Peter Lehner's Blog: Green Enterprise

Driving Toward Clean Air at Our Nation’s Ports

2009-10-27T21:41:31Z

This post was co-written with Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. NRDC and Sierra Club are members of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, supporters of the clean truck program.

"Cancer alley." That's what many Southern Californians call the 23-mile rail and truck corridor connecting our nation's largest seaport to massive distribution centers east of Downtown Los Angeles. In California alone, diesel air pollution from ships, trucks and trains kills more than 3,700 people every year -- more than died in the 9-11 attacks.

Despite this stunning death-toll, the American Trucking Association is aggressively trying to dismantle a successful program adopted a year ago this month by the Port of Los Angeles that is well on its way to reducing diesel emissions from port trucks by 80 percent, and establishing a model that diesel-afflicted communities around the nation are beginning to follow.

California's diesel body count may be highest, but concentrations of cancer, asthma and other diseases caused by air pollution occur wherever large amounts of cargo move by ship, truck and train. The victims tend to be poor people of color who live or work alongside our ports, freeways and cargo hubs. But toxic diesel smoke knows no boundaries. It follows the wind, depositing carcinogenic particulate matter in the lungs of rich and poor alike.

By banning the oldest trucks outright, putting cleaner trucks on the road, and creating powerful rules to move cargo greenly, Los Angeles officials have removed 2,000 of the dirtiest rigs from service and helped business put nearly 6,000 clean-burning and alternative fuel trucks on the road.

The landmark clean truck program at the Port of Los Angeles sets the standard because it ensures that trucking companies that can afford to meet increasingly stringent environmental standards are responsible for clean-up, instead of independent truck drivers, who have been historically underpaid. Under the program, trucking companies agree to meet environmental, safety, and security standards in exchange for access to port terminals.

However, the trucking industry is spending millions of dollars to undermine this progress and the progress of like-minded ports nationwide that want to adopt clean-up plans. In an ongoing lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles, the trucking industry is trying to weaken the progressive clean truck program, arguing that the port has no authority to reform port trucking operations that occur on its own property or even cure inefficiencies that affect the bottom line. Industry representatives go so far as to argue that the port should be barred from verifying whether trucks comply with clean air standards when entering port facilities.

Municipal airports and privately-owned stadiums place conditions on those who want to do business there, increasing the odds that vendors operate safely and consistently provide a high level of service. Ports should feel empowered to do the same.

The litigation by the trucking industry relies on obscure federal law that wasn't designed to restrict the right of local governments to protect their residents' health. That's why Congress should act now to clarify the right of states and municipalities to protect their citizens from the lethal byproduct of cargo transport.

Los Angeles has survived these challenges so far, but the specter of intense litigation with the trucking industry may dissuade other ports and municipalities from pursuing similar programs to reduce diesel pollution and save lives. Mayors Bloomberg and Booker of the Ports of New York and Newark respectively, Mayor Ritter of the Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of Oakland Mayor Dellums, and officials in Virginia, Charleston, Houston, and Tacoma know that unchecked diesel pollution degrades and shortens lives and causes tens of billions of dollars in health-related costs every year. They are all calling to regulate and reduce truck-produced pollution at their ports.

Our collective failure to protect the public from diesel pollution is a moral outrage and a shame on our nation. Fortunately, the Obama Administration appreciates that Americans want and deserve clean air and the sustainable jobs that accompany it. In the case of Los Angeles, there's a proven track record of success. As we celebrate the program's first year, Congress should embrace this local green-growth model and take action to protect it.

A Goal for Copenhagen: Keep the Focus on Enforcement

2009-09-23T20:50:20Z

Few seem willing to address the issue openly, but one of the toughest issues to address when delegates gather in Copenhagen in December for the global conference on climate change will be governance. Many developing nations attending have stressed and under-funded civil systems. Others are torn by armed conflict and human suffering that push enforcement of environmental laws to the fringes of the political priority list. As an experienced environmental prosecutor, I know how hard it is to achieve compliance particularly with environmental laws which are often perceived as not posing the type of immediate threat to public safety that ordinary crimes are -- even in a stable democracy such as the United States. I also know what happens without enforcement: Very little.

Beyond my experience as a prosecutor, I also have a personal connection with a story that proves this point. That experience is with the tale of two modest Central American nations, Costa Rica and Nicaragua -- neighbors who share a long common border, similar environmental laws -- and vastly different records of enforcement. I've watched this tale unfold first-hand for nearly 30 years during frequent visits to the region to help with family businesses in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. (The family coffee farm there is Rainforest Alliance-certified.)

