Why Stand in the Way of Green Jobs and Economic Opportunity?
America is faced with two failing systems: the economy is in turmoil and our climate is in disruption. Each one is critical to our survival, and each one needs to be fixed urgently. The fastest, most cost-effective way to do it is to mend both at once.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act will catapult America into the next phase of explosive growth and it will curb global warming. That is why the House passed it.
Now the bill is before the Senate, and urgent action is needed.
To vote no on the whole enterprise would mean saying no to American jobs and a sustainable future.
Yet that is just what a small but vocal group of naysayers is suggesting. They propose that in the face of the climate crisis and financial meltdown we should bury our heads in the sand. They advise that we ignore the growing market for clean energy solutions and let China and Europe lead the world in technological innovation.
In other words, they want us to look backwards and jeopardize our economic, humanitarian, and ecological well being.
Why do these forces -- the Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs out there -- want to stand in the way of growth? What if Americans had looked at Henry Ford's motor car and said, "No, we want to hold on to our horse-drawn wagons instead"? Or what if our leaders had looked at the emerging possibilities of the Internet and said, "No, information belongs in the control of the government, not in the hands of ordinary people"?
If we had turned our backs on these opportunities, think of the jobs that would never have materialized in Detroit or Silicon Valley. Think of where America would be in the global marketplace of ideas and technology.
We are poised on the verge of a transformative moment of growth and innovation. The process of refashioning our energy system into something clean and sustainable will generate growth across the nation. It will provide powerful incentives for individuals and companies to invest in emerging green technologies and the workers needed to get the job done.
The American Clean Energy and Security bill will propel us into the 21st century of clean, renewable energy. And in the process, it will:
• Create 1.7 millions jobs throughout America, together with the economic stimulus package passed by Congress this winter
• Give workers a chance to lift their families out of poverty, since 614,000 of these jobs will be available to people without college degrees or extensive work experience.
• Lead to a tripling of GDP by 2050, according to economists at MIT (even studies cited by opponents of the bill have forecast a doubling of GDP or more under this bill)
• Save Americans in nearly every state an average of $5.99 on their monthly utility bills, thanks to numerous incentives to make our homes more efficient.
Yet some people want to stand in the way of this growth. The course they choose looks backward, not forward. It traps America in the 19th century habit of burning rocks to make energy, and it leaves us vulnerable to the whims of oil-rich but unstable foreign regimes.
But worst of all, it profoundly undermines the health of our planet. Ignoring the reality of global warming may win elections for a few years, but when persistent droughts pit Denver, Las Vegas and Phoenix against each other in costly water battles, or when raging wildfires threaten communities from Salt Lake to Santa Barbara, denial won't be in anyone's interest.
We need to act now, before these global warming impacts hit Americans in earnest. And we need to do it before these impacts cause dangerous security threats. General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of America's forces in the Middle East, told Senator John Kerry that if we do not take action on global warming, "we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
That is the kind of future the naysayers would create for America. The American Clean Energy and Security Act would create one with economic growth, a stabilized climate, and American market leadership -- all built on clean, renewable energy solutions.
Which future would you prefer?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is a profoundly flawed analysis.
The Cap and Trade bill cannot save American's money.
If alternative energy sources were cheaper than the current ones we would be using them now. This is an investment in subsidizing currently uneconomic energy sources in order to reduce emissions of CO2.
Add on top of that the costs of regulation and paying Goldman Sachs to trade the credits and it will cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars.
That may be money well spent in terms of reducing worldwide CO2 but I think that is largely up to China and India.
"If alternative energy sources were cheaper than the current ones we would be using them now. "
Is a profoundly naive analysis.
The market is distorted by subsides, by vested interests, by lending bias, by allowing pollution of the commons at no cost.
Rooftop solar IS the cheapest source of electricity you can buy. 3 cents per KWH.
See my profile for proof and links.
You may be off by a decimal point:
It is a complicated calculation but even the people selling roof top systems put the cost at roughly $0.35 per kwh. Which is partly why solar sales dropped so much in Spain when they ended their subsidies.
http://gre
There's always Industrial Hemp for Fuel...it renews every 4 months grows anywhere doesn't get you high and we can refine it regionally even locally...
