iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Pfeiffer

GET UPDATES FROM Dan Pfeiffer
 

Now Is Not the Time to Wave the White Flag on Clean Energy Jobs

Posted: 10/04/11 06:38 PM ET

This morning, Chairman Cliff Stearns, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, told NPR that "We can't compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines."

This comment reflects exactly the sort of counterproductive defeatism that Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned against this weekend when he spoke to a group of America's most promising young solar innovators:

"The United States faces a choice today: Will we sit on the sidelines and fall behind or will we play to win the clean energy race? Some say this is a race America can't win. They're ready to wave the white flag and declare defeat... Others say this is a race America shouldn't even be in. They say we can't afford to invest in clean energy. I say we can't afford not to.

"It's not enough for our country to invent clean energy technologies -- we have to make them and use them too. Invented in America, made in America, and sold around the world -- that's how we'll create good jobs and lead in the 21st century."

The race for clean energy jobs and industries is on -- and it is a race well worth winning. The International Energy Agency projects that in the coming decades, solar power could grow to more than 20 percent of the world's electricity. Conservatively, this means that there is an economic opportunity worth trillions of dollars for whichever countries claim the lead. The global market for wind turbines is also growing exponentially.

But it's not just the vast potential of jobs tomorrow -- these industries employ a growing number of Americans today. In fact, business groups estimate that America's solar industry accounts for about 100,000 jobs and the wind industry employs 75,000. Should we simply tell those workers that we've given up on them?

A study released last month showed that, in spite of the intense global competition, the U.S. remains a net global exporter of solar technology -- with $5.6 billion in exports and an overall positive trade balance of $1.8 billion.

It is certainly true that China is playing to win. Last year alone, China offered its solar manufacturers $30 billion in government financing, vastly exceeding the U.S. investment. And China has overtaken the United States market share in solar power -- a technology we invented.

Chairman Stearns and other members of his party in Congress believe that America cannot, or should not, try to compete for jobs in a cutting edge and rapidly growing industry. We simply disagree: the answer to this challenge is not to wave the white flag and give up on American workers. America has never declared defeat after a single setback -- and we shouldn't start now.

America's entrepreneurs and innovators are still the very best in the world. Our workers are second to none -- and we have never been afraid of a challenge. It's time to do what we've always done in the face of a tough competitor: roll up our sleeves and recapture the lead.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director. This post first appeared at the White House Blog.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 256
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
S M V
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses
08:52 AM on 10/06/2011
This is really an easy issue to resolve. the simple and least destorting way to get people in the US using "green" energy and investing in it is to raise the cost of fossil fuels. So a significant tax on N. gas, Oil and Coal. So if the left really supports this then propose a bill that increases taxes in these area. To get support from the smaller government crowd all that is needed is a 10 for 1 match in reduced government spending.

So for every $1 raised in new energy taxes, cut government spending by $10. (Note: cuts must be actual reductions in spending based on 2007 actual spending base-line levels)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Dobbins
I may be dumb but I'm not that dumb
08:14 AM on 10/06/2011
Let's analyze the argument that "we should do it because China is doing it".

First, there are obviously a lot of things that we would never do because of that argument (repression of the internet, rampant water pollution, running roughshod over people's property rights ala 3 Gorges Dam).

China's energy situation is vastly different from ours, and thus their strategic and economic interests are. Their main resource is coal and they are only increasing its use to generate electricity. Meanwhile, they are trying to get electricity to the rural areas of the north and west. Generating via wind and solar may make sense in these applications given the remote locations and the cost of running expensive transmission to these consumers. Secondly, they will be growing the use of natural gas in their generation portfolio. They will be paying 3-4X the price of natural gas that the US does because they buy this gas on oil-related prices from places like Qatar and Russia. We have been blessed with abundant shale resources that gives us a significant cost advantage vs. the Chinese. .

What is promising is the technology for producing LED lighting, of which there are several promising US companies to watch over. LED lights could be a tremendous source of savings and their application is less intrusive than unsightly windmills or solar farms.

