energy

Conservative Message Machine In The Service Of Big Oil

Dave Johnson — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:13:21 -0500

See if you can spot the common theme in the latest the conservative message machine pumped out today and in the last few days.

Heritage Foundation: Obama Keeps Turning His Back on Jobs:

This week, President Obama is again set to make a pitch for his latest plan to stimulate the economy, but meanwhile he is turning his back on projects that would put tens or even hundreds of thousands Americans to work. And he’s doing it all to appease his left-wing, environmentalist base at the expense of domestic energy production.

An editorial in the Examiner: Don't let Big Green stymie boom in energy jobs,

Thanks to the new technologies, additional vast untapped energy resources in Texas, Alaska and off-shore could make America energy independent in the 21st century, allowing U.S. policymakers to tell Orgazniation for Petroleum Exporting Countries nations to go pound sand. But Big Green environmentalists - and their political allies in the White House and Congress -- are determined to keep the country from enjoying this boom.

And the Examiner just the other day, Obama's EPA is killing the economy with costly rules

Under President Obama's hand-picked administrator, Lisa Jackson, EPA is hog-tying the economy with dozens of proposed major new rules. One of them, which is aimed at coal-fired power plants that generate electricity, will add at least $18 billion in compliance costs by 2020. As Kathleen White of the Texas Public Policy Center told the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, "never in its 40-year history has EPA promulgated -- at the same time -- so many costly new regulatory dictates. The rules on track to go into effect in the next three years could cost more than $1 trillion and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost."

It's not just the raft of new rules that is killing economic growth, however. Jackson and her EPA minions have been purposefully slow-walking the agency's already hideously complex process for approving permits in a crucial sector of the energy industry.

Wall Street Journal -- note, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and other Murdoch outlets are co-owned by a Saudi oil billionaire: The Non-Green Jobs Boom,

So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas.

... The ironies here are richer than the shale deposits in North Dakota's Bakken formation. While Washington has tried to force-feed renewable energy with tens of billions in special subsidies, oil and gas production has boomed thanks to private investment. And while renewable technology breakthroughs never seem to arrive, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have revolutionized oil and gas extraction—with no Energy Department loan guarantees needed.

Townhall: Dump the EPA,

Like a bad lover, the EPA is a nagging, beguiling mooch. The EPA unconstitutionally barged into our lives and we need to break free from this destructive relationship; let’s give the EPA a two-letter title beginning with ‘E’ and ending with ‘X.’

... The EPA’s regulations are so burdensome, sweeping and impractical that it’s nearly impossible for energy companies to comply without going out of business. Hence, businesspeople in the energy industry increasingly find themselves facing enormous fines and even criminal allegations.

... Today, tens of thousands of oil jobs (and therefore the public health) are in jeopardy because President Obama is citing faulty EPA data on greenhouse emissions to delay building the Keystone XL pipeline.

Townhall: Obama Gets Money Bonanza by Killing Energy Jobs

A coordinated oil industry campaign can have a long reach...

LA Times: Democrats need to get real about US energy policy,

Today's Democratic leadership has reached a nadir in rational energy policymaking. In the last several years, congressional party leaders have squandered opportunities for a nuclear waste management storage program and have shown opposition to shale gas production. This month, the party reached a new low: The Obama administration's delay of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, in spite of its promise of an additional 750,000 barrels of oil per day and the thousands of new jobs it would create, was an inexcusable political decision unbecoming of a pragmatic leader.

Sacramento Bee, Obama Again Fails Energy Independence for America

The anti-Chevy Volt theme is a little less direct, but is obviously in support of an oil agenda:

Townhall: Chevy Volt Batteries Catching on Fire

Drudge Report: Gov't Motors offering loaner cars to worried Chevy Volt owners...

Powerline: MORE GREEN ENERGY FAIL.

So, we learned in recent days that Chevy Volt batteries can catch fire in accidents. Welcome to the Pinto of our time. Oh goody: another product liability suit in the making.

Meanwhile, Google has quietly abandoned an alternative energy program that it launched with great fanfare just two years ago.

Hot Air: The untold jobs boom: Non-green edition,

But no… the boom in jobs and opportunity isn’t coming from “green.” It’s being found in “brown” – the same old reliable energy sources we’ve been dealing in for decades. Yep.. oil land natural gas.

... And yet, as the WSJ editors note, Washington somehow seems to continue pursuing policies which inhibit growth in these areas while flushing more taxpayer dollars we don’t have into technologies which routinely fail to bear economically viable fruit.

These are just from today and a few from the weekend. If you look around you'll see many, many similar articles and posts. If you look over the last week you'll see hundreds. If you look at the month you'll see thousands.

These can't all come from oil money - can they?

Super Committee Out Of Way - Now Back To Reality?