When economic expansion, cheap credit for cattle and laws favoring deforestation all contributed to a dramatic loss of Costa Rica's lush tropical rain forest between 1950 and the mid-1980s, alarm bells went off in the corridors of power. Vast stretches of remaining public forest land were placed under protection, national parks were expanded and reforestation projects launched. With a well-established rule of law and functioning government institutions, the protection worked. A quarter of the nation's territory is national forest land. Forests on privately-owned land are protected with the help of FUNDECOR (Foundation for the Development of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range), a non-profit foundation established to protect Costa Rica's tropical forests. Under a FUNDECOR program, revenue from taxes on gasoline and tourism are used to pay farmers not to cut forested areas of their land. Those monitoring the program say the compliance rate of private landowners is high -- 99 percent, according to one estimate. Moreover, although the situation is far from perfect, in many areas of the country, people really do comply with laws restricting logging.

As a result, Costa Rica's rainforest, which had shrunk from about 60 percent to around a quarter of the country's land area between 1950 and the mid-1980s, began growing again and today once again covers over half the country. Shrewd political leadership coupled with some slick marketing has leveraged the richness of those forests into one of the country's biggest commercial assets. Eco-tourism today is a huge money-spinner and President Oscar Arias talks about a new goal to make Costa Rica the first nation in the world to become carbon neutral by 2021, in time for the country's 200th birthday.

The ingredients to this success: political stability, functioning institutions, a respect for the rule of law, a strong economy and a stable middle class that values quality of life issues, such as a clean environmental quality. Now, with huge economic benefit from eco-tourism, strong environmental practices play an additional role. They protect an important commercial asset. The consistency of Costa Rica's enforcement of environmental laws -- and other legislation -- also creates a level of predictability that encourages new investment across a broad cross-section of the economy.

In neighboring Nicaragua, the story is very different. With income levels about one-fifth of those in Costa Rica, Nicaragua is the second poorest country in the hemisphere (behind Haiti). Poverty, together with a history of political turmoil through much of the past century, have left Nicaragua's government institutions woefully under-funded, inefficient and open to corruption. There is no well-developed culture of compliance with environmental laws or consistent enforcement to assure such compliance. The judicial system is weak and there is no clearly defined political vision of what to do with the forested land.

Because of this, illegal logging operations all too often out-muscle municipal authorities who are responsible for forest management but have few of the resources needed to fulfill the task. Today, Nicaragua's forests occupy roughly half the territory they covered in 1950 and continue to shrink in size, albeit at a slower pace than a decade ago. A dramatic turn-around any time soon seems too much to hope for.

My point here is that it will be critical to focus in Copenhagen on steps that take the realities on the ground into consideration. Only such steps can make a difference. Environment specialist Michael Levi at the Council on Foreign Relations is correct when he calls it "a waste of time" to focus too heavily on near-term, legally binding carbon emissions caps for developing countries. They may sound serious, but, as Levi points out, they are largely toothless. Verification is difficult and punitive measures highly unlikely.

There's no silver bullet that can resolve the carbon emissions problem in Copenhagen, but there are steps that can be taken to help developing nations strengthen their institutions and, with that, enforcement.

Under provisions of the Central America Free Trade Agreement's (CAFTA) environmental chapter, for example, the United States is working with governments in the region, including Nicaragua, on a program to strengthen environmental legislation. This work includes a public awareness campaign about a provision in the agreement that enables individuals to sue for compliance.

Shortly after coming to office, the Obama administration declared it planned tough enforcement of environmental provisions in America's trade agreements. Such steps are crucial because the sooner developing countries learn there is a visible upside to responsible environmental practices then pressing for enforcement will be seen more as an asset than a liability. Then we will be on the way to real change.

Making Smart Choices for America's Clean Energy Future

2009-06-18T21:36:25Z

According to an assessment by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world is going to invest more than $16 trillion in energy by 2030.

There are two ways that we can invest this money: a smart way and a dumb way. If we invest wisely, we will move America to a new clean energy future that makes us a leader for the 21 century. But if we stumble and invest in an unwise way - focusing on old, dirty technologies and fossil fuels - we will end up being left behind.

As two new reports released today show, America can benefit greatly from significant energy investments in clean energy-if we are smart. If we are smart, we will create millions of new jobs, increase our energy independence, and protect the planet from global warming pollution. And these will be opportunities for people across all income and education levels - with even more opportunities for advancement.