Just because someone disagrees with some of you here doesn't mean that we don't share the same goals of being more judicious with our resources.
06:40 PM on 10/06/2011
CHRISTMAS LIGHTS YEAR AROUND
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
02:21 AM on 10/06/2011
Another expansion, which means they're doing well enough to afford it. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8847613.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:48 AM on 10/06/2011
Must be several ad execs responding. Perhaps former Soviet propaganda ministers. Perhaps members of the oil, gas or nuclear energy disinformation movement. They'd have us believe that what's new is old. (Yup, everyone's been using a pv that generates electricity at night for centuries.) They'd have us believe it's inefficient, when the efficiency right this second is above usable levels and improving. They'd have us believe it's costly despite leasing programs and improved DIY start-up kits, tax rebates, power company buy-back programs and state grants. They'd have us believe it's still in development, when there are more than a thousand companies making and selling practical solutions to energy demands (both commercially and residentially - involving no compromises whatsoever. They use condescending statements like "silly" and "children" and purport to be doing anything but what they're actually doing: misdirecting and decieving. There's no solution, they claim, but to continue to spew noxious smoke into the air, foul the water, and delusionally regress to some trumped up primitive time. All blather and bloviation. Smoke and mirrors - the latter, of course could be put to more productive use. Plenty of used car salesmen have glommed onto this article like the lingering residue of the Exxon Valdez.
Here's one easy to use link that provides ample refutation and honest insight into the change that is currently happening: importantmedia.org Knowing the way prefered opinion-shapers like to delete and deny, I don't expect this post to last long.
11:35 PM on 10/05/2011
These are only red energy jobs.
10:21 PM on 10/05/2011
Silly Children. You talk about the "Advanced Green Technologies" and how it will create a "Green Jobs Movement". What you refuse to notice though is that "Green Technology" is NOT new. It is old, unreliable, and cost inefficient. No new breakthrough has occured in this field for 25 years now. The only advancements have been refinments of old technology. Until an actual new breakthrough occurs, there is no sense in turning over the economy to an inefficient energy supply. If you want to do that, then why not revert to equine/bovine power. It's almost as efficient, and employs hundreds of times more man power than green technologies. Hell, we could go back to fire and stone wheels. Just think how many would be employed then.
In other words, green tech is a false dream, and will remain a false dream until a world changing breakthrough occurs in physics, materials research, and engineering.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Style Doggie 3
09:16 PM on 10/05/2011
Look - if solar panels and wind turbines can be manufactured more cheaply in China not only is it not something we can't compete for, it's something we don't want to compete for. How do you see a vast potential for jobs in America... manufacturing solar panels? Are we going to take people out of information technology jobs and put them in factories on assembly lines or have them work as private contractors doing solar panel installation? You know where those job estimate numbers come from? Because solar and wind are so much less efficient as energy sources if you replace 10% of electricity generation from natural gas to solar you 'create' tens of thousands of new jobs because it takes that much more effort to get the same result - that's not wealth creation it's wealth destruction. We could recapture a lot of manufacturing jobs from China if you eliminate the minimum wage and ask Americans to man an assembly line. If you're not looking for that to happen, give up the ghost on green jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldarmy6
11:15 PM on 10/05/2011
F & F.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:18 AM on 10/06/2011
Maybe I should open up a deprogramming website. For you dawg: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/04/small-wind-turbine-growth-projected-to-keep-booming/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWayMan
05:44 PM on 10/05/2011
there is NEVER a time to surrender to short-term thinking conservatives who haven't a clue about the global economy.

because the global economy has already fully embraced green tech. there's no turning back at this point. all the money, political will and innovation are all moving in that direction, despite what short-term thinking tbaggers are trying to sell you.

so, for the US, our choice isn't whether or not to invest in green tech, its a question of whether we are going to be leaders or if we are going to simply be consumers while other countries lead.