Dave Johnson — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:53:36 -0500

Let's hope that the failure of the "super committee" quest to take money out of the economy clears the media mist for a minute, so people can focus on real issues that matter to real people. What are the chances of that? Will our government now focus on creating jobs, reducing inequality, fighting climate change, providing health care, increasing justice, balancing trade, increasing education, enabling small business to compete against the multinational?

Real Issues

People are in the streets across the country, demanding that the government start addressing real issues that matter to real people. But the increasingly irrelevant Congress has instead focused on things like blocking the government from making school lunches more nutritious.

Create Jobs

We have millions of people out of work. And we have millions of jobs that we have been putting off getting done.

And, guess what, as of today we can get the money to hire those millions of people to do those millions of need-to-get-done jobs for the lowest cost in history. That's right, the US government can borrow money at the lowest rates ever. Marketwatch: U.S. sells 5-year debt at record-low yield,

The Treasury Department sold $35 billion in 5-year notes on Tuesday at a yield of 0.937%, the lowest level on record and below where traders expected the sale to come.

That just puts the lie to any claim that the world is concerned about our deficits, and that we "don't have the money" to spend on maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure. "The markets" are so confident in the US that they are offering to lend money at the lowest rate ever.

Climate

Maybe it isn't in the news like it was, but the problem of global warming and resulting climate change is just getting worse and worse, and may be reaching the "tipping point." AP: Greenhouse gases soar; no signs warming is slowed,

Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.

Did you get that? It turns out that the worst-case scenarios we heard about, back when we were hearing about it, were not as bad as what it turns out is really happening. The operative words here: really happening.

That is reality. So where is the government? Where is the media?

Captured

Why can't we get anything done for the people of the country anymore? Because our Congress and government is almost completely "captured." Watch this segment of 60 Minutes, in which convicted Congress-briber Jack Abramoff explains how it's done, Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook - 60 Minutes - CBS News

You let a Congressional staffer, or agency regulator, or even a member of Congress know that there is a "job" waiting for them later, and you get what you want.

Regular people don't have this kind of money to dangle in front of government and elected officials. It isn't just campaign contributions, it's lucrative jobs after you leave government, that is corrupting our system. It is corporate money, being used to enrich the 1% at the expense of the rest of us. The solution is not just to ban corporate money from our politics, it is to ban the use of corporate money for any purpose other than running the corporation. Otherwise it will just leak out and be used to corrupt the system -- and us.

I'm sounding like a broken record.

Five Biggest Right-Wing Lies About Solyndra

Dave Johnson — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:01:31 -0400

Oil-backed conservatives have been absolutely ecstatic over the collapse of American solar-power company Solyndra and the rise of China as the dominant country in green energy, because they think they can turn this into a story that makes President Obama and government look bad. It also gives them a bonus opportunity to attack alternatives to coal and oil.

So is there really a "scandal" behind what happened to Solyndra? Or is this just one more conservative smear, made up from whole cloth and spread around conservative outlets, talk radio and FOX News, hoping the "mainstream media" will be tricked into propelling the propaganda out to the public?

The Smear Machine

When Bill Clinton was president, conservatives developed and refined a "smear machine" technique of making up accusation after accusation after accusation (after accusation after accusation), repeating them endlessly and hysterically in conservative-funded outlets, and working to get major media outlets to pick up and repeat them. Unfortunately they were often successful at driving phony smears into the public arena. Even though the stories were invariably refuted after investigation, by the time each smear was refuted many, many more were circulating. After a while people began to believe "where there's smoke there's fire."

One such story that major outlets repeated involved the supposed "sale" of an Arlington cemetery plot for campaign contributions. When it was proven to be nothing more than a false smear, the repetition in major outlets was justified "because it's just the sort of thing he might have done."

In the 2004 presidential election we saw the process repeated with the "Swift Boat" smear that turned around Sen. John Kerry's lead in the polls. It was entirely a made-up lie, but the mainstream media picked it up and propelled it.

Since President Obama's election, right-wing media outlets have again been engaged in creating a constant stream of negative and destructive "stories" that try to turn the public against the president, Democrats in general and government itself.

We have been told that the President is secretly a Muslim terrorist, was not born in the United States and therefore is an illegitimate president and is a "socialist" out to destroy our way of life. They have claimed he raised taxes when in reality he cut taxes, that he "tripled the deficit" when in reality he cut the deficit from the $1.4 trillion hole Bush left us in, that his stimulus plan "created zero jobs" when in reality it turned around a rapidly-deteriorating economy, that he has dramatically increased spending when in reality he did not—all in an attempt to turn people against him and against the idea that government can be a force for good. (See Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law.) Accusation after accusation has been shot down.