Too bad Obama is against science...
http://hem
Hemp 4 Fuel
Grow Here Grow Now...Baby
even if we do all the things liberals want, you still have china, india, and so on. here are some FACTS i found from people that dont have gov. funded projects, or thier hands and money in carbon credits, which by the way is a scam in itself- you can only put out this much "polution" if you want to put out more you have to pay more money, then its ok. hmmmmmm. looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.
1. the amount of coal china will burn by 2020 will send as much c02 into the atmosphere as 3 billion ford expeditions.
2. the main report from un ipcc is always embraced by mainstream media. but the un released another report on climate change in nov. o6' that barely received any coverage at all. it was the same organization talking about the same topic, but this report didnt fit neatly into the medias political agenda so it was largely ignored.
3.livestoc
ANY GLOBAL WARMING ACTIVIST THAT IS A VEGAN IS A HYPOCRITE!!!!!
"a small but vocal group of naysayers". Kind of like the minority of naysayers on this post, eh Frances?
This column puts on display a horrible understanding of economics.
The US energy production sector currently employs the following number of people:
Construction of power generation facilities: 137,000
Power generation and supply: 399,000
Production of power gen. equipment: 105,000
That is 641,000 jobs. Supposedly, the Taxman bill will produce 1.7 million NEW jobs? That is a more than tripling of the energy sector. I assume those new hires aren't going to work for free. I also assume that US energy consumption won't instantly triple - so it's not like these new workers will be producing additional energy for consumers. Consumers will likely consume LESS energy, because the bill artificially drives energy prices up through higher production costs (more employees producing the SAME amount of energy through comparatively expensive "green" methods).
The net effect is taking those 1.7 million individuals away from productive endeavors to produce energy in less cost-effective ways! And all the additional costs are passed to consumers. That is the very definition of squandering wealth - seizing productive people from productive endeavors and deploying them in foolish green endeavors.
crying wolf is not working anymore why?
I don't see any green jobs YET...and what I do see you need to go back to college for.
Ok, so how the living hell am I to pay that?
Baloney squared and cubed....
We need to SUE TO BRING OUR JOBS BACK...not everyone is good in statistics!
It's interesting. The only green jobs I see are the ones like Frances and all the strident posters on HuffPo have as president of this or that green activity program. Think they might have a vested interest in keeping the alarm going?
79 billion tax dollars and counting, spent to feed the global warming hoax and keep those grants going out to the scientists who agree with the policy.
http://sci
So, what happens when a state becomes a “green” dream like the people advocating for all of this energy control?
It ceases to be industrial, businesses suffer, manufacturing and production of goods and services crash.
Production of natural resources crash. Protection of natural resources crash. Welfare roles swell.
Government agencies increase their oversight of pretty much everything. California is the archetype.
ACES creates the Largest new Derivatives market in HISTORY!
And you have the gall to gall it a "Climate" bill?
1$ per ton carbon/pollution tax to pay rooftop 3 cents per KWH feed in tariffs and home loans to install solar. also regional BIoFuels which can be feeders for existing refineries.
1.85 per peak watt! retail!
http://www
http://www
see my profile for more links and details.
I always wonder what in the world a green job really is. Ritter of Colorado claims that we will be a leader in green jobs, but the numbers don't add up.
The first basic strategy of the greens is to use less. Now I'm smart enough to know if everyone uses less, we will not create jobs, but we will lose them.
I also know that wind and solar energy require approximately 20 plus times the subsidy that oil and gas get to be competitive. Now if you replaced oil and gas with technologies that have 20 times the number of employees that would definitely increase jobs, but I think that defeats the concept of good paying green jobs. If people had said to Henry Ford, you can't use the assembly line, because that wouldn't give us good "automobile jobs" I'm not sure who you would say was in the way of progress
Green jobs are like cotton candy. There's a lot less there than meets the eye.
This is the funniest line:
"What if Americans had looked at Henry Ford's motor car and said, "No, we want to hold on to our horse-drawn wagons instead"?"
You really should talk to Al Gore, who has said the automobile is the most destructive device man has ever created.
How about the endless articles on this site which say we should return to walking and riding bikes to save the environment?
"Save Americans in nearly every state an average of $5.99 on their monthly utility bills, thanks to numerous incentives to make our homes more efficient.
Yet some people want to stand in the way of this growth."
Wow!! $5.99!!!
Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
This "the sky is falling" routine is getting old. Will there be wildfires? yes, Have their always been wildfires.
Nonsense to the point of breathlessness.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
