The Center for American Progress Action fund had a recent event on clean energy jobs keynoted by Van Jones, who is not the President’s “green-jobs czar,” but “the green-jobs handyman.”
Besides being the administration’s point person on clean energy jobs, he is is the best speaker on the subject — because he studies rhetoric and persuasive speechmaking (see “Van Jones and the English Language“).
So he is worth hearing, and for the video click here, which is where the rest of this post was first published.
“[The report] ‘Green Jobs/Green Homes New York’ looks at the big picture [of retrofitting homes for energy efficiency] and all the dynamics that are impacted and influenced. It speaks to the boldest and greenest terms of community, making sure that those who are the weakest amongst us will have that hope of growing out of poverty,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) at CAP Action’s Friday event “Green Jobs/Green Homes New York: Expanding Home Energy Efficiency and Creating Good Jobs in a Clean-Energy Economy.”
Keynote speaker Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, also addressed the new report from the Center for American Progress, the Center for Working Families, and Half in Ten. CAP Action Senior Fellow Bracken Hendricks moderated a follow-up panel discussion with New York State Laborers Local 10 Community Affairs Officer Lavon Chambers, Half in Ten Campaign Executive Director Lisa Donner, Conservation Services Group Senior Vice President Mark Dyen, and Center for Working Families Director of Green Policy Emmaia Gelman.
Building efficiency retrofits serve the triple benefits of mitigating global warming emissions, reducing energy bills, and creating good, local jobs. Residential buildings alone account for 21percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and substantial efficiency savings are obtainable through easy and proven techniques. Yet if energy-efficiency retrofits offer such obvious environmental, economic, and employment benefits, why have they been so slow to materialize? The answer lies in a host of market failures, and developing viable, scalable solutions has proven challenging””until now.
“Green Jobs/Green Homes New York” outlines a policy roadmap for New York State to achieve mass-scale energy-efficiency improvements””or retrofits””of 1 million housing units over the next five years. “We know from the past 30 years of weatherization that with a relatively small investment in changing an existing structure you can save 30 to 40 percent in home energy,” said Gelman. “In New York, that will amount to about $1 billion per year if 1 million homes are weatherized.”
The policies outlined in this report can help stimulate the economy and lay the foundation for long term growth, but not without leadership from government, as well as engagement from local community groups and other stakeholders. “Free markets are not going to fix these problems without strong policy and real leadership,” said Hendricks.
Encouragingly, clean-energy policies were part of the economic stimulus package passed earlier this year. President Barack Obama outlined a plan last March to invest $59 billion from the stimulus in direct spending and tax incentives to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. Over the next two years, this federal investment will pour into state energy-efficiency programs and expand their capacity. “Those humble, hard-working energy-efficiency dollars work over time; they work double and triple time,” said Jones. These dollars can help cut home energy bills and poverty by creating jobs; reducing emissions, pollution, and asthma; and even making homes more valuable.
The Green Jobs/Green Homes NY program will make retrofits available to owners of any type of housing in New York State and at any level of income as long as owners are utility customers in good standing and live in targeted geographic areas. Retrofits can also be made available to renters of single-family homes who own the utility meter account and have sole physical control of the housing unit. The program plans to use an array of innovative financing, community outreach, and community partnership strategies to make it all happen. “New York has one of the largest weatherization programs in the country, retrofitting 25,000 to 26,000 homes per year. This report would increase the number of homes 12 times the current rate,” said Dyen.
The report estimates that the Green Jobs/Green Homes NY plan will directly create 60,000 job-years related to the expansion of retrofit work and another 60,000 job-years indirectly through additional economic activity. The program will employ 14,000 long-term, full-time skilled retrofit workers, providing an opportunity to reach out to groups that have been previously disenfranchised in the job market. “We need to consider not only how to make access to jobs for people who don’t have a lot of work experience or don’t come to it with a lot of skills, but also how to make good jobs,” said Donner. “We need to treat these as complimentary goals rather than contradictory.”
Organization on the community level will be crucial to educate local groups and homeowners about the importance of investing in retrofitting. Also, environmentalists and unions will jointly benefit from the report’s proposed policies. “If these groups can join together and replicate the New York model across the country,” said Chambers, “then ‘yes we can’ becomes more than a chant, it becomes a way of life.”
For more on this event, please see the events page.
See also: Green Jobs/Green Homes NY (CAP)
Previous in TP Climate Progress
“The Center for American Progress Action fund had a recent event on clean energy jobs keynoted by Van Jones, who is not the President’s “green-jobs czar,” but “the green-jobs handyman.””
Exactly. He is neither an engineer nor a scientist. He disses nuclear power because he does not understand that nuclear is really the only game in town or country that can replace coal within 5 years. Nuclear is the safest, the cleanest and the lowest CO2 source of electricity there is. Van Jones should read: “Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy” by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.
[JR: We got your (questionable) point a dozen posts ago. This comment is not terribly germane to this thread.]
Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.
Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest. This is the full life cycle CO2 output. There are no hidden CO2 outputs.
Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.
Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity’s 40% of our CO2 output. The refereed scenarios from the IPCC
failed to hold the CO2 down to 450 parts per million. You can’t without building
something like 10,000 new nuclear power plants world wide to replace every coal
fired power plant on the planet. The 10,000 includes replacing all Generation 1
[Chernobyl style] power plants with safe American Generation 4 technology.
Let’s get it done.
Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:
nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear’s
price. This is the full and total price. There are no hidden costs. There are no
subsidies. There are no tricks. 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour is all of it.
[Supposed subsidies cover the cost caused by irrational protesters. That is a cost
of civil order, not a cost of nuclear power. The price would be lower if the safety
level were lowered to equal other sources of electricity.]
from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear’s price
from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear’s price
from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear’s price
Wind fits in here.
solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear’s price
American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity
geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity
coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity
hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity
natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity
wind at 27 percent capacity
solar at 19 percent capacity
[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour.]
Remember: Nuclear spent fuel is recyclable. Coal cinders and ashes can be “mined” for URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given amount of energy, you need on the order of 100 MILLION TIMES as much coal as uranium. That means the coal mine has to be 100 million times larger than the uranium mine, not counting the recycling of nuclear fuel. Coal also contains BENZENE, THE CANCER CAUSER. We can keep our mountains and forests and our health by switching from coal to nuclear power.
What Van Jones is doing is a WPA [Works Progress Administration from the Great Depression, a jobs creation program] project, not a serious attempt to stop global warming. We need WPA projects at this time, but don’t be led to believe that Van Jones is going to stop global warming.
[JR: Who among us is making a serious attempt to stop global warming by themselves? Seriously. We cannot possible capture the vast energy efficiency opportunity in a timely fashion without the federal government working hard with states and businesses to make sure that there are actually people capable of doing the jobs. No man or woman is an island.]
Both Jones and Romm are right. However, there is still a missing piece. While people talk of California, and Title 24 regulations are about the strongest in the country in terms of a requirement for energy efficiency, there are still far too many local impediments to doing all that is necessary to truly to achieve the 3 wedges of efficiency we need. Examples are easily found in local zoning regulations, building codes, home owners association regulations.
The only organization that I know of that is making a national wide effort to change this is Architecture 2030. I have been impressed with Ed Mazria, founder of Architecture 2030, since I first heard him share a platform with Dr. Hansen several years ago.
There is a lot of talk about grassroots organizing to force Congress to more, but we also need grassroots organizing to put sustainability advocates on the planning commission in every political subdivision of this country.
No doubt, “Green Jobs” are part of a solution for urban areas and close in suburban areas. However, having battled through the “Wars on Poverty” and the other “Bootstrap” operations by well meaning social activists, I am skeptical about the stated objectives of Rep. Tonko’s contention… “[The report] ‘Green Jobs/Green Homes New York’ looks at the big picture [of retrofitting homes for energy efficiency] and all the dynamics that are impacted and influenced. It speaks to the boldest and greenest terms of community, making sure that those who are the weakest amongst us will have that hope of growing out of poverty,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) at CAP Action’s Friday event “Green Jobs/Green Homes New York: Expanding Home Energy Efficiency and Creating Good Jobs in a Clean-Energy Economy.”
Received wisdom points to creating work for the poor to raise them up from some lower status. Through this intervention of the government the poor can hope to attain the American Dream. These Green Jobs are in no way long term career opportunities for the poor. From whence will work come for these, the least of us, when all the houses and buildings in that worker’s environment are made green? Will the worker receive employment above minimum wage? Will the worker have portable health benefits? Or, is it simply that the worker gets an opportunity to be employed for a good cause? That this little patch on his/her life is the best society can do. There will be no long term “green” for him/her. His struggle continues because all we have funding for is his/her time limited “patch.”
The big picture issue is whether the Federal Government can figure out a way to provide funding for a National approach for a 20 to 30 year “Green Energy War?”
Increasing taxes and/or fees is a nonstarter right now and for the foreseeable future. Increasing deficits begs the question of who pays, how, when, and what if we can no longer pay? The major constraint on public sector funding is figuring out where we get the money to pay the interest on what has been borrowed. What if we got rid of the interest?
They do just that in N. Dakota. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!” ( Ellen Brown, March 11th, 2009.) All state and local government agencies are required to place their funds in the bank. Other entities may also open accounts at the Bank; however, BND offers fewer retail services than other institutions, and has only one office, limiting its competitiveness in consumer banking. There are fees and a minimal income tax system but essentially the debt free funding to state agencies allows N. Dakota to carry a large surplus every year and fund long and short term public needs.
It would be a very major transformation for the Federal government to take this route, (debt free currency). Who would support such an idea? It would only save approximately, $2 trillion in annual interest payments.
That kind of money could finance every green program this society needs to preserve our environment for our children and beyond.
Hmmmm, State Banks and debt free funding for green projects. Let’s look into that Mr. President, Governor, Senator, Representative whoever.