The Top Five Lies

Now they're at it again, this time trying to turn the unfortunate bankruptcy of a solar-power company named Solyndra into an all-out, anti-Obama and anti-government attack. Here is a countdown of the top five lies they are telling about what happened with Solyndra:

5. The biggest investor in Solyndra was an Obama donor.
Conservatives (and now picked up by corporate "mainstream" outlets) make the accusation that there was corruption in the process by which Solyndra received its loan because a major Obama donor named George Kaiser is a major investor in Solyndra. The charge is that Solyndra only received the loan guarantee as a result of campaign contributions by people "connected to" Solyndra. The problem with this is that George Kaiser was not an investor in Solyndra. According to Tulsa World,

In an emailed statement to the Tulsa World, a representative of the George Kaiser Family Foundation said the organization made the investment through Argonaut.

"George Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan," the statement said. "GKFF invests in a globally diversified portfolio across many different asset classes."

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a philanthropic organization, which means Kaiser (or anyone else) could not personally profit from a successful investment by the foundation.

4. Green energy is a bad investment.
Oil-connected conservatives have been trying to kill off investment in green energy for some time. They see opportunity in hyping up a "scandal" over the bankruptcy of Solyndra as a way to attack the idea of developing a green-energy industry in the US. Just today, Heritage Foundation, which for months has been attacking the idea of creating green jobs, has this today: Solyndra Scandal Ends Green Jobs Myth. (I have several examples of conservative attacks on green manufacturing in the post, The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal.)

Just in the last year China gave $30 billion financing to 6 solar companies. If the benefits from developing a green energy industry that provides lots of green jobs are a myth then why is China putting so much into this effort?

3. The government lost money "picking winners and losers."
This is a core line of attack by the right. By tricking the public into thinking that the purpose of government's efforts to trigger a green-energy industry was to make money for the government by investing in individual companies, they can make this look bad because one company went into bankruptcy. But the purpose of our government's involvement in this is to help trigger an ecosystem around which a green-energy industry can grow. When a new technology is promising, it might be risky to investors, but very beneficial to us as a country to pursue it. That way we end up with a chunk of the millions of jobs and trillions of dollars that result. That benefits everyone.

The government does not operate like a venture capitalist, investing in companies with the hope of reaping a profit for itself. Compare the effort to trigger a green-energy industry to government-funded cancer research. Some directions of exploration don’t pan out. But you don’t know that until you fund the tests. This is what happened with Solyndra. The loan guarantee enabled Solyndra to get private investment, and hire researchers as well as manufacturing and other employees, to build a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in the U.S., to develop a supply chain, to buy equipment and the other components that would make a viable business. This was part of the stimulus and all that money was moved into the economy. And all of those are still in the United States, ready to be part of scaling up a green-energy industry. So where the country is concerned, we didn’t lose at all.

The goal was not to make Solyndra a successful company; the goal was to trigger an ecosystem for the green-energy industry in the U.S. Weren't the things the money was used for good for the country? Even though the company Solyndra didn’t make it, the money created jobs and leaves behind technology, equipment and facilities that other companies will use.

2. The Solyndra loan was rushed or pushed.
This loan originated under the Bush administration—and for good reasons. Following the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Bush administration began efforts to cultivate a U.S.-based green-energy industry. Solyndra offered a promising technology and applied for loan guarantees. Following a review by career professional in the Department of Energy olyndra was asked to provide more information. A few months later, under the new Obama administration, the same career professionals received the requested information and proceeded to approve the loan.

The Energy department imposed some conditions, and a few months later those conditions were met, and the timeline of meeting the conditions meant it happened under the new administration but was handled by the same career professionals. It was the right thing to do for the country to suggest the loan under the Bush administration, which did nothing wrong. Approving the loan under the Obama administration also helps the country because that money went toward helping develop that ecosystem that creates companies and jobs. Stories about rushing the approval are meant to make it sound as if it was done to help a major campaign donor who, as point #1 above makes clear, was not the investor. It is the only reason the timing is an issue.

The Number One Lie

And the number 1 lie told by conservatives is:

1. Something bad happened.
The right has been trying to push the idea that something bad has happened involving Solyndra. They are calling it a "scandal." But it is entirely a manufactured scandal, like those from the Clinton era. This is what they do. Nothing bad happened.

The supposed campaign donor/investor is not an investor. The timing of the loan is not suspect, it followed the proper, transparent, accountable procedures. The loan assisted the development of a promising technology. The green-energy industry stands to create millions of jobs and trillions of dollars for the countries that are smart enough now to make the investments that help them grab a chunk of it. The loan was good for the country, even though one company went bankrupt.

But by the time this smear is refuted, five more will have taken its place.

Today's Big Idea To Get America Working: Revive American Manufacturing

Dave Johnson — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:55:14 -0400

When President Nixon went to China in 1972, manufacturing was 22 percent of the nation's economy. It was still 20 percent of the nation's economy eight years later when China was granted most-favored-nation trading status.