If we are smart, we will use this investment to increase our energy efficiency - through weatherization and retrofits. This will save consumers on their utility bills.

If we are smart, we will increase people's access to public transportation thereby lowering people's living expenses.

For too long, we've looked at economic opportunity and protecting the environment as being in conflict with each other. But, this view is at odds with the growing body of evidence that demonstrates we can strengthen our economy and fight global warming. We can shift to clean energy, protect the planet and create new opportunities for families - and we can do this all at the same time.

Today, NRDC is helping to release two major reports from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (PERI). One is co-authored by NRDC and Green For All. The other is a complementary report by PERI and the Center for American Progress (CAP).

The NRDC/Green For All report, called "Green Prosperity: How Clean-Energy Policies Can Fight Poverty and Raise Living Standards in the United States," shows that shifting from traditional fossil fuel to clean energy will improve the standard of living for millions of Americans across all skill and education levels, especially among lower-income families. Nearly half of the 1.7 million new jobs created by a $150 billion clean energy investment will be accessible to workers with relatively low levels of formal education. Of these, nearly 75 percent will have high potential for advancement. Plus, there will be additional opportunities to lower monthly energy and transportation costs.

The other report, "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" presents a broader view - showing how the combination of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) could serve as the foundation for bringing total clean-energy investments in the United States to approximately $150 billion per year, creating 1.7 million jobs. That kind of growth would create nearly a 1 percent drop in the national unemployment rate.

And what about the concerns that we sometimes hear that low-income Americans would be left behind if our nation addresses climate change?

It turns out that's just not true. The NRDC/Green For All report concludes that half of the net new jobs created by clean-energy investment will be accessible to workers with relatively low levels of formal education. (You can learn more about clean energy jobs at http://www.nrdc.org/energy/greenjobs/ .)

What's particularly significant about the types of jobs created by clean energy is that compared to fossil-fuel energy jobs there is a much greater opportunity for upward advancement. Three out of every four clean-energy jobs are accessible to people with just a high-school education are upwardly mobile jobs, meaning they provide the opportunity for advancement and higher income, giving people the power to lift themselves out of poverty.

Consider these additional findings:

Major investments in clean energy will mean significant improvements in energy efficiency in buildings and homes, lowering overall energy costs for consumers, especially for lower-income households. These savings could be as high as 4 percent of household incomes for some families.

New investments in clean energy will also boost public transportation, especially in urban areas with disproportionately-large populations of lower-income families. Increased investment in public transportation could lead to an average reduction in living costs of 1 to 4 percent per family.

Now we just have to sure to make the right choices to make those green jobs and other benefits for lower-income Americans happen. And America may soon have this opportunity with the clean energy and climate legislation currently moving trough Congress.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), that is moving through the House, is likely to be an extremely important driver of the clean energy investments that American needs. While the bill is not perfect, we need to move forward with this legislation to ensure that we can shift to clean energy future that will deliver millions of new jobs, cut global warming pollution and create new opportunities.

Now is the time for leaders in Congress to move America in a new direction. Now is the time for leaders to make smart choices for all Americans.

Green Jobs to Meet America's Economic, Energy and Environmental Challenges

2009-02-06T18:09:37Z

I had the pleasure of speaking at the national Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference in Washington, D.C. yesterday. This was a truly remarkable event that brought together thousands of people -- from steelworkers to business leaders to students to environmentalists.

The green jobs movement seeks jobs that can both provide a dignified life and a decent wage and protect our health and climate. This effort is the most recent of those inspiring moments when ordinary people, with extraordinary commitments to making the world a better place, succeeded. These movements of ordinary people drove the affirmation and expansion of civil rights; the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively; and the cleanup of dangerous pollution in our neighborhoods.

One feature of these pivotal moments is that they brought together many different people who nonetheless share common goals, common challenges, and common opportunities. This moment, as the earlier ones, also is in part sparked by a crisis. Today a new President and a new Congress face an economy in crisis, a planet in peril, and an outdated energy infrastructure that cannot meet the demand for the future.

These challenges also bring us an opportunity. The opportunity to come together and make a reality of our vision of an economy powered by clean efficient energy, mobilized by clean efficient transportation systems, and employing tens of millions of people with good-paying jobs.

The economic system and the world eco-system are linked. What happens in and to our system deeply affects the other. Both are sending us strong signals that we cannot delay action to save our planet.

While almost everyone agrees that global warming is real and man-made, there are still those who are fighting to stop action on the environment. These are groups who say that climate policy is too costly for business or that the economic downturn means that we cannot take on a climate bill at this time.