cause the green tech game is on.
there's no turning back now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Dobbins
I may be dumb but I'm not that dumb
11:06 PM on 10/05/2011
I see name-calling here but no convincing argument. if investing in green tech is such a smart proposition, can you give us some examples of companies that have made profitable investments in green tech that do not require the use of subsidies or legal mandates? Until these technologies can be made to be profitable, we are better off spending more time in the lab improving these technologies than trying to rush something not ready for prime time to market.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWayMan
11:59 PM on 10/05/2011
anyone who doesn't think we should be investing HEAVILY in green tech doesn't understand the game or the global economy. and if "short-term thinking conservatives" is too harsh for you, you should take your thin skin and leave these boards pronto, cause that's nothing.

easy convincing argument:

the US has put $70 billion aside for our entire green tech initiative. wind, solar, all of it. meanwhile...China is putting aside $600 billion just for their green water conservation initiative. never mind wind, solar, etc.

so, china is already doubling down on green tech while we sit on our thumbs thanks to the repubs.

and if you look across the board globally, all the big players (germany, india, etc) have already put all their money, innovation and political towards green tech. they know that whoever owns the green tech owns the future. so now its either get in the game or get left behind. that's not my opinion. that's what's actually happening. that's simply the way it is.

with some time and R&D, green tech will obviously be profitable. and all the big players already know this.

the question now is whether the US will be a player in the game or will we just be consumers while others lead?

the problem with today's conservatives is that they don't even understand the question.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:21 AM on 10/06/2011
I see supposition, fatalism, and conjecture here, but no convincing arguement. Were you ever a smurf in your past life. What was his name? Grumpy I think it was. ("It'll never work.....")
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldarmy6
11:25 PM on 10/05/2011
The government should invest heavily in basic research advancing the state of the art of green technology. We as a country are not ready for the expensive proposition of full scale production. The $500 million given to Solyndra, would have been a significant plus to our basic research conducted in our universities and research laboratories. We will go green, but not now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWayMan
12:03 AM on 10/06/2011
solyndra amounts to 1% of a very successful program thus far.

for too many years bush kept us on the sidelines while other countries took the lead on green tech. the longer we put it off, the farther we fall behind. and the clock is ticking.

they idea that "we will go green, but not now" means we will be consumers while other countries lead us thru the 21st century.
01:28 PM on 10/05/2011
"Made in America" used to mean something, but it doesn't anymore. The cost of doing business in the US does not offset the increased cost which lowers the value of the product being made. There are only a few ways around this:
1. Have tariffs that artificially raise the cost of foreign products
2. Lower the costs to make US products
3. Keep the quality of US products very high to justify the cost thus retaining value.

As China, India, etc catch up technology-wise we always be at a loss with them increasing the value difference on more products.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:28 AM on 10/06/2011
You're making some sense. Other country's do operate under protectionist policies. It's time to modify NAFTA and "Free" Trade in a manner that fosters US manufacturing. I liked our President's idea of taxing US companies that outsource predominantly.
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
01:22 PM on 10/05/2011
That flag was waived centuries ago. Inefficient, unreliable, uneconomical.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWayMan
05:40 PM on 10/05/2011
the only people who still think that are tbaggers.

the rest of the world says you're wrong.
and all of the money, political will and innovation is already moving away from you.

any country who wants to be a player in the 21st century must invest in green tech.
if not, we will simply be consumers while other countries lead the way.
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
07:05 PM on 10/05/2011
The rest of the world involved with large scale "renewable" projects are bankrupt if you haven't noticed. You aren't moving into the 21st century trying to resurrect long ago proven inefficient and unreliable energy sources. You're just pushing the new alchemy.

Fossil fuels are 10 more cost effective, efficient and advanced than any renewable will ever be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:08 AM on 10/06/2011
Increasingly efficient. Increasingly reliable. Very economical. Given our closed system: very responsible and sustainable.
photo
Dredd
Our government is a wartocracy.
01:19 PM on 10/05/2011
Very true Dan. At a time when what it means to be "human" has been so revolutionized by new science, we need to realize, then grasp we are the environment.

