Defenders of dirty energy like to pretend that having smarter climate policies (and more support for clean energy) would cost Americans jobs. Not only are they wrong, but - according to prominent business leaders this week [and a new study] - their "deny and delay" tactics are now turning out to be the true job killers.
Business leaders appearing in a town hall style panel this week at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada said that they don't fear new rules to better control carbon pollution. What they fear is uncertainty about what those rules will be. President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, was joined by billionaire investor T. Boone Pickens, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. One word was repeated the most throughout the entire afternoon session: certainty.
"We've got to get certainty," Donohue said. "People want to invest and make money. Tell us what the deal is, and let's get on with it!" Every panelist agreed that certainty was the name of the game for businesses and business owners who are struggling in a most uncertain time of national recession. Investors want certainty as well, so they know what businesses and industries to pour their private capital into, and what kinds of prices they can expect in the medium and long-term.
Unfortunately, America is getting the opposite of certainty - even in places where issues related to climate and clean energy were thought long-settled.
Take California, for example. Leaders in both major parties joined forces and have already passed smart, bi-partisan rules to better control carbon pollution in the state. California's Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32, or "A.B. 32," catalyzed billions of dollars in private sector investment in clean energy in the state--creating jobs, businesses, and new technologies. AB 32 sent a clear message to investors and businesses that clean energy will be the future economic engine for California.
It's no accident that California leads the nation in solar power, as well as in clean energy venture capital. It is also no accident that California has "the largest clean energy economy of the 50 states" according to a 2009 Pew study. This leadership is a result of state policies providing financial incentives for clean energy development, renewable energy and energy efficiency standards - among others. By implementing far-sighted, predictable rules to support a clean energy transition, the golden state was able to attract clean tech investors and firms.
But Texas oil interests conspired this year to upset the established consensus. They placed on the November ballot a measure to effectively undo the existing climate legislation.
The upcoming vote has introduced wild uncertainty into the state's policy environment, leaving businesses and investors understandably hesitant to invest more in the state. Thus Proposition 23, a dirty oil, dirty air initiative, threatens to annihilate one of the greatest foundations of business progress and job growth that the state has.
If Certainty is the Name of the Game, Then Proposition 23 is Game Over.
Proposition 23 would destroy half a million jobs in California (many in construction and high-tech manufacturing) by 2020 while costing the state $80 billion in gross domestic product. This number does not even include the $20 billion in GDP growth and 100,000 new clean energy jobs California can create in the next 10 years if its environmental and clean energy policies are upheld (and Proposition 23 is voted down).
The panelists in this week's clean energy town hall were absolutely correct - we need a strong signal of certainty for businesses and investors. Only then can we begin to unlock the private capital that has been sitting idle, waiting for us to get our act together.
Of course, California is not alone. The entire country is similarly being held hostage by uncertainty.
New York Times columnist and bestselling author Thomas Friedman wrote the book on scaling up clean energy. He points to Germany for a telling example: "Regulatory, price and connectivity certainty... explains why Germany now generates almost half the solar power in the world today. One thing that has never existed in America -- with our fragmented, stop-start solar subsidies -- is certainty of price, connectivity and regulation on a national basis."
Business leaders are ready to act, but they are waiting on the sidelines for a signal. Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp notes: U.S. utility companies today "are sitting on billions of dollars in job-creating capital -- but they will not invest in new energy projects until they have certainty on what their future carbon obligations will be."
Clean energy is one part of the economy that will continue to experience substantial growth, despite the persistence of a potent national recession. With our planet and pocketbooks in peril, the clean energy economy is helping to create jobs as well as fight pollution and climate change.
It's bad enough for business that China is now the most attractive market for investing in renewable energy; today the U.S. is ranked number 2 on the list, but where will we be in ten years if we repeal the most aggressive clean energy policy we have?
More certainty means more confidence on the part of the investors and businesses. And more confidence means more capital will flow to business investments. More investment means more jobs created for the 2.3 million unemployed California's.
Let's Get Some Certainty, Vote NO on Prop 23!
This article was origionally posted on Climate Progress
Follow Van Jones on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VanJones68
Further, the conditions set forth - unemployment rate below 5.5% for a full year is a pretty high bar designed to keep AB 32 perpetually suspended. From 1976 to present, the last time CA had unemployment rates under 5.5% for a full year was in 2006, 2000, 1989, and 1988.