We're all too familiar with how the story of American manufacturing goes from here. Some key points of that story:

More than 40,000 U.S. manufacturing plants closed between 2001 and 2009 (including 36 percent of factories employing more than 1,000 workers).
From 2000 to 2009, 5.5 million or 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs were lost.
The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.
In 2009, 1.2 billion cell phones were sold worldwide. None were manufactured inside the United States.

At the end of 2010, manufacturing was just 11.7 percent of the economy. (Meanwhile, the financial sector has grown from 19 percent of the economy in the mid-1980s to more than 40 percent today.) If we want to recharge the nation's job-creation machine, we must make manufacturing a larger segment of the economy.

For one thing, manufacturing jobs are more likely to be solid, middle-class jobs. In 2009, the average U.S. manufacturing worker earned $74,447 annually, according to the National Association of Manufacturersincluding pay and benefits. The average non-manufacturing worker earned $63,122 annually. In addition, one manufacturing job supports on average four or five other jobs in the economy—and in some industries far more. For example, (The Milken Institute estimates that every computer-manufacturing job in California creates 15 jobs outside the factory. And because innovation follows manufacturing, rebuilding our manufacturing sector is key to reviving our research and development capacity, ensuring that American workers benefit from the next wave of invention.

A bold jobs plan aims to boost American manufacturing by insisting that:

International trade be on a truly level playing field.
America adopt a national manufacturing/industrial/economic policy.
Congress write into law a "Buy American" policy for government procurement.
The administration execute a plan for capturing the lead in green energy.

Trading On A Level Playing Field

American businesses are not competing on a level trade playing field. Other countries pursue mercantilist policies, and we do not retaliate because we follow an ideology that "free trade" benefits us no matter what others do. We force American companies to compete at home with goods from countries that exploit their workers and the environment, thereby turning the benefits offered by our democracy into a competitive disadvantage in our own markets. The result is that we have built up a massive trade deficit, while losing millions of manufacturing jobs, thousands of companies and the ecosystems and infrastructure of entire industries.

China's mercantilist trade policies have allowed them to accumulate reserves of more than $1 trillion dollars. Imagine what it would mean for our economy if China used that money to place orders for $1 trillion of American-made goods.

The thing about that is, when you imagine what it would mean, you are getting a picture of what is has meant. All of the good those orders for American-made goods would do for us represents the bad that China's one-sided trading policies have done to us.

We had a trade deal with China. By definition that meant we would buy from them, and they would buy from us. China's accumulation of that $1.5 trillion means that they have not lived up to their side of that deal.

Trade Solutions

China manipulates its currency, keeping it artificially low. This has created a huge imbalance in world trade. In recent weeks we have seen the first real signs that China is beginning to let their currency rise. This could be the beginning of the huge rebalancing that has to take place. While the Yuan rising is a good thing, the U.S. government can help them maintain the rebalancing by applying policy pressures. (The Yuan may be rising only in response to Vice President Joe Biden's recent visit, showing that China does respond to policy pressures.)

The recent decline of the dollar has helped increase U.S. exports. It will help reduce pressure on American wages. It will make moving jobs to China less attractive to companies. It will increase pressure on China to bring its trade policies into balance.

But as long as China's currency rate remains artificially low, the U.S. government should take steps to address the imbalance. The President can "convene a multilateral meeting to address global imbalances and in particular Chinese mercantilism. If China doesn't agree to participate, designate it a currency manipulator. (China ships fully one-third of its exports to the U.S. and finances less than 10 percent of our public debt, so we have more leverage than some might suggest.)"

Other needed policies include border tariffs on imports to remove the price advantage of goods produced by exploited, underpaid workers, goods produced in ways that harm the environment, and goods from countries that are not democracies. That would remove any pricing advantage gained from not allowing people to vote and set rules that benefit themselves.

An idea to explore is a system of credits that can be used to allow imports, thereby balancing trade. A company that exports gets an import allowance for the same value, which can then be traded to companies desiring to import. Non-balanced imports would have tariffs applied.

We certainly need to remove tax benefits received by companies that close factories here and move them abroad; instead, impose tax penalties and fines. Don't let it be profitable to do this!

Create A National Manufacturing/Industrial/Economic Policy

Other countries leverage trade policies and public investment to benefit their companies and to boost industries within their borders. We're stuck with a conservative "you are on your own" ideology that says government should just stay out of it. This blocks our government from getting involved in developing national industrial/economic policies. The result is we send our companies out in to the world to compete with national systems and even our biggest companies are not big enough to win those battles.

Competing in the modern world requires a national plan for manufacturing – targeting strategic industries, coordinating research, providing incentives, training and modern infrastructure, ensuring supply chains, etc. We need national attention to the entire ecosystems that build and keep entire industries.

