Category Archives: Jobs

New Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Will Protect Children and Save Lives

By | Bio | Published: December 21, 2011

This is one of the best weeks I’ve had in a long time.

Right on the heels of today’s landmark court decision upholding European laws to reduce airplane pollution, we got another historic moment for the environment and public health.

Today, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson unveiled the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which will place our country’s first-ever national limits on mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

Every decade or so, the United States takes a giant step forward on the road to cleaner, healthier air. Getting the lead out of gasoline was one. Reducing acid rain was another.

Today’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, 21 years in the making, are a new giant step forward.

Power plants are responsible for half of all manmade mercury emissions, as well as 75 percent of acid gases, and 60 percent of arsenic.

Mercury exposure can cause brain damage in infants, and can affect children’s ability to walk, talk, read and learn. Experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year with potentially unsafe levels of mercury in their blood.

Many of the other toxic pollutants also controlled by the new rules — such as chromium, arsenic, dioxin and acid gases — are known or probable carcinogens and can attack the brain, lungs, liver, and kidneys.

Cost-effective and tested technology solutions are available to reduce mercury pollution and other toxic air contaminants from power plants by more than 90 percent. Many states have already led the way in adopting policies to control mercury emissions, helping to drive investment in technology solutions, but this is the first time we’ll have a national standard.

According to EPA, the new rules will:

  • Prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths each year
  • Prevent up to 4,700 heart attacks each year
  • Prevent up to 130,000 asthma attacks each year
  • Prevent up to 5,700 hospital and emergency room visits each year
  • Prevent up to 540,000 missed work or school days each year

The rules will also provide employment for thousands. The updating of older power plants with modern air pollution control technology will support:

  • 46,000 new short-term construction jobs
  • 8,000 long-term utility jobs

The value of the air quality improvements for human health alone will be as much as $90 billion each year.

I can’t overstate the importance of these new standards. We should all thank President Obama, Administrator Jackson, and everyone at EPA for protecting our air – and our health.

This is the perfect holiday gift for America.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health, News, Policy | Comments closed

Let’s Clear the Air: EPA Pollution Standards Will Create New Jobs While Protecting Public Health

By | Bio | Published: September 30, 2011

Opponents of the Clean Air Act have been yelling that this law’s life-saving health protections are “job killers.”

Just for a moment, let’s ignore the fact that these regulations improve public health and safety and save our lives. It is untrue that these regulations kill jobs.

In fact, just two small parts of the Clean Air Act — EPA’s Cross-state Air Pollution and Mercury and Air Toxics rules — would together create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years driven by new investments.

EPA’s new air pollution standards would limit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and other unhealthy pollutants that are in the air we breathe. Meeting the new standards, and lowering our air pollution levels, will result in investments in new pollution control equipment and power plants. It will also result in jobs for skilled professionals to do the work of installing and operating that equipment. That means jobs for electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, boilermakers, millwrights, iron workers and engineers – among others.

Among the economic beneficiaries would be the American companies that make pollution control equipment like scrubbers, dry sorbent injectors, and selective catalytic reducers. Take a look at this map:

Pollution Abatement Materials Companies

 

Click to view full-size map

The map is  by no means comprehensive, but it shows some of the companies in the eastern half of the U.S. that are poised to benefit under EPA’s rules.

A Case Study in Job Creation from Installing Pollution Control Equipment

Alstom Power’s James Yann testified before the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Clean Air and Jobs in March of this year.

He described some of the jobs created from just one example of a pollution control technology – a wet flue gas desulfurization “scrubber” that is commonly used to remove sulfur and other air pollutants.

Dependent on the number of scrubbers ultimately installed, Alstom estimates that these clean air regulations will create a total of more than 150,000 jobs over the next five to six years of compliance work. That’s just for direct jobs. In addition, tens of thousands of additional jobs would be created along the supply chain.

