Tag Archives: biofuels

A Progressive Approach to Energy Independence

Energy independence and a transition to renewable energy are pressing issues impacting our national, environmental, and financial security.  Our current economic crisis also presents an unprecedented opportunity to make long-needed changes in our nation’s energy policy. We need intelligent, progressive legislation that provides incentives, training, and investment opportunities for a transition to a softer energy path and a more peaceful and productive world.

Fossil fuels kill the economy, the environment, and international security: Nonrenewable energy is bad for the economy, the environment, and international security.  Nonrenewable and foreign sources of energy exacerbate our current economic crisis, impacting tens of millions of families, making it harder to get to work, more costly to move goods and operate services, and more expensive to heat and cool our homes and workplaces. Fossil fuel consumption is destroying our environment, contributing to global climate change, soil erosion, barren mountaintops, deforestation, and health-threatening particulate materials in our air and water. Dependence on foreign sources of energy virtually guarantees continued international tensions, tempting policymakers into foreign military interventions that threaten the lives of Americans and others, contributing to international instability and violent extremism.

From a convergence of problems to a comprehensive solution: The downturn in the automobile industry threatens the livelihood of millions of workers, but a smart set of policies, incentives, and public-private partnerships can move these workers into jobs in clean technology and alternative energy.  We need to build the new energy sector. Utilities, green building sectors, and clean technology companies are all experiencing a shortage of qualified workers at a time when the national unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. Policies which build on existing state and local workforce development systems, and innovative postsecondary education programs, can lead the way to a new sustainable energy workforce.  

Innovative Californians are already leading the way in this transition. Laney College, in Oakland, has incorporated green building into its curriculum, and has partnered with the Oakland Green Jobs Corps to offer training in green construction to low-income residents. Programs such as these can serve as national models. Robert Pollin, James Heintz, and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the Center for American Progress conclude that California alone would increase its investment revenue by $18.5 billion, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs, through further investment in renewable energy. These include jobs for sheet metal workers, machinists, truck drivers, roofers, civil engineers, electricians and dispatchers.  A 2007 study by the University of California at Berkley demonstrated that the clean energy and technology industry (from alternative energy generation to wastewater treatment to more resource-efficient industrial processes) “generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment than the fossil-fuel-based energy sector.” Every $100 million invested in the renewable sector creates 2,700 new jobs.iv  The United Nations Industrial Development Organization recently concluded that 2.3 million new jobs in renewable energy have already been created worldwide, suggesting that further investment in such jobs would be a huge boost to the U.S. and global economy.v Safe, clean wind energy, as East Bay Rep. Jerry McNerney points out, is actually cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

State-to-state patchwork threatens a comprehensive solution: Unfortunately, the current effort at a transition to renewables is hindered by the patchwork approach taken by individual states, who lack resources and coordination. States with the most potential for job creation and energy production lack the capacity to quickly make the transition to renewables. Many current power plants cannot handle the addition of renewable energy. Some states are complaining that they cannot meet current federal mandates.

Intelligent, progressive legislation: In order to maximize such opportunities, we need intelligent, progressive legislation. Tax credits for a shift to renewable energy, currently extended to businesses and consumers, should be expanded. We need to monitor the direction of the economic stimulus money so that it continues to be directed towards renewable energy production. Congress should pass, and the President should sign into law, the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act of 2009, which will provide $30 billion for factories to adjust their operations to meet the growing demand for clean technology products, including hybrid and electric cars. This bill facilitates the development of domestic clean energy manufacturing and production.

Congress should also pass the Smart Grid Advancement Act, designed to incorporate smart grid capability into the existing electricity grid, so that when it is forced to switch electricity sources, it does so efficiently. Such grid reform will save consumers millions of dollars and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, we must pass the Grants for Renewable Energy Education for the Nation Act, or the GREEN Act, which will provide competitive grants for the development of career and technical training programs in the field of renewable energy.

Other steps are important, but we need committed, conscientious policymakers in Washington to ensure their effective implementation.  For example, we must support CAFE standards and a cap-and-trade system, but should work to mitigate the serious concerns that these policies will hurt consumers and working-class families. Similarly, in considering biofuel production, we must distinguish between “good” biofuels, which allow us to recycle parts of plant matter we currently throw away, and “bad” biofuel production, which spikes up worldwide food prices and hurts, rather than helps, the environment.