To this end, Congress should change the tax code to provide incentives for job creation and inward investment. R&D tax credits should help firms that not only innovate in America but also make their products here. Congress can lower tax rates for manufacturing activity in America. They can eliminate current tax advantages that encourage manufacturing in other countries. They can also eliminate tax shelters for hedge funds or financial transactions that have no real value.

In addition, Congress and states can adopt policies that help rebuild our vocational and technical skills programs, to address looming manufacturing skills shortages. Then we should reward companies that are investing in effective skills and training programs for their workers.

Scott Paul of the Alliance for American Manufacturing wrote this week that the President should "kick any CEO off of federal advisory boards or jobs councils who has: (1) not created net new American jobs over the past five years, or (2) is expanding the company's foreign workforce at a faster rate than its domestic workforce. Replace them with CEOs who are committed to investing in America. Shame is a good motivator."

Paul also wrote that "On the heels of the landmark agreement with automakers on fuel economy standards, secure an additional agreement from all foreign and domestic car companies to increase their levels of domestic content by at least 10 percent over the next three years."

Spend U.S. Government Dollars On U.S.-Made Goods

The 2009 stimulus had a highly publicized problem. Some Democrats in Congress proposed that there be "buy American" requirements on Recovery Act spending. But conservatives opposed that as "protectionist," so the provisions were softened. Then conservatives were outraged when stimulus green-energy projects "created jobs in China."

"Buy American" should be a mandate on all federal, state and local government purchases, consistent with our trade laws. There is no reason our government should be undermining American manufacturers. Our bottom line should be:

All federal and state spending should have "buy America" provisions giving American workers and businesses the first shot at procurement contracts.
New federal loan guarantees for energy projects should require the utilization of domestic supply chains for construction.
Our military equipment, technology and supply purchases should have increased domestic content requirements.
Renewable and traditional energy projects should use American materials in construction.

Fight In The Green Manufacturing Revolution

Do you remember how semiconductors were a major driver of our economy starting in the 1980s and 1990s? Then the Internet drove the economy in the 1990's and early 2000s? Now the world understands that "green energy" is the next big industry that will drive the world economy.

There is a green manufacturing revolution occurring in the world, but we're not in the lead. We aren't even seriously competing. Many countries are doing everything they can to move away from reliance on "dirty energy" from burning coal and oil. Among the most aggressive in this field is China. "In order to address its dire environmental problems, China is establishing millions of green jobs in the forestry, energy, and transportation sectors," a Worldwatch Institute article published this month says. "In particular, China is making efforts to use wind and solar power to greatly reduce China's dependence on coal and create jobs in the manufacturing of wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, and solar water heaters."

China and other major economies are not just trying to beat the terrible problem of climate change -- though this is a big enough reason all by itself. They also understand that reliance on imported fuel harms their economies. It drains their money and places them at the mercy of volatile supplies that are often from unstable regions.

We need to stop the energy policy game we're playing, orchestrated by politicians bankrolled by and beholden to the big-dollar fossil fuel industry. We need a green industrial policy to drive development of these key industries in the U.S. In addition, we need:

A carbon tax that will incentivize alternatives and move us away from dependence on coal and oil, while helping pay our bills.
A renewable energy standard, which will promote development of renewable sources.
Cap-and-trade legislation, which will help us fight global warming.

The House Democrats' "Make It In America" Plan

House Democrats have introduced a series of bills in a package called the "Make It In America" Plan that address many of these issues. This set of bills will create jobs here, grow the economy and reduce the trade deficit, all of which will help reduce our budget deficit.

However, the Republicans controlling the House have blocked action on these bills. Having helped set the policy backdrop for the decimation of the nation's manufacturing sector and the loss of millions of jobs, they are refusing to allow anyone to move in to repair the damage.

Key to getting Americans back to work and the economy back on its feet is to start making things in America again, and getting America out in front of the green revolution. Those who stand in the way are the job killers, obstructing our rebuilding of the American Dream.

Isaiah J. Poole contributed to this post.

Government Getting People Working On Better Buildings

Dave Johnson — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 12:35:30 -0400

For years people have been asking why we don’t launch a national effort to save energy and create jobs by retrofitting buildings to be more energy-efficient. Last week I wrote that even simple things, like painting roofs white can save energy and employ a lot of people. Finally a green-buildings effort effort is getting underway. Government can work, we can save energy, people can be employed and things can start getting better.

Last week at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) - America, Energy Sec Chu announced the Better Buildings Challenge that will begin in three cities – Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta. This is a partnership between government and business to begin retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient. Saving money and energy while improving the economy, the effort will directly create as many as 114,000 obs.

Sec. Chu said that energy efficiency is “the lowest hanging fruit” in fighting global warming, the country will save money making proper investments.