Here’s more details to show how it works: 

  • Scrubbers consist of a large number of components including pumps, electrical equipment and wiring, controls, and emission monitors (among many others). Almost all of this equipment can be procured from sources in the United States.
  • Erecting a typical scrubber requires more than 2,000 tons of fabricated steel delivered to the site. This steel represents more than 40,000 man-hours of production.
  • Assembly of the scrubber requires the most man power and a wide variety of trade crafts, typically lasting up to 30 months and employing an average of 700 craft people during that period.
  • In total, a typical wet flue gas desulfurization project will provide the equivalent of about 775 full time jobs over the life of the installation project, not including jobs provided for all the equipment suppliers and delivery services involved in delivering materials and equipment to the site.
  • Scrubber systems require ongoing supplies to operate including ammonia, lime, limestone and activated carbon. Companies making these supplies will need to create additional jobs to meet the increased demand as a result of EPA’s clean air rules.

Also posted in Business, Clean Air Act, Economics, Energy Technologies | Comments closed

Five Denier Myths about the Climate & Energy Bill

By | Bio | Published: July 6, 2010

Originally appeared on Huffington Post

Like the summer weather outside, the fight over a strong climate bill is heating up. The next three weeks will reveal which Senators are serious about fixing the world's biggest crisis, and which are worried about short-term political advantage.

At stake is whether the Senate will consider a strong bill that caps America's carbon pollution and ends our over-dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. Or whether the Senate will pass yet another energy-only bill that won't solve the problem.

Predictably, the "No Can Do" climate action naysayers continue to oppose to setting hard limits on America's climate pollution. And they're trotting out the same worn-out old arguments they've been using to oppose action for the last decade.

As we approach the Senate endgame, we want to use this opportunity to respond forcefully and directly to these scare tactics. Here are five reasons climate action opponents are wrong:

1) They claim a strong cap on America's carbon pollution will wreck our economy.

FALSE: This is the bogeyman of every effort over the last century to protect our environment and defend public health and safety. Power companies said limits on acid rain pollution would wreck the economy. Oil refineries said taking lead out of gasoline would wreck the economy. Car manufacturers said installing seat belts would, you guessed it, wreck the economy. History has shown that in every case, America's economy has not only survived but thrived under tougher environmental and public health and safety standards.

On this one, our opponents aren't just wrong. They're dead wrong. A cap on carbon didn't cause the current economic disaster. A cap on carbon didn't lead to one billion dollars a day going overseas to oil exporters. A cap on carbon didn't raise electricity rates for the average American home 42% or increase the average cost for a gallon of regular gasoline 138% over the last 20 years. A cap on carbon didn't slash American manufacturing jobs over the last half century.

It's the status quo that got us into this mess.  The best way out is to jumpstart the new green economy by ending our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels with a strong limit on carbon pollution.

2) They claim a strong cap on America's carbon pollution will undermine our economic recovery.

FALSE: They've got it backwards. Many notable economists, including Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and White House Economic Council Director Larry Summers, argue that strong climate action is the key for promoting economic recovery. It will encourage economic and entrepreneurial innovation and finally clarify how America will proceed with carbon limits. Without strong legislation, the uncertainty of EPA regulation and the threat of litigation will continue to freeze much-needed investments to modernize our energy infrastructure.

If you don't believe these economists, remember this: even if we pass a strong cap on carbon pollution this year, it won't go into effect for a couple years. That's how long it will take before the regulatory rules are written. This is one of the most compelling reasons for passing a bill now so we can set the regulations and begin cutting emissions in time to meet the 2020 limits.

We should also note that most short-term emission cuts will come from the "low hanging fruit" of promoting energy efficiency and investing in carbon offsets. Indeed, the House-passed climate and energy bill earned the support of a wide range of businesses, including several power companies, because it made environmental and economic sense.

3) They claim that America can transition to a cleaner energy future without limiting carbon pollution simply by passing an energy-only bill.

FALSE: This is the popular, easy-out position for politicians — just throw money at the problem. But, there are several major flaws with an energy-only bill.

Congress has passed 10 energy bills over the last 40 years, and none of them have even come close to launching the energy revolution we need to end our over-dependence on fossil fuels and transform our energy economy.

The math simply doesn't add up. Unleashing our clean energy future will require trillions of dollars in new investment in our energy infrastructure and technologies over many years. Such a large-scale transition will only be possible when private investors are given a clear market signal that the days of treating our atmosphere like an open sewer for unlimited carbon pollution are over. Without a strong cap on carbon pollution, we will remain addicted to the dirty energy of the past.