But, we say this is our time and we cannot afford to delay.

The last eight years have been about delays and now it is time for action. A comprehensive federal climate policy that is fair, flexible and far-sighted is essential to meeting these goals.

Dollar for dollar, investing in clean energy creates more jobs than investing in traditional energy like oil and gas. In fact, investing in clean energy would create four times as many jobs as would result from spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.

Investing in public transportation projects and highway repairs will also maximize job creation and avoid wasting taxpayer dollars. For every $1.25 billion invested in public transportation projects, 51,300 people are employed. Investments in public transportation create 19% more jobs per dollar than building new roads or bridges. Investments in road and bridge repair create 9% more jobs than building new roads or bridges.

There is a lot of work ahead to build the political will needed to generate the momentum for this vision. We believe that by working together- with our partners in government, labor, business, and environmentalists-we can rebuild America and transform our nation with a new clean energy future. Americans have the ingenuity, skills and determination to make this future a reality -- and we can do it together by starting today.

We cannot get to these solutions piecemeal. We need a comprehensive global warming policy. That's why we need to work together to create the political will to move forward on broad climate change legislation this year.

No Time for Waste: Building an Environmental Economy

2008-12-05T15:47:04Z

In electing Barack Obama to be the 44th president of the United States, many important real and symbolic transformations occurred, among them a call for a new green economy. The president elect has promised a $150 billion “Apollo Project,” a new alternative energy economy to create jobs and build a secure energy future for the country.

This couldn’t come soon enough. Today, as a nation, and as a world community, we are facing two major crises: the dramatic contraction of inflated economies and climate change. The election marked the rejection of the tired palaver that we cannot advance the economy and our environmental health at the same time. Now we can move to the reality that economic prosperity and ecological sustainability go hand-in-hand. Investing in a green economy is the best way to support them both.

While we rethink our investments and reflect on our priorities, it’s crucial to keep in mind that efficiency is key to both financial and climate recovery. It sounds simple, but now, more than ever, we can’t afford to waste 90% of the energy used to turn on a light bulb on heat waste. We can’t afford to heat and cool the great outdoors because of uninsulated, leaky buildings. We can’t afford to waste oil, imported or domestic, going at 20 miles per gallon. We can’t afford to waste billions of government dollars building new highways where they aren’t necessary, condemning people to massive commutes. With $700 billion and more gone to support the financial markets, we don’t have the money to waste.

We need a comprehensive approach to energy, environment and economy solutions that will pull us out of these challenging times. By rising to this challenge, we can inject money into the economy, put Americans to work, create new, renewable energy industries, cut our dependence on oil and other dirty fuels, and reduce global warming pollution.

These investments must come soon, which is why we need both immediate and long-term solutions for economic revitalization. There are six areas, identified in a report by the Center for American Progress, where our investments could generate significant returns: (1) investing in our transportation infrastructure by expanding transit and freight rail, (2) making buildings more energy efficient, (3) wind power, (4) solar power, (5) advanced biofuels, (6) and updating our electricity grids.

Many of these investments have immediate results with long-term benefits. They will give people more transportation options. They will reduce gas, heat, and electricity bills. They will demonstrate our country’s ability to mobilize, take on energy challenges, and reduce global warming pollution.

And best of all, they will create good jobs for jobs for electricians, welders, engineers, metal workers, machinists, truck drivers, roofers, insulators and building inspectors...to name a handful of the millions of beneficiaries. According to the same study, if we implement a green economic recovery program in early 2009, we would reduce the number of unemployed people to 6.8 million, down from 8.8 million, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.4 percent from 5.7 percent (the Center for American Progress study was released September 9; unemployment rates hit 6.5% this October).

These are programs, jobs, and investments that can be implemented across the globe. Energy efficiency is crucial in the United States, and luckily, we have to wait less than 40 days for the Bush administration – and all its inaction on combating climate change – to come to an end. But, addressing a global problem requires a global solution.

Still we can begin at home to set an example on how to address the challenges of climate change and lift up our enfeebled economy. We need to stop any additional investment in carbon-intensive energy technologies such as pulverized coal power plants and inefficient buses. We need to redraft our national transportation policy. We need a long-term mandatory and declining cap on carbon emissions that covers all sectors of the economy. And we need complementary performance standards on buildings, fuels, vehicles, appliances, and electricity. In this alone can we improve our environmental and economic health.