Some facts:

Commercial buildings use about 20% of our country’s energy. Add in residential and government, buildings use 40% through heating, cooling, lighting, etc.
The Better Buildings initiative will attempt to make buildings 22% more efficient.
This is a huge energy savings.
This will bring direct creation of jobs.
Businesses can then reinvest the energy savings back into their businesses, which will save companies about $40 billion a year.
The pilot program for this initiative will create more than 114,000 jobs.

Several companies have signed up for this first round, and $500 million financing is coming from Citi.

According to the representative from Citi at the press conference, they will devote $250 million aggregated energy finance. This will be an aggregation of energy efficiency in bridge to capital markets. He made of point of saying that while this is very small financing for Citi, he wants to stress while that they do most of their business outside US they still see US as important. So it is good for us, then, that Citi still thinks the US is important and is still willing to make a very small investment.

Bold JOBS Plan 1: Hire For Energy Retrofitting

Dave Johnson — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:03:05 -0500

Last week, in Jobs: It's BOLD PLAN Time, I listed three badly-needed plans for creating jobs:

* A 5-year plan to revive American manufacturing. This is how our country and our people can make a living again.
* A 5-year plan to bring America's infrastructure into the 21st century, making our economy competitive again.
* A 5-year plan to make our homes, buildings and electric grid energy efficient to lower our energy costs and reduce our imports of oil.

I wrote,

These are things that we have to do anyway. We have a lot of unemployed people, and any one of these three plans will put a huge dent in unemployment. Any one of these three revives our economy. Any one of these three restores American competitiveness. ALL THREE restore us as the economy leader in the world.

And, the politics will be good because it is what is needed and good for the country and everyone knows it.

Energy Retrofitting

So let's look at the outline of the idea for hiring unemployed people to retrofit homes and buildings to be energy efficient. How simple is this idea? It pays for itself by making our entire economy more efficient, lowering our energy bill.

In the 1992 Presidential campaign, Jerry Brown proposed boosting the economy and helping the energy/pollution/Middle East problem with a national program to hire unemployed people to retrofit buildings to be energy efficient.. 1992 -- almost 20 years ago! Imagine if we had 20 years of energy efficiency behind us!

More recently USW President Leo Gerard has been a champion of this idea.

Here are a few benefits of this idea:
1) You can start this right now. Tomorrow. This has been "shovel-ready" for 20 years. Pick a city, hire 1000 workers, train them, give them supplies, send them out block by block to work on homes and buildings. Scale it up to ten cities, then 100, then the whole country.
2) It employs people. This should be a priority of our government -- not cutting Social Security! Retrofitting a home or office building to be energy efficient is not a high-skill job. You seal up cracks and openings. You insulate walls and ceilings. Maybe you install double-pane windows, or reflective film. You don't need a college degree to prepare you to do this work.
3) It makes our economy more efficient and therefore more competitive in the world. The lower energy use reduces our trade deficit and reduces the money flowing to unstable regions.
4) The insulation, windows, reflective films, etc., should be made in America, stimulating our industries.
5) The employed are paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment and/or food stamps. The lower costs are helping people pay mortgages and businesses make profits. The supplies are helping American manufacturers.

This list goes on. This is a simple idea. The only downside of this idea is that it reduces our dependence on the giant oil companies that provide so much of the funding for lobbyists, the conservative movement and the Tea Party. (Which may be just enough to kill the idea.)

China On Clean Tech: Smart And Unfair At The Same Time

Dave Johnson — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:11:05 -0400

The rest of the world is realizing that extracting and burning fossil fuels as their main energy source is not a good, safe, sustainable and cost-effective approach, and is starting a transition to alternatives. This transition presents the biggest economic opportunity since possibly the industrial revolution itself, because in many ways it means rebuilding the entire industrial base from the ground up.

The rest of the world sees this and is fighting for pieces of that pie. The US doesn't see it (or maybe better to say a well-funded smokescreen is keeping us from seeing it?) and as a result we are barely even on the playing field.

And, of course, of all the countries that are fighting for pieces of that pie, China is fighting in the ways the China is known for. They are being smart and are using every tactic in the book, including many that violate trade rules.

This morning's Progressive Breakfast (click to subscribe) discusses the filing yesterday of a Steelworkers' Union complaint that China is subsidizing its Green Tech industry in ways that violate trade rules. (Of course, this is on top of the Chinese currency manipulation that gives Chinese-made goods up to a 40% pricing advantage even before we consider other factors) WSJ: United Steelworkers allege illegal Chinese subsidies of clean-energy technology.

The union's 5,800-page brief asks U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to take action against China's efforts to build its green-technology manufacturing, from compact fluorescent light bulbs to wind turbines. China has used "hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, performance requirements, preferential practices and other trade-illegal activities to advance its domination of the sector," the USW said in a statement.

