour—as the oil industry. Two million Americans would be put to work if we invested $100 billion investment in the following clean energy climate solutions:

Retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency
Expanding mass transit and freight rail
Constructing “smart” electrical grid transmission systems
Wind power
Solar power
Next generation biofuels

What kind of jobs are created by clean energy investments? As I’ve previously discussed, clean energy requires a wide range of jobs skills – from carpenters to welders – a range of skills that millions of Americans already have. As the new PERI report points out, 800,000 of the new jobs would be in construction, one of the sectors hardest hit by the housing downturn.

One other major advantage of clean energy, according to the report: it provides opportunities to rebuild career ladders, especially in construction and manufacturing, through training and workforce development that, if properly implemented, can provide pathways out of poverty to those who need jobs most.

Clean energy strategies don’t just create more jobs, they free up more energy than going back to the oil well. As my colleague Luke Tonachel points out, “better cars, buildings, communities and fuels” would free up 11 times more oil than we can drill out of the Arctic and the offshore zones oil companies are so eager to get at.

And, of course this is the path we need to set on to deal with global warming. A federal climate policy that charges polluters for every ton of global warming pollution they emit would raise money on the order needed to jump-start a clean energy economy.

The report, “Green Recovery – A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy,” was commissioned by the Center for American Progress (CAP).