Why Dirty Fuel Companies Should be Worrying

2008-10-27T16:43:23Z

Almost every day now, a major media outlet carries a story about the dangers to alternative energy development because of the economic crisis rippling across the world. What you aren't reading much of anything about in the mainstream media today is the fact that the people who really should be worrying today are dirty energy executives and investors.

On Thursday, for example, Consol Energy reported that the credit crunch had caused its main partner on a major coal conversion plant in West Virginia to hit the silk and bail out. As the Associated Press reported: "Credit woes have dealt a major setback to Consol Energy's plans for an $800 million plant capable of converting coal into methanol and 100 million gallons of gasoline annually ... Houston-based Synthesis Energy Systems Inc. has allowed its development agreement with Consol to expire, saying it can't secure financing in the current credit market."

It's not just Consol Energy and Synthesis that are on the rocks. Credit crunch woes are rippling through other coal-fired power and nuclear plants nationwide. It's enough to make you wonder why the Washington Post is speculating about potential problems for renewable energy when there are unmistakably real problems for coal and nuclear plants that are actually dying on the vine today. The bottom line is that a passing credit crunch and downward dip in energy crisis is not the basis on which decision makers will proceed with clean energy. A new report from the Asset Management Division of Deutsche Bank (DeAM) released Thursday makes it clear that - credit crunch or no credit crunch - we need to move ahead with clean energy and other climate solutions:

"... the accelerating pace of global warming will force governments to invest more heavily in climate change mitigation and adaptation despite the financial setbacks of the current market crash. 'Investing in Climate Change 2009 -- Necessity and Opportunity in Turbulent Times,' authored by DeAM's Global Climate Change Investment Research team, provides a detailed analytical framework for understanding the opportunities for investing in climate change. But it also says that an economic downturn offers governments across the developed world a prime opportunity to boost their spending on 'green' infrastructure as a stimulus to avoid severe recession.

According to Mark Fulton, DeAM's Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research, "The current crisis is making the necessity of tackling climate change an opportunity to stimulate growth through investment opportunities."

"Encouraging investment in renewable energy is a key focus," Fulton adds. "Energy efficiency technologies are obviously highly desirable in economies facing recession. Infrastructure stimulus can be tied directly to climate-sensitive sectors such as power grids, water, buildings, and public transport, which present a vast field for the creation of new technologies and jobs. Governments have before them a historic opportunity to 'climate proof' their economies' as they upgrade infrastructure as a core response to any economic downturn.' "

History will likely show that the mainstream media is getting it wrong. We are on the path to the clean energy future. It is going to be a good thing ... and there's no turning back now.

We’re Drowning In Our Own Trash

2008-07-11T19:05:37Z

Thomas Malthus has suddenly become popular again. While Americans are concerned about fuel prices, much of the rest of the world is concerned about food prices. In countries like Egypt and Bangladesh, and in regions of Africa, riots have erupted over a shortage of food. In other countries, like China and India, when rice is shipped, it’s shipped under the protection of armed guards.

Global production simply can’t keep up with global consumption. And so people are asking: Was Malthus right?

Malthus, an economist and demographer from the 19th century, is known for predicting that population growth moves more quickly than the expansion of food production. As he former moves geometrically, and the latter arithmetically, its inevitable that population overcomes production. As a result, Malthus predicted, people will starve.

Many experts now believe that the 19th century proved Malthus incorrect. The Green Revolution increased global food production, helping it keep pace with global population growth. It allowed us to keep consuming.

But with anything you produce, you also have waste. And, given the growing consumption, unless one is very careful about production technologies, you have waste on a massive scale. As photographs by Chris Jordan and our daily experience of taking out the trash and seeing litter everywhere can testify, our consumption of goods leads to an overwhelming volume of trash. So much so that the scale of the numbers can be difficult to comprehend. Consider some numbers Jordan uses:

Two million plastic beverage bottles are used in the US every five minutes.
1.14 million brown paper supermarket bags are used in the US every hour.
426,000 cell phones are retired in the US every day.
While 106,000 aluminum cans are used in the US every thirty seconds.

And that’s just the waste we can see. Waste gases from power plants are filling the air that we breathe, leading to the early deaths of tens of thousands of American and hundreds of thousands or millions around the world. Invisible carbon dioxide is turning the oceans so acidic that shell fish are having a harder time growing their shells while it changes our entire planet’s climate.

The point here is pretty clear. We’re drowning in a sea of our own waste.

This point changes the way we have to understand Malthus. For him, it was a two-way balance between consumption and production. Now, it’s a three-way balance between production, consumption, and waste.