Finally, those in favor of promoting clean energy technologies without a carbon cap typically support taxpayer investments in handpicked energy technologies and programs. There are two main problems with this approach:

1) There is no way we can subsidize our way out of this problem — we are already running huge deficits, but even if we could find billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for clean energy subsidies, it will not come close to transforming our energy economy; and

2) This is a top-down, command-and-control, federal-government-picks-winners-and-losers approach that many legislators object to, and it will fail to achieve the most efficient clean energy investments.  A carbon cap will unleash the ingenuity of America's entrepreneurs, and they will find the most cost-effective technologies for reducing global warming pollution.

4) They claim this is nothing but an energy tax that will limit freedom in America.

FALSE: A cap on carbon is a pollution limit, not a tax. It is a proven way to ratchet down pollution in a cost-effective, efficient, sensible way. As pollution levels decline and we begin to end our addiction to fossil fuels, new, cleaner, more efficient technologies will fill the void.

Think of it this way — let's say you're a smoker. One way to help you end your tobacco addiction would be to tax cigarettes and increase the cost of smoking. If smoking cigarettes gets more expensive, you may smoke less. Then again, you may just pay the extra amount and find other ways to save money. This is how a carbon tax would work, and it's not what we're advocating.

A better way to ensure that you stop smoking would be to set a declining limit on number of cigarettes you can smoke each day so that over time you gradually kick the habit. This is how a cap on carbon would work.

As for limiting freedom in America, this may be a popular claim by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party crowd. But this flips the issue on its head.

Right now, we import nearly 60% of our oil and are beholden to the whims of the petro-dictators. We sit on only about 2% of the world's proven oil reserves, but we consume nearly 20% of the world's oil. Drill Baby Drill won't change the basic math in this equation.

What freedom-loving American would choose to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil or while relying on the finite and dwindling resources of the world's fossil fuels?

5) They claim that the environmental threat from climate change is overstated.

FALSE!: This one needs an exclamation point. The National Academy of Sciences and the science advisors to the last four presidents of both parties have looked at the data and are unequivocal in their warnings that global climate change is a potentially catastrophic environmental threat to the planet.

The next time someone questions the science of global warming, ask whether he denies that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas. Or whether she denies we are emitting billions of tons of it into our atmosphere every year. Or whether atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are higher today than at any time in at least the last 2.1 million years. Or that we just completed the warmest decade on record and that 2010 is on pace to shatter the record as the warmest year.

Each of these facts are measurable, verifiable, and not in dispute.

As a result of our 100 years of unlimited carbon pollution, we are witnessing the first symptoms of a planet that is transforming before our eyes. And what we have already seen should be enough to demand action.  Polar sea ice melting at alarming rates, seasons coming earlier, migration patterns shifting, the oceans acidifying, corals bleaching, glaciers retreating, wildfires raging out of control, mega-floods and severe droughts – these early symptoms are becoming the norm.

And this is merely the opening act. Over the coming decades, the planet will get warmer and warmer and warmer. Without a strong cap on carbon, there is no reversing this devastating trend.

On these and many other claims, the "No Can Do" folks are just plain wrong. The time for a strong climate and energy action is now. Please email your Senators today and urge them to support the strongest possible bill.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics | Comments closed

July 6th, 2010 – The voices of a new clean energy future

By | Published: July 6, 2010

Kansas City Star – Growing Green Jobs: A Conversation with Mark Izeman

Greening the economy – and creating new green jobs – is absolutely critical to successfully tacking climate change and many other global environmental crises we face. And these new jobs can at the same time jumpstart our economy and address our distressing unemployment rates around the country, especially in low-income communities. So, hopefully in 40 years, green jobs will be such an integral part of our economy that we won't even need to label such jobs as "green."

Indianapolis Star – Seize the moment to embrace clean energy

By Shaun Donovan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

At HUD, we recognize that homes are responsible for 20 percent of America's carbon emissions, and that the long distances families have to drive to get to work and schools contributes to our dangerous dependence on oil. That's why we're coordinating with the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce our carbon footprint at the same time we connect where we live to where we work.

The Huffington Post- “July 4th: Hope and Freedom in America”

By Representative Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon

While we have not yet achieved freedom from our addiction to oil, the dramatic BP spill in the Gulf coupled with unprecedented investments in conservation and alternative energy make it more likely that we have a sustainable path for the future.