Green is us.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-new-meaning-of-human.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bret Alan Cebulla
Aime-Toi
01:11 PM on 10/05/2011
All the brightest minds go into finance these days..not science.. Our country is geared towards it, by jacking up tuition costs making it the only viable option to pay off your student loans..pretty sad.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CompassionateDemocrat
Politically moderate, religiously liberal
01:35 PM on 10/05/2011
You forget engineering and technology which also allow the student loan payments to sting less. It is not the brightest minds that go into finance, only the most aggressive and that industry is on the verge of collapse. A course correction will happen soon, I hope, or we will all go down the tubes with them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldarmy6
11:28 PM on 10/05/2011
Our education system has failed us. It's time to do something different.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
11:53 PM on 10/05/2011
Maybe you could do some learnins from de Bible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:26 PM on 10/05/2011
Solyndra, Evergreen Solar Inc. & SpectraWat­­­­t all called it quits because the Chinese subsidies their solar manufactur­es energy cost. The Chinese consumed 49% of all the coal burnt on the planet last year! Why because at an internal cost of about $40.00/ton electricit­­­­y cost about $0.025/kwh­­­­. California­­­­, Massachuse­­­­tts, and New York average industrial electricit­­­­y rates are about $0.13/kwh!

But that's not the worse of it the Chinese are using old technology and dumping NF3 into the atmosphere in huge amounts. It's 17,000 times stronger than CO2 - long lived 500+ years in our atmosphere­!

Our government needs to take a page out of Corporate China's Play Book!

Give manufactures here subsidized electricity and bring back energy intensive manufacturing jobs back to America!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bret Alan Cebulla
Aime-Toi
01:12 PM on 10/05/2011
Pretty sure they don't have for profit utilities..which I'm assuming makes it cheaper.
photo
intolleft
ObamaTAX...getting you shovel ready
01:23 PM on 10/05/2011
"...Chinese subsidies their solar manufactur­­es energy cost."

So does the US, just not as much.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Guitarsandmore
devoted father, community activist, musician, reti
03:51 PM on 10/05/2011
Therein lies the rub. If we spent as much government money on renewables as we did the military everyone in the country would have solar panels and free electricity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DocJoseph
A bleeding heart will heal; a cold heart will not
12:19 PM on 10/05/2011
"Invented in America, made in America, and sold around the world -- that's how we'll create good jobs and lead in the 21st century."

Competition makes this scenario less likely to succeed than during the Cold War when foreign industries were still reeling from WWII. We can compete technologically (still), but the jobs won't be forthcoming. If people are necessary to a project, you can bet it will be:

Invented in America, made elsewhere, purchased here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elgeezr
11:53 AM on 10/05/2011
What we need are 3 different government funded programs: 1) One would go out & build wind powered generators all over the U.S. 2) The second program would be responsible for tearing down the wind generators built by the first group. 3) The third & final group would convert the former wind generator sites into parks. How's that for a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer monies?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jesster
12:55 PM on 10/05/2011
I suppose in some circles that would pass for "fun/funny" ? It's kind of long and dreadfully clutzy to be considered a "talking point." (at least a la Frank Luntz) - still it has that hollow drumbeat quality that cries out for "quotation marks" in the "used material" sort of way.

It's not annoying to me as a liberal - it's annoying to me as a human being. So you'll pardon me if when your "flag waves" I don't wave back....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldarmy6
11:35 PM on 10/05/2011
What a prune. That was wonderful sarcasm.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bret Alan Cebulla
Aime-Toi
01:13 PM on 10/05/2011
Sounds similar to the military complex.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
12:56 AM on 10/06/2011
Funny you should mention that. They're also going green, in a more realistic way. Tongue in cheek: no need to obliterate your enemy and permanently scar the countryside.