And it’s no longer simply a question of whether we can have another Green Revolution to increase production, because even if we did that we would only increase our waste problem.

We have to begin addressing this question of waste. If we are to feed more people – and we will have to, given predictions of global population growths – than we should also free more people of the sea of garbage and poison and waste our production has created.

Part of this will be to examine of our own, personal consumption habits. Each of us should find ways to reduce our waste, whether it’s by bringing lunch to work, or by using cloth bags at the grocery store, or by driving smaller cars. Whatever it is that works for you, I’d urge you to try it.

Will that be enough? Certainly not. But it is a start. A start to be expanded on every day.

(Photo credit: Chris Jordan, www.chrisjordan.com)

Dear President Bush: No More Offshore Drilling

2008-06-18T22:03:06Z

Earlier today, President Bush called upon Congress to lift a ban on offshore oil drilling that was enacted more than 25 years ago. Since then, every President has extended the moratorium – first by President Bush’s father, in 1990, and then by President Clinton, in 1998.

They extended the ban for good reason. Offshore drilling is an enormously wasteful and dangerous means of energy production. Between 1980 and 1999, 73 offshore oil spills dumped millions of gallons of oil into our waters. Offshore drilling is associated with air pollution and land degradation, and with seismic activity that has been shown to have profound, even fatal, effects on marine mammals.

Nor will it do anything to reduce the price of gas or increase our energy independence, as my colleague Deron Lovaas said today. According to most estimates, it will take at least seven to ten years for the oil to go into production and even then it wouldn’t reduce energy prices.

And so what is this about? With oil hitting $130 a barrel, these are desperate times for the White House. For a former oil-man from Texas, the solution to an oil crisis means helping the oil industry, not the American public. As Ross Gelbspan said in his book Boiling Point, “Today, the White House has become the East Coast branch office of ExxonMobil and Peabody coal, and climate change has become the preeminent case study of the contamination of our political system by money.”

So let’s recognize President’s call to Congress for what it is: a political play for short-term gain that will do little to reduce gas prices over the short or the long-term. What this country needs is a plan to reduce our energy consumption. It doesn’t need another desperate move to help the oil industry.

NRDC has a plan. Solving the energy crisis should begin with energy efficiency. We need to improve the energy efficiency of our vehicles, our businesses and our homes. The cheapest, cleanest and quickest energy we can produce is the energy we save through efficiency.

In the short-term, energy efficiency can be achieved much more quickly than drilling for oil. In the long-term, it can reduce consumption, ease demand, and help to lower the price of fuel.

To get there:

We need to put a cap on carbon. The science is in; we can’t continue emitting at current rates.
We need to unleash the potential of current, available technology by getting it off the shelves and into the streets.
Third, and related to the issue of efficiency, is the need increase our investment in technology innovation. We need to work towards creating a low-carbon infrastructure in the US.

We have the opportunity to set this country in a new direction. That direction is based upon an energy policy that will solve global warming, enhance national security, and boost our economy. Energy efficiency has a leading role to play in that future; opening our oceans and our coasts to drilling does not.

Dear Senators: The Fight Against Global Warming is the Fight of a Generation

2008-06-04T21:22:46Z

When I walk into our New York office every morning, I know I work with people devoted to the environment. In my colleague’s offices, there are pictures of all of their favorite mountains, rivers and oceans. In mine, I have a statute of a polar bear by my desk.

For the rest of the country, there’s been some confusion as to what transitioning to a green economy – one built on clean, efficient energy – will mean for them. Who will be involved? Who will become green collar?

A report out yesterday Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Amherst Massachusetts answers this question. By looking at green industries like building retrofitting, mass transit and fuel-efficient automobiles, the report shows that the skills required by a green economy will benefit millions of U.S. workers already employed across a range of occupations, states and income levels. We’re talking about carpenters, electricians, machinists and truck drivers. Industries like solar and wind are only one slice of this story. Much of the transition will happen in occupations already familiar to Americans.

This means that solving global warming won’t benefit only the technically advanced. Instead, it means more jobs, and more job security, for more Americans. As the economy slumps, this kind of economic stimulus is precisely what the American economy needs.

It’s important to remember that as you’re reading this, the fate of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Bill – one of the most important climate bills ever proposed – is being debated on the floor of the United States Senate. I would urge our Senators to keep in mind what this report teaches us: that fighting global warming is the work of a generation.

And that the fight requires all of us. It requires action by the individual, by businesses, by government, cities and states. The good news is that we’ve seen a surge in support in recent years. I only hope our Senators will join us – and soon.