The House passed historic legislation to combat global warming and survey after survey show a majority of Americans still support comprehensive climate legislation. We all still have hope for the Senate.

The Voices of a New Clean Energy Future is a series from individuals who understand the importance of passing comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation – business leaders, politicians, policy experts, and concerned citizens like you. EDF is proud to highlight their voices and contributions to the climate and energy debate.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics, News, Voices | Comments closed

Clean Energy Pioneers: Building a Stronger Western Economy

By | Published: June 25, 2010

This post was written by Dan Grossman, Rocky Mountain Regional Director and Senior Counsel to the Land Conservation and Wildlife Program at the Environmental Defense Fund.

Westerners are pioneering a new frontier of economic opportunity through homegrown clean energy solutions. The Clean Energy Pioneers website chronicles the people, businesses and communities across the intermountain West who are laying the foundation for the nation’s clean energy economy.

A new publication out this week, Clean Energy Pioneers: Building a Stronger Western Economy [PDF], compiles some of these stories. Here are just a few:

The release of these inspiring stories coincides with the Western Governors’ Association annual meeting this weekend, where the governors will be gathering to celebrate “100 Years of Common Ground” in working together to protect the region’s natural resources.

Not only will clean energy conserve our natural resources and improve our air quality, it will also boost our local economies and strengthen our energy security.  According to Rich O’Connell, Director of the Logan County, Colo. Economic Development Corp and one of the pioneers quoted in the report, “Wind energy generates income for families and it grows the tax base to build roads, bridges, schools and social services.”

The West is investing in its future by establishing clean energy education and training programs at community colleges to help create the workforce of tomorrow.  New Mexico and Colorado are each home to over a half dozen of such educational centers.

As Tyson Ramseier, a pioneer featured in the report who will graduate in May 2011 from the Wind Energy Technician program at Colorado’s Northeastern Junior College, so cogently put it,

“[Renewable energy] will not only improve the economy by generating cleaner and cheaper electricity, but it also provides jobs as well.”

Clean Energy Pioneers:  Building a Stronger Western Economy complements the Clean Energy Pioneers multimedia project documented by the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Western Resource Advocates and Environmental Defense Fund.

Download Clean Energy Pioneers: Building a Stronger Western Economy [PDF].

Also posted in Business, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Voices | Comments closed

Leadership, Innovation and Security: Benefits We Can’t Measure

By | Bio | Published: June 23, 2010

The EPA analysis of the American Power Act released last week was reassuring in its conclusion that the economy can absorb a shift to low carbon energy, and that costs will be no more than a 40 cents a day for households. (The reason that costs phase in later is that allowances to utilities in the early years serve as rebates to consumers to allow for a transition period of no added costs.)

But, as the bill’s co-sponsor Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) notes, while the costs are relatively easy to model, some of the benefits are not. Among those is the fact that APA is, in essence, a very cheap insurance policy against the real costs from droughts, floods, storms, oil spills and other consequences of unchecked climate change and continued reliance on foreign oil. By including a cap on carbon, APA offers a very cheap insurance policy.

And there are other significant benefits, too. A year ago today, President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board voted 15-1 in favor of submitting a memo to the president endorsing a cap on carbon, specifically:

“The single most important policy is to put a price on carbon. Businesses want the certainty that will unleash innovation and investment to create jobs now and ensure America is the worldwide leader of the next great global industry: sustainable energy. We are not on that path today.… “

The memo went on to note that we are ceding leadership in new energy technology to other nations.

“The U.S. is now home to only two of the ten largest solar photovoltaic producers in the world, two of the top ten wind turbine producers and one of the top ten advanced battery manufacturers. That is, only one-sixth of the world’s top renewable energy manufacturers are based in the United States. Last year, less than half the 8,500 gigawatts of wind turbines used in the U.S. were made in the U.S.”

A cap creates the customer demand that allows companies to build market share and move into export markets. The emerging clean energy market could be anywhere from $500 B globally by 2020 to a trillion.