Rational, educated people should be leading the discussion about a transition to renewable energy.  Unfortunately, our energy policies are currently made by corporate lobbyists, ex-CEOs and the politicians who eat out of their hands. Our national security agenda should not be set by companies who continue the practices of the Halliburtons and Enrons of the corporate world.  Rather, we need public and private forces devoted to an ambitious, smooth transition to renewable energy: a more peaceful, decentralized, and community-friendly energy.



Adriel Hampton is a journalist, Gov 2.0 and new media strategist, public servant, and licensed private investigator. He is running for U.S. Congress in the 2009 special election for California’s 10th District. He has pledged to vote against funding for expansion of the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Sen. Boxer: Don’t Reward Polluters

I have the greatest respect for Barbara Boxer and the work she’s doing on the issue of global warming.  However, I think it’s a shortsighted approach for working to pass a bill that she thinks George Bush can sign, a climate change bill that would set up a cap and trade system and just give carbon credits away to polluting industries.  There’s been a simmering battle between environmental groups on this bill, and now it’s exploded into the open, with the Sierra Club coming out against the bill, known as Lieberman-Warner (which should tell you something).

Fast-forward to present day: the carbon industries are lobbying to get a deal done this year that would give away carbon permits free of charge  to existing polluters — bribing the sluggish, and slowing down innovation. And  politicians are telling us that while it would be better to auction these  permits and make polluters pay for putting carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, creating that market unfortunately gets in the way of the politics.

We are being urged to compromise — to put a system in place  quickly, even if it is the wrong system.   Given that we only have one chance to get this right before it’s too  late, our top priority must be to make sure that we do not settle prematurely  and sign a weak bill into law in the name of doing something about global warming.   With momentum for strong action and a friendlier Congress and White House building every day, it’s no coincidence that some wish to settle their accounts now.

This will tie the hands of the Presidential candidates on the Democratic side, who have far better proposals for their cap and trade system, including selling the carbon credits at a 100% auction, using the funds to promote green energy and research for renewables.  It’s the wrong bill at the wrong time.

over…

I know that Sen. Boxer wants to use her status as the head of the Environment Committee to push this compromise bill forward.  But the political calculus next year could be excellent for a real bill with real teeth, and Boxer would be leaving that on the table.  As I mentioned earlier this week on my home site, Sens. Obama and Clinton are co-sponsors of this Lieberman-Warner bill, which was initially authored by John McCain, and so this has the potential to totally take global warming as an issue off the table for the 2008 elections.  They ought to take their names off the bill, but it would be better for involved if this doesn’t pass.  As Matt Stoller writes:

…it’s the huge number of new liberal anti-carbon energy voters out there that are going to allow the public to get a sustainable deal on climate change next Congress.  There’s some evidence that Obama might make global warming his highest priority, having promised to begin negotiating a new Kyoto-style treaty even before taking office.

All of this is excellent and game-changing news that we’ve seen happen in the last week or so.  As a reminder, here’s what Boxer said just two weeks ago about Friends of the Earth, which has waged a campaign called ‘Fix it or Ditch it’ about the massive Lieberman-Warner bill to subsidize polluting industries.

“They’re sort of the defeatist group out there,” she said. “They’ve been defeatists from day one. And it’s unfortunate. They’re isolated among the environmental groups.”

This nasty slur, while not true at the time (Greenpeace was opposing the bill), is now silly.  At least one big green group has moved in response to Wynn’s loss to get a better deal, and the business right, the coal producers, the nuclear industry, and the oil guys know they will have to deal soon.  The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth have said that we must work on global warming, but that it must be done smart and sustainably.

We’ve been down this road before.  The rising cost of gasoline and worries about peak oil led everyone to go running toward biofuels in a desire to “just do something,” and now we’re learning that the production of biofuels costs more energy than the savings from biofuels themselves.  So now we’ve created this giant windfall for agribusiness, and nobody wants to reverse the ship because it’d be politically unpopular to enact what some would see as an “anti-environmental” initiative.  

A “deal” on a bad cap and trade bill would have the same effect.  It would lock in a giveaway to polluters on the order of trillions, and make it very difficult for the next President to do anything about it.  If you care about the environment, I think you need to let Sen. Boxer know that only a real climate change bill that hits the necessary targets is sufficient.  Otherwise, she has to walk away from this.