On Saturday, our Nobel prize-winning Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, slammed those who want to gut clean energy programs:
Chu dismissed criticism from those who he said “are ready to wave the white flag and declare defeat.”
The United States faces a choice, he said, to sit on the sidelines or try to win the “clean energy race” with China, Germany and other countries.
He said the U.S. “can’t afford not to” invest in clean energy.
“It’s not enough for our country to invent clean energy technologies, we have to make them and use them, too,” Chu said. “Invented in America, made in America and sold around the world. That’s how we’ll create good jobs and lead in the 21st century.”
Chu was speaking at the Solar Decathlon where collegiate teams from around the world compete to build model solar homes. He didn’t mention the over-hyped Solyndra story by name, but he defended the tremendous value the loan program brings to Americans:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said a stimulus law program that expired Friday will help develop the world’s largest wind farm in Oregon, several large solar power farms in California and Nevada, and the installation of solar panels on 750 rooftops in 28 states, among other projects.
Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports that DOE has “closed 28 loans for a total of more than $16 billion” under the loan program:
“These loan guarantee projects will generate enough clean electricity to power more than two-and-a-half-million homes,” Chu said. “And combined with our other loan programs, they’re expected to support more than 60,000 direct jobs, plus jobs throughout the supply chain”….
“In past times of national stress, we took the long view and invested in our future,” Chu said. “We need to take the long view and invest in the future. That’s what made America great, and that’s how we will prevail.”
It’s great to see Chu defending this core job-creating, pollution-reducing strategy. Unlike many in Washington, he seems to understand both what this country needs and what the American people want.
As Climate Progress reported last week, a major bipartisan public opinion survey found:
In dozens of focus groups we have conducted this month across the country on a wide variety of subjects, when voters are asked where they would like new jobs in their state to come from, the first words out of their mouths are almost always the same – clean energy and related technology. Voters believe that the clean energy economy is here and is growing, and they want their state to have a part of it.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Clean energy makes us healthier, wealthier, safer, and more secure.
Clean energy now!
Chu is brave to stand up to the oil interests trying to kill clean energy. We should join him.
boy i wish he’d stand up to keystone too, instead of repeating the shame incorrect myths about it.
Thanks for leading the fight against tar sands Bill. The fight gained another supporter with with N.Y. Times editorial board calling for State Department to say “no” to Keystone XL. Maybe there is hope that Chu will do the Washington spin move on it as well.
Three Points
First, I agree with Bill McKibben (the comment presently numbered 3). I saw a clip of one of Dr. Chu’s interviews a week or so ago, and of all things I’ve read or watched lately, Chu’s interview was the single-most concerning thing that has me believing that Obama will approve Keystone XL. (And if he does, as I’ve said before, I won’t be voting for him.)
Second, when Notre Dame football “slams” someone, or when the Yankess “slam” someone, or when Jon Stewart slams someone, millions of people watch it and know. I’d be curious about how many people actually know that Dr. Chu has “slammed” anyone about this? One of our problems is that we aren’t doing enough slamming, or we aren’t doing it in the best ways, or else our slams (or our personalities?) aren’t interesting enough to be covered widely in the media?
Third, it is remarkable what “the system” and the polls (supposedly) and what is considered popular terminology does to respected scientists who are responsible for helping us understand and responsibly face real problems that are immense and indeed have immense ethical implications. Here is Dr. Chu, who before he was appointed talked about the reality of climate change and the human/ethical need to address it, now talking mainly about “winning” the economic competition, beating the Chinese in that race, generating jobs, and so forth. What is at bottom an immense scientific-and-ethical issue apparently must be framed in terms of economic competition in order to appear interesting, important, and worth doing something about. Although that may be the short-term politically expedient way to frame things — MAYBE (it’s not at all certain that’s the case) — nevertheless, it just perpetuates and exacerbates our even bigger problem: the feeling that we, as a world, can “compete” ourselves out of our problems. Really, very very few people are talking any sense, and telling it like it is. Those who aren’t are only losing credibility with those who do understand.
So here’s what I see: A Nobel Prize-winning scientist apparently feels that he has to frame things in terms of “winning the competition” for technological and economic competitiveness in order to try to get people to take climate change and clean energy more seriously, and actually DO something. Meanwhile, our leading climate scientist (Hansen) tells us that it’s “game over” if Keystone XL is built, and eight or nine Nobel Peace Prize winners insist that President Obama must not approve Keystone XL, but yet our leading climate change activism leaders are unwilling (apparently) to actually take the strong stance (and the only one with any real leverage!) that President Obama will lose our support, and votes!, if he approves Keystone XL.