Are we in? So far, not really. A home market attracts investment and helps build local manufacturing. For example, after FedEx pledged to buy low-pollution hybrid delivery trucks, vehicle manufacturers started producing them – and once cleaner trucks were on the market, other U.S. companies started buying them too. The U.S. now leads globally in manufacturing key components for hybrid trucks. In contrast, “after estimating that China would be producing two-thirds of the world’s solar panels by the end of this year,” the U.S. solar equipment supplier, Applied Materials, set up its latest solar research labs in China. Without a cap on carbon emissions, private capital sitting on the sidelines can easily go to other countries, creating jobs and export opportunities elsewhere.

America has demonstrated time and again that we are an innovative global leader when we put our minds to it. It’s time for us to commit ourselves, our minds as well as our dollars, to a clean energy future that will spur the new economy and encourage green job growth.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Policy | Comments closed

EPA Analysis Confirms American Power Act is Very Affordable for All Americans

By | Published: June 17, 2010

An analysis released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week confirms that a comprehensive solution to our dependence on oil is affordable and within reach, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

EPA analyzed the American Power Act, a comprehensive energy and climate bill sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). EPA's findings show that the American Power Act's objectives can be achieved for a few dollars a month for the average American. That's a small investment in a clean energy economy that will create jobs, reduce pollution and increase America's energy security.

"This new analysis is the latest in a series of studies confirming that we can readily afford a comprehensive climate and energy bill that would boost our economy, reduce our dependence on imported oil and help solve climate change," said Nat Keohane, EDF's Director of Economic Policy and Analysis.

EPA's new analysis shows that the clean energy development in the American Power Act can be met for $79 to $146 per year per household, amounting to three to five dollars a month for the average individual American. The cost will be even lower at first; EPA projects that key provisions, including those for energy efficiency improvements, will lead to lower household energy bills over the next two decades.

Those families expected to be most affected by price changes will receive extra compensation under the American Power Act, so they'll have an extra layer of protection. The EPA analysis also confirms that the carbon limits in the legislation will help to prevent dangerous climate change, a key environmental objective.

Like most economic modeling, EPA's estimates look at only one side of the ledger, which means they do not take into account the huge costs of inaction. Factoring in the costs of unchecked climate change and continued oil dependence only reinforces the economic case for action.

"The BP oil disaster in the Gulf is a stark reminder of the high costs of relying on oil," said Keohane.

"We need a comprehensive approach to energy and climate legislation that sparks technological innovation and spurs a new generation of cleaner, homegrown energy sources. Today's EPA analysis confirms just how affordable a comprehensive approach will be. The investments we make will put this country onto a new clean energy path, ensuring a cleaner and more secure future for our children and grandchildren."

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Economics, News, Policy | Comments closed

The Key to Creating Jobs: The Capital on the Sidelines

By | Bio | Published: June 7, 2010

During President Obama’s speech this week at Carnegie Mellon University, he signaled emphatically that he would go after the votes to pass a clean energy bill this year, assuring that while “the votes may not be there right now… I intend to find them in the coming months… and we will get it done.”This is exactly the sort of presidential resolve that’s needed. The president went on to say,

[T]he only way the transition to clean energy will succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future – if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.

He got it exactly right – investors are waiting to see what Congress decides. And once we do set a price for carbon pollution, a huge amount of money will be back in play to invest in clean energy.

This infusion of capital is critical to job creation. Every study that is done to assess job creation potential of the new energy economy builds off assumptions about how much capital will be devoted to energy efficiency, renewables, and the like. For example, the June 2009 University of Massachusetts report “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy” assumed that the provisions of the House-passed American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), building on stimulus funds already committed, would bring $150 billion in new investment per year for the next decade – creating 2.5 million jobs. If that capital came 100% from the oil and gas sector, the net job creation (net of jobs lost in oil and gas) would be 1.7 million jobs.

While I believe some of that capital will come from diverting money from oil and gas, not all of it will. And, given unemployment numbers, there is quite a bit of capital sitting on the sidelines.

But don’t just take it from me, listen to a venture capitalist. In his testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, delivered April 2008, Mission Point venture capitalist Dan Abbasi noted:

We testified before Congress that we and other leading investment firms have mobilized billions of dollars from blue-chip investors with a mandate to invest in the decarbonization of our economy. And we stand ready to do much more if Congress passes a law to set some long overdue rules of the road.