Washington Post, U.S. steelworkers target China,

In its complaint, the steel union claims that China flouts WTO rules by subsidizing companies that export solar panels, wind turbines and other "green energy" products, blocking imports of those goods from other countries, and restricting the sale of hard-to-obtain minerals that foreign energy companies need to compete.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio backed up the Steelworkers' points,

There is nothing normal or fair about the way China trades. If we are going to compete in the global clean energy manufacturing industry, we need strong trade enforcement. Every day we delay enforcing trade rules, China spends $51 million a day to speed past us in the race to lead the world in clean energy manufacturing, while elbowing competition out of the way through unfair subsidies and discriminatory tactics.

I applaud the United Steelworkers for filing this petition, and urge the Administration to work without delay alongside workers and businesses to challenge China’s trade practices at the WTO.

As I said, China is being smart and we are not. This week I attended the National Clean Energy Summit where one after another business leaders, investors and energy policy leaders explained that our country absolutely needs to implement a comprehensive energy policy that includes a price on carbon and a National Renewable Energy Standard, to trigger domestic demand for clean tech products, which will trigger investment and growth of an industry that we can take out to the rest of the world and compete in this arena. This is what the rest of the world is doing, and we are not.

Treehugger, in The Great Chinese Clean Energy Export Scandal says this points out,

... just how inadequate US energy policy has been in aiding the development of a clean energy sector. Yes, China appears to be clearly and openly violating WTO rules by doing things like allotting extra land and giving financial assistance to aid its clean energy companies.

Treehugger concludes, "the clear answer is instituting a strong clean energy policy of our own."

Again, Frank Sobatka describes one of the main reasons for the problem:

The result?

If we want to stabilize our economy and bring back good jobs our country must respond to China's violations of trade rules. But we also must start being a lot smarter about fighting for pieces of the industries of the future. We need to get our comprehensive energy policy on line, with a price on carbon and a Renewable Energy Standard! We need to get online with a national economic/industrial policy and the apparatus to executive the strategies that get us there.

National Clean Energy Summit Calls For Government Action To Create Green Jobs

Dave Johnson — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:47:37 -0400

I am attending the National Clean Energy Summit 3.0: Investing in American Jobs conference in Last Vegas, hosted by Senator Harry Reid (who is spending the day here hosting this). The Summit is put on by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. This is a quick post, because I'm typing during the lunch break.

This morning's panel, Connecting Capital with Ideas, included a number of business and investment leaders. Naturally, since they are here at the conference, they are going to be enthusiastic about clean energy, but over and over the leaders and investors repeated that green energy is the next big industry, and will be transformative on a scale at least that of the Internet. The problem for us is that other countries have a huge head start. We have let our own approach stagnate for decades while other countries have seen this as a major opportunity and have done what they need to do to stimulate domestic industries.

Senator Reid was literally begging the Senate to pass the energy bill that has been held up by filibuster, saying,
"This is the future of our recovery here and the world. [Venture Capitalist] John Doer told me government needs to set guidelines, so private industry can invest. ... Trillions of private capital are sitting on sideline. We need to get the private sector involved in creating these industry jobs."

Venture capitalist John Doerr (Compaq, Netscape, Amazon, Google, Genentech) said, "the numbers are compelling, The Internet is $1 trillion. Energy is $6 trillion, 4 or 5 times as large. Innovation in energy is a really big deal."

Summarizing what Doerr said, from my notes:

30% of our country's energy is from overseas. We ship about a billion dollars a day outside US for energy.

Of the top 10 alt energy companies in wind, solar, and geothermal, how many are from the US? Only 4 out of 30! In the worldwide race for leadership our country is barely in the race. China is now the world leader in solar, advanced batteries, a few years ago they had 2% of the market, now over 50%. We are behind.

Total amount the government spends on clean energy r&d is around $5B. Americans spend more on potato chips than we spend on clean energy r&d!

We must get our private markets incentivized. More money flows through private capital markets in a day than all governments in a year. To do this we MUST put a price on carbon, this is the most important thing we could do. That would be the signal to the markets that these are the investments that will be rewarded.

Next is government energy efficiency standards and incentives. The way to create jobs fast.
.
In California the fastest growing part of economy is new green jobs. (California has a renewable energy standard and is implementing cap-and-trade.) 12,000 new clean energy companies just in CA. The payoff is all around country. If we fail, we put planet in jepordy but also the future of American economy. Green tech is the next great global industry.

Quickly summarizing the rest of the speakers, there was consensus that we need to put a price on carbon. This can be done with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. It takes government to set standards and guidelines before investors will feel that there is a sustainable market. Government rules create certainty, and this lowers the risk for investors.

Government has to create "home demand" as other countries have done. Other countries have set a price on carbon and have set renewable energy standards, and this has created in-country demand so clean-tech industries can grow up and then go out to compete in world markets.