I’m going to visit (as part of one of the tar sands action events) the Demo headquarters in Oakland tomorrow. I hope there’s a way for me to make clear that I’m not voting for President Obama if he approves Keystone XL. I think that’s the only strategy that has a chance in “H” of working, and in any case — whether it works or not — I won’t be able to vote for Obama if he approves Keystone XL.
Anyone going to Demo headquarters in Oakland tomorrow, see you there!
Jeff
I went to the “Obama for America” website recently and instead of donating I sent them a message that I would again campaign, donate and vote for Obama but only after he keeps his promise and does something meaningful on climate by saying “no” to Keystone XL and enacts EPA CO2 regs.
The GOP literally said today that we should cede the clean energy race to China and focus on oil.
“We can’t compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines,” Stearns says.
He says he doesn’t believe in any type of subsidy for industry. And, he says, where solar is concerned, it makes more sense to invest in research and development on a technology where the U.S. still has a chance of winning.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/141019154/solar-grantees-defend-loan-program
Ok. No subsidies for the fossil fuel industry either. R&D for clean energy for the purpose of driving down their costs, competing in the market place, diversifying our energy supplies, both domestically and for national defense. In terms of implementation, perhaps tax payer money can be used for “surer bets” such as energy efficiency, residential and commercial building retrofitting, and the ensuing construction/contractor jobs.
There is no perfection in politics. Not only are we in danger of losing on Keystone XL, but also clean energy deployment, as well as clean energy R&D. Those at the center of governance have to balance several less than optimal considerations, including the perception of hurting jobs and the economy, and a relentless enemy seeking to take you down with any misleading perceptions. I wish “climate change” would be mentioned more often. But if “competitiveness”, “energy security” is a more effective clarion call given the current state of the electorate, and “climate change” a “turn off” in terms of engendering resistance, then this may have to be the strategy for now. This is the message of the movie “Carbon Nation” http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/ and “What’s right with Kansas”
http://www.climateandenergy.org/LearnMore/InTheNews/CEPNYT.htm%20http://www.lbl.gov/LBL-PID/fobl/ (True, this is only a shadow of what really needs to be done. But we need to get started, show something that works, set up the appropriate habits,…)
Perhaps the 2020′s may be different, when food and water shortages make climate change obvious to everyone. Timing is everything in politics. (But it may be too late in terms of the science if we’ve crossed some “tipping point”.)
Those who don’t have worry about these “balancing” considerations should protest the hell out of the Obama administration. There is a need for a more purist voice also.
(I hate politics.)
I suggest reading For the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future by Herman E. Daly & John B. Cobb.
Steven Chu, your call for US taking lead in innovation and implementation of Renewable Energy Technologies to create more jobs is timely.It was US which took lead to push Renewables during the Energy Crisis of 1973. Today there is more awareness among Governments to push Renewables. US can give priority for massive Renewables usage and can help other countries as well with its research in Renewables.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh
2/210 First Floor
Nawabpet
NELLORE- 524 002
Andhra Pradesh
INDIA
E-mail:anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/anumakonda.jagadeesh
Blog: http://www.drjagadeeshncda.blogspot.com
Phone: ++ 91 861 2317776
Mobile: +91 9490125950
We need to take the long view and invest in the future. That’s what made America great, and that’s how we will prevail.”
That’s not how I see it. The US has extracted nearly all domestic oil in the shortest time frame possible and burnt it an orgy of gas guzzling boat-sized automobiles.
That was very much ‘The American Way’: Not worrying about and not accepting limits to natural resources. That dogma has funded an incredible economic growth over the past decennia. But it was unsustainable of course.
Now these resources have been depleted and the limit is in full sight, the US needs to hit the brakes or risk a head-on collision. Chu seems to promote the idea that a switch to a clean energy economy can be done without a fundamental change in the prevailing US dogma that ‘the sky is the limit’. That is unrealistic.
Sure wish the weather was nicer.
That is such an interesting point of view.
Used to be that people could say that it was completely up to God to decide the weather and his decision could be influenced by the value of his pleasure with us.
But now with more people learning that there are methods and means to the way weather happens, it is becoming known that all of nature and God can’t just change just because the weather was more comfortable for us at.some other time…
So, the wish that if only the weather was nicer becomes a self defeating wish.
A greenhouse attached to the side of the house would be nice to help make aquaponics easier, you know a small fish pond with vegetarian fish in it with hydroponic
Channels leading from it so that the plants feed the fish and the fish feed the plants. With that there could be a wealth of plenty to feed a family.
Just a thought of what is the best way to back away some from direct contact with the wrath of nature so to speak. It doesn’t look as though people may count on nature just doing our bidding for us.
Just a thought.
Anybody heard of a passive water flow system to keep the water circulating between the fish pond ant the far ends of the hydroponic channels? Sighfun?
Sorry that was supposed to be and not “ant”.
Sighfin?