A long-term stable price signal for carbon is imperative to encourage innovation and to promote investment. It needs to be long enough to reward investors for locking up their capital in asset-intensive, long lead-time energy projects and taking on the associated technical, construction and market risks. Moreover, only a long-term carbon price will motivate investment in the supply chain companies that must scale up and thrive if we’re to drive down the price of low-carbon energy.

While we’re finding some attractive investments today, candidly we are also holding back a lot of “dry powder” — or uninvested capital – and the economic downturn is only partly to blame. The biggest factor is continued uncertainty over whether Congress will pass a bill capping carbon. Renewable loan guarantees, grants and tax credits from the stimulus package are helping us to finance the supply of low-carbon solutions, but without a cap we won’t see the market demand needed to fully pull those solutions through.

In Europe, after the passage of their Emissions Trading System, the ETS, James Graham, Director of the Commercial Division for Camco International, noted that “If you look at the pricing for credits from renewable energy projects before and after the creation of the EU ETS, the pricing was much higher afterwards. Higher prices means more projects are happening. More capital is being allocated to investing in renewables because of enhanced returns from the addition of a carbon revenue stream to such projects.”

According to Clean Tech Venture Network, California saw a 20% compound annual growth rate in clean technology investments in 2002 after passage of a Renewable Portfolio Standard, but that jumped to 98% compound annual growth rate when AB 32 (putting a price on carbon) was introduced and passed 18 months later. (Clean Tech Venture Network data)

Last month, columnist David Brooks discovered capital sitting on the sidelines as well. If the American Power Act (the Senate version of comprehensive energy and climate legislation passes with a price on carbon) passed, utility executives noted just 4 weeks ago that they would move capital off the sidelines:

"Regarding wind energy investment at our NextEra Energy Resources subsidiary, we think we might invest about $1.5 billion to $2 billion more per year. Regarding solar, we think NextEra Energy Resources might invest $500 million or more per year outside of Florida and that our Florida Power & Light subsidiary might invest about $1 billion a year inside Florida." — Lew Hay, chief executive of the power provider FPL Group.

“[NRG] could double the number of clean energy projects, from 17 to 36; it could triple the megawatts of clean generating capacity it is planning to add; it could produce three times as much nuclear power and 40 times as much coal with carbon capture and sequestration. — David Crane, the CEO of NRG Energy.

“The Renewable Portfolio Standard should be considered a short-term technique to “jump-start” a new industry but seen as a temporary incentive.  In contrast, monetizing carbon and placing a cap on carbon signals a major shift in the industry framework and provides a long-term market signal that is very different than the RPS approach,” according to BJ Stanbery, founder, Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer of HelioVolt, a Texas-based manufacturer of thin film solar.

Getting this capital off the sidelines and into clean energy projects is a clear path to job creation. But it’s not just about getting capital off the sidelines, it’s about keeping capital here in the U.S. Who can forget Jeff Immelt saying at a Wall Street Journal event in 2008 that “If the U.S. doesn’t buy my wind turbines, I’ll go to Turkey.” In this economy, we can hardly afford to have the next generation of energy projects shipped overseas. The U.S. can and should be a leader in clean energy, and with the right investment, we can make it happen.

Also posted in Economics | Comments closed

New Poll Shows Majority of Voters in ME, MA and FL Support American Power Act

By | Published: May 21, 2010

A new poll conducted to gauge the popularity of the American Power Act shows strong public support for the bill in key states.

65% of Massachusetts voters, 57% of Maine voters and 50% of Florida voters said they support the measure. These percentages jump up to 80%, 74% and 71% respectively in support of a bill that will create new clean energy jobs.

According to a new study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the American Power Act is set to increase average annual employment by 200,000 jobs from 2011 to 2020. On Huffington Post, there is a great analysis of the Peterson study by Nathaniel Keohane, Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at the Environmental Defense Fund, which explains in greater detail how the American Power Act will stimulate the economy and create jobs.

The surveys were conducted May 14th through 16th 2010 by Public Policy Polling.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News | Comments closed

China Takes the Lead on Clean Energy Jobs: How the U.S. Can Still Win

By | Published: February 26, 2010

A majority of Americans are worried that the United States’ role in the world economy will diminish in the coming years, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But the truth is, China is already beating the U.S. to clean energy jobs.