What is the worse case if there is a bad nuclear accident? Yes, it would be an explosion and fallout.
Why do we not display this FACT and show what could happen versus other methods of energy?
NUCLEAR has to be off the table and if you want this to happen direct the question with a scientific answer and compare this to other energies. This is not a scare tactic but a fact accidents happen bit the question is what will be the harm and fallout.
Have you checked how much radiation is emitted through coal burning plants lately? Independent, non-partisan studies demonstrate that burning coal, over the operating life of the plant, places more radioactive fallout in the atmosphere by *two orders of magnitude* than any single nuclear plant ever has.
See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
How is this possible? Because coal comes from ground containing heavy metals. When the carbon is burned, heavy metals remain behind in the ash, including uranium, thorium, etc. It all goes out the smokestack.
Why isn't this FACT ever addressed by the anti-nuclear contingent? Because you rely on convenient scare tactics, that's why.
Busted.
The cleanest energy, least GHG's, least resources, and most renewable form of power is nuclear. It should be but is not part of the California or most other RES's.
Since the cost of nuclear is a tiny fraction of wind/solar and geothermal it would likely end further builds of these unlikely resources.
A worldwide investment in 10000 mass produced nuclear reactors paid for by ending expensive fossil fuel use, would eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives annually, end the global warming/ peak oil problem within a ten year time frame, provide a huge job producing boost to the economy, and require only a small part of our industrial capacity.
Sec Chu is slowly pounding into Obama's thick head that the US would need only $2500B in mass produced nukes financed by the $800B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal.
The Nuclear denying anti nuclear zealots with their opposition to the inclusion of nuclear power in RES standardes like Bill 23 are driving us right over that as little as ten years civilization ending Climate/Peak oil crisis with their silly "renewable" religion. Their support of Big Coal/Oil's anitinuke fight eliminates with maximum prejudice three million every year from coal air pollution, and seems determined to do in lots more folks in very big ways as they destroy Gaia.
Most of all, the point about 'certainty' is the key. Businesses will commit where government has made a commitment. It needs to be a commitment that can not be reversed or rescinded, and it needs to be backed by public sector investment. End of story.
A comittment towards what is ,essentially,a stupid policy,doesn't mean people will rally to it Calif has become a kind of negative example of what to do.I
You're trumpeting faith here."Something will work out.Just do what I recommend." I'm more into the logic business side of things. IBM used to have THINK signs posted on their office walls. They're on sale now !
This AB bill along with other concerted efforts will render futile, unless the U.S. trade/Commerce department, DOE/EPA shape the game for Congress and the POTUS to change the game for our future.
Side note: My son has taken Mandarin and Cantonese. Currently he is looking at taking Japanese and or German (as most of his advance classes will be taken in the Summer abroad in Japan and Europe). As I mentioned there is something so great about my son/but sad about this situation and his future.
This was back when conservative politicians believed in actually conserving something like land and air and livable places, and conservative businessmen actually put profits ahead of extremist ideology.
Conservation of natural resources has, in general, been the domain of the green party.
The problem we face is how to represent costs fairly on a macroeconomic scale, and how to make profitable the greater recycling of materials. I envision we need more companies who follow the "Cradle to Cradle" approach to manufacturing. It is the only rational, scalable approach towards meeting the demand for (near-)zero environmental impact while still maintaining a modern lifestyle within a capitalist economy.
1) Green jobs are created by the companies who are emerging to provide low- or no-carbon power here in California. Most of them started, and reside here.
2) Californians pay more for energy for many reasons (including wholesale power manipulation by enron and others), and have done so for a long time.
3) Mr. Jones DOES live in California, and has for a long time. He knows firsthand the effect an emerging economy based on sustainable principles can have.
4) California alone is the equivalent to the 5th largest economy in the world. Anything we do in this state has an impact, and that includes our role as a laboratory for innovation.
5) I'm not sure if you've ever started a business in California or other states (I have, both), and I can tell you firsthand that anyone doing business in California is already used to the state being nowhere as business friendly as other states. Name me 3 (okay, 2. wait, just 1) specific example of an existing California business that will move if Prop23 fails. Chevron? GOOD RIDDANCE.