For Asteroid Miner:
Pls check this link out, or see todays NYT 6/1/09, or go to http://www.climateprogress.com
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/29/gop-wants-100-new-nukes-by-2030-while-areva-has-acknowledged-that-the-cost-of-a-new-reactor-today-would-be-as-much-as-6-billion-euros-or-8-billion-double-the-price-offered-to-the-finns/
I don’t understand the insistence on complaining when good things are happening. Van Jones is working at an important intersection: the economy and the environment. And there is nothing in his past to suggest that he has anything but enormous and noble goals.
And yet there’s all this reaching to find something wrong. Robert, I can certainly envision a world in which the US manufactures its own things, and in which these people who retrofitted these homes move on to other manufacturing jobs. I don’t see the exploitation here–I see a country with almost no manufacturing jobs. And I see a lot of different kinds of movement from the Obama administration, and don’t see the value in calling it a War.
Why all the crank and mistrust? I don’t think Jones’ record deserves it, nor, frankly, do I think there’s time for it.
Well it is a war when the fossil fuel industry uses every means possible to subvert the rapid adaptation of renewable energy technologies. For example, the cultivation of industrial hemp has been constrained by these giant powers along with the lumber industry because they know that industrial hemp is a perfect substitute for fossil fuels as transportation fuel, heating fuel and other by products produced by the petroleum industry such as paint and varnish. It is illegal to cultivate the non-psychactive Cannabis Sativa L.
It is a war when the acolytes of the fossil fuel industry ensconsed in the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency constrain the awards of demonstratrion funding and grants to renewable energy technologies. Maybe that will change with the new Administration, but for 30 years ever since Reagan stripped the White House of Carter’s solar panel the war between traditional energy and renewable energy has decidely been won by the former.
As for Mr. Van Jones, I’m not sure he’s above criticism or challenge if you read the report and listen to what he says there is a great deal that he omits about the larger issues facing the greening of this economy.
Deborah Fisher: Nobody said Van Jones isn’t a nice guy. That isn’t the issue. Neither are the needs for jobs and efficiency issues. It isn’t about mistrust, but if you want to know about nuclear power, ask people who have degrees in physics and nuclear engineering. It isn’t an easy subject. A lot of training is required. You are correct about there not being enough time, but you don’t understand that what Van Jones is doing isn’t enough and cannot be enough.
“JR: Who among us is making a serious attempt to stop global warming by themselves? Seriously. We cannot possible capture the vast energy efficiency opportunity in a timely fashion without the federal government working hard with states and businesses to make sure that there are actually people capable of doing the jobs. No man or woman is an island.”
No dispute, JR. I agree completely with what you say. I am trying to get as many people to help as possible. The problem is that we MUST get our CO2 production down in the fastest possible way. WE, Homo Sapiens, are facing EXTINCTION caused by Global Warming. TIME is critical. Australian agriculture has already collapsed and Californian agriculture is about to collapse. In the Midwest, things are going badly for agriculture. Farmers are suffering either a drought that will last for 1000 years or floods. We are OUT OF TIME. TIME IS UP. That is why we need to do the biggest wedge first in the way that obviously works right now. Natural positive feedbacks have already kicked in.
So I stick by my statement: What Van Jones is doing is a WPA project. Even the WPA did something useful: The WPA created infrastructure that we needed to fight World War 2. What Van Jones is doing will eventually result in the realization that decorating the prairie with wind turbines does not shut down coal fired power plants. That education/realization is good, but it is a rather expensive and time consuming form of education.
Edward Griesch:
You are correct about there not being enough time, but you don’t understand that what Van Jones is doing isn’t enough and cannot be enough.
You are working overtime to assert that I think that Van Jones is some sort of Global Warming Superman, when in fact you are the only one who’s floated that hypothesis.
I see an administration who’s got more than one Van Jones-like person or policy with a strong commitment to turning this boat around. No one aspect of what the Obama administration is rolling out is going to seem satisfying enough, but the aspects do seem to keep coming. Can you take a step back and see the forest that seems to be forming and start cheerleading that forest instead of poutily assuming that each individual tree is the endgame?
Looks like we prepare for clean coal.
But in recent weeks, the Obama administration has quietly decided to open the way for at least two dozen more “mountaintop removal” projects.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-mountaintop-mining-053jun01,0,3998035.story
Robert Bostick Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
They do just that in N. Dakota. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!” ( Ellen Brown, March 11th, 2009.) All state and local government agencies are required to place their funds in the bank.
Williston basin Bakken field oil production.
At month end there were 23 drilling rigs on location in Mountrail County. EOG 8 rigs; Hess 4 rigs; Whiting 5 rigs; Fidelity, Hunt, Slawson, Murex, Sinclair, and Marathon 1 rig each. .
During March 22 wells were spudded. EOG 10; Hess 4; Whiting 2; Fidelity 1; Brigham 0; Hunt 1; Marathon 1; Murex 1; Slawson 1; Sinclair 1; St Mary 0; Oasis 0; and Windsor 0.
I know some of these guys and 2 people that were involved with the original discovery.
California has opportunity but they don’t want to do long term planning and energy production.