Over and over again this was stressed. At a minimum, we as a country absolutely need a Renewable Energy Standard (also called Renewable Portfolio Standard), requiring that some percentage of the electricity produced in the US be from non-carbon sources, and then a US clean-tech industry will thrive.

This is a quick summary, stressing that we need that government policy that is being blocked in the Senate, to trigger investment that will begin to create a clean energy industry here -- and all of the jobs that brings with it. While we hesitate and allow our legislation to be blocked by representatives of Big Oil and Big Coal, other countries are taking the industries of the future away from us.

OK back for the afternoon sessions.

Obama's Speech - The Carter Context

Dave Johnson — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:37:37 -0400

"The moral equivalent of war."

Tonight President Obama will talk about the Gulf oil catastrophe, and, hopefully, overall energy and climate policy. A look back at President Carter's fight over energy brings some context to this situation.

On April 18, 1977, 33 years ago, President Jimmy Carter gave a White House speech on energy and asked the country to change direction.

"Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly."

Carter said solving this energy problem would be "The moral equivalent of war." Please, please read the speech, and its ten principles. It will help set the stage for understanding where we are today.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

We failed to act soon. And we face an economic, social and political crisis that threatens our free institutions.

It turned out to be a very, very hard fight. The right's new network of corporate-funded "think tanks" was setting up shop and beginning to spread their poisonous, divisive, anti-government propaganda. They didn't like the idea of government trying to solve problems. The big oil giants certainly didn't want government researching alternatives to their gravy train. We understand the right's operation today, but people did not yet understand what was going on because the country had never been subjected to a destabilization campaign of this magnitude -- from the inside.

You can really feel the effect of the right's campaign when you read a speech Carter gave two years later. On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter gave what is called the "Crisis of Confidence" speech. It's also known as the "Malaise" speech. I consider it to be one of the great speeches by a President. Carter again talked to the country about energy policy, pleading with people to take this seriously. He said, "The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

Well, we didn't face them. Instead the country elected Reagan who immediately took the solar panels off of the White House, killed mass transit and alternative energy programs and steered the country on a path of toward dominance by the wealthy and big corporations - especially oil companies.

Now it is 2010, we have been at war in the Middle East for years, carbon in the air is raising the planet's temperature and melting the Arctic ice cap, and ... the oil in the Gulf. President Obama is giving his first Oval Office speech this evening and all of this is the broader context. Will he take on the entrenched interests that defeated Carter and brought us Reagan and later the two oil-company executives who invaded Iraq, encouraged buying Hummers and left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit?

As Carter said, "It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them."

Energy speech:

Crisis of confidence speech:

The Blue Green Alliance: The Clean Energy Future Meets the Deficit Infatuated Present.

Eric Lotke — Wed, 05 May 2010 11:27:02 -0400

The agenda of the Blue Green Alliance is brilliant and visionary. Build a “new, clean energy economy in America, and put [people] to work creating the American jobs of the future.” The blue green coalition includes environmentalists and organized labor, and its impressive conference in Washington, DC shows both the promise ahead and the blinkered political reality of today.

Start with the good stuff. The country is turning the corner on the promise of clean energy. We can save the planet, put people to work and end our dependence on foreign oil all at the same time. It’s a win-win-win. The panels at the Blue Green conference explored the angles, from wind turbines to capital markets.

Some suggestions are obvious and practical and should be adopted immediately. A National Infrastructure Bank along the lines proposed by Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will help arrange financing. The R&D tax credit should be extended to support cutting edge innovation. When American taxpayers pay to retrofit American public buildings for energy efficiency, the parts should be made in America.

But that’s only the beginning. We need new mass transit within metro areas and new high speed rail between them. We need thousands of wind turbines on the land and in the sea, and we need solar cells on urban rooftops. Millions of Americans need work, and loads of work is waiting to be done.

President Obama understands the promise of the clean energy economy. He campaigned on it, and appointed Van Jones as clean energy “czar.” But Obama is running out of gas. Into obstruction, and out of gas. Van Jones is gone, and people talk about high costs not promising new investments. Deficits dominate the headlines. Obama’s energy is not on energy but his new commission on deficit reduction. Few are willing to talk about progressive taxation, financial speculation fees or other ways to pay for the change we need.

Yes, we have a deficit problem. But our obsession with it is obstructing more serious discussion about what do to about it — how to grow the economy, create new jobs and even solve the energy problem — if it costs money in the short run.

The Blue Green conference is proof that what’s lacking is not vision but political will. Our leaders are not conjuring up a new New Deal. Our people are not marching in the streets. We are not burning Wall Street tycoons in effigy with oil that leaked in the Gulf of Mexico.

We know what we need to do. The challenge is not just the clean energy economy. The challenge is to rouse America from its political malaise and see if we can muster the will to get it done.