China is quickly becoming the global powerhouse in clean energy manufacturing and innovation, dwarfing the efforts of America. Backed by huge investment and an industrial policy bigger than the world has ever seen, China has become the worldwide leader in new energy technology markets while the U.S. is quickly falling behind.

But we can match the scale of China’s centralized industrial policy by fully deploying the engine of American prosperity: our marketplace. It is the only tool we have with the scale and capital to compete with China.

If the U.S. puts a limit on carbon pollution from dirtier sources of energy, we will send a clear signal to the marketplace that will unleash a massive wave of private investment in clean energy that would allow us to compete with the Chinese.  Only when American policy creates a profit motive for investors, inventors and entrepreneurs, will we have a chance to win the race.

President Obama made that case to the Business Roundtable. He called for a price on carbon to kick-start America’s efforts to win the clean technology race.

Key excerpts of the President remarks:

A competitive America is also an America that finally has a smart energy policy.  We know there is no silver bullet here – that to reduce our dependence on oil and the damage caused by climate change, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives for clean energy.

But to truly transition to a clean energy economy, I’ve also said that we need to put a price on carbon pollution …

What we can’t do is stand still.  The only certainty of the status quo is that the price and supply of oil will become increasingly volatile; that the use of fossil fuels will wreak havoc on weather patterns and air quality.  But if we decide now that we’re putting a price on this pollution in a few years, it will give businesses the certainty of knowing they have time to plan and transition.  This country has to move towards a clean energy economy.  That’s where the world is going.  And that’s how America will remain competitive and strong in the 21st century.

If Congress puts a limit on carbon pollution, the U.S. will compete with China. If we don’t, there’s no reason to believe the future will look any different than the facts we see today. Those facts are listed below, or you can download and print EDF's one-page handout version [PDF].

China’s Climate and Energy Policies Create an Investment Advantage

  • In 2009, China dedicated $440 billion in government funding solely to clean energy. –AFP, 5/24/2009
  • Renewable energy industries in China reached 1.12 million jobs in 2008 and are increasing by 100,000 a year. –NYT, 1/31/2010
  • China is already moving aggressively on measures it promised at Copenhagen, including closing an additional 10 gigawatts of inefficient, polluting coal plants. – Washington Post, 1/7/2010
  • In December 2009, China passed a law requiring its electric grid companies to buy any and all electricity generated from renewable sources. – WSJ, 12/27/2009

China Goes into Wind Power Overdrive in 2009

  • Five years ago, there was almost no Chinese presence in the wind manufacturing industry, and now China hosts the world’s largest wind market with installed capacity of over 25,000 MW, a significant increase from 2008, when China was home to about 12,000 MW. –  GWEC, 2/3/2010
  • As the world’s wind power capacity grew by 31% in 2009, China was responsible for one-third of the additions, experiencing industry growth of over 100%. – GWEC, 2/3/2010

The Saudi Arabia of Solar

  • China has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. – NYT, 1/31/2010
  • Already home to one-third of global solar manufacturing capacity, Chinese competition has reduced global solar prices by 30% and is forcing rivals to shift production facilities to China: U.S. Evergreen Solar Inc. is moving its assembly line from Massachusetts to China, while BP PLC's solar unit said it would stop output in Maryland and rely on Chinese suppliers instead. – WSJ,  12/15/2009
  • Responding to domestic demand, Applied Materials – the world’s largest supplier of equipment to the solar photovoltaic industry – opened the world’s largest private sector solar research center in Xian, China in October 2009. – TIME, 11/30/2009

Green Technology Investment

  • Batteries and Electric Cars – China is also leading in advanced vehicle and battery technology. Chinese firm BYD introduced the world’s first plug-in hybrid vehicle , China’s production of lithium ion batteries had accounted for 41 percent of the global market by 2008, and the number of battery companies in China increased from 455 to 613 between 2001 and 2004. – Breakthrough Institute, 11/09
  • Transmission — China is an emerging world leader in ultra-high-voltage, or UHV transmission technology, with more than 100 domestic manufacturers and suppliers.  The State Grid Corporation will invest $44 billion through 2012, and $88 billion through 2020 in building UHV transmission lines. – Center for American Progress, 6/4/2009

Also posted in Business, Business - General, Climate Change Legislation, Economics, International, Policy | Comments closed