Our guest blogger is Kate Gordon, Vice President of Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The statement by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) that we can’t compete with China on clean energy manufacturing is not only untrue, it’s frankly un-American. Lest we forget, the U.S. is a major manufacturer, with 12 percent of our GDP coming from the manufacturing sector. To put that in perspective, when we recently lost less than 4 percent of GDP after the housing bubble burst, we called it a “Great Recession.” Twelve percent is a lot. And in the clean economy, including renewable energy, efficiency, clean transit, and transportation, more than a quarter of all jobs are in manufacturing.

So maybe Mr. Stearns didn’t get the memo, but we’re already competing with China on clean energy manufacturing in general, and in solar and wind manufacturing in particular. We actually export solar panel components to China, which – along with Germany – is actually the leading destination for most of those exports. And in the wind sector, there are over 400 manufacturing firms across America making the component parts of our domestic wind turbines, and we not only make about 50 percent of all the wind components we use here in the U.S., but we also export parts to Canada, Mexico, Chile, and other countries.

Sure, China may sometimes out-compete us when it comes to mass manufacturing of mature technologies, using lower labor costs and strong subsidies. But where America excels has always been in more advanced manufacturing of new and emerging technologies, where our high-skill workers, proximity to inventors and engineers, and strong university and lab support make us a leader.

The big question facing the U.S. is not whether we’re capable of competing with China to manufacture the clean energy future. The question is whether political leaders like Mr. Stearns will develop the courage and vision to embrace that future. Right now there are millions of Americans with jobs in clean energy innovation, manufacturing, installation, operations, and maintenance. But if Congress can’t get it together to pass the policies and programs we need to ensure a stable market for clean energy technologies, our existing clean energy companies may just start looking elsewhere for a better deal. And then China really will win.

A state in Germany’s industrial heartland is moving quickly to replace nuclear power with renewable energy, a transition that supporters say could be applied in the United States to reduce our reliance on coal.

The state of Baden-Württemberg, home to Mercedes-Benz and a strong manufacturing sector, faces abrupt changes to its energy systems as Germany strives to close its 17 nuclear power plants over the next 12 years. About half of the state’s electricity derives from nuclear generation, or double the national average.

Officials aim to lean heavily on renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro and biomass, which are expected to provide at least 80 percent of the state’s electricity by 2050. Germany is already moving in that direction, with about 20 percent of its power currently coming from renewable sources.

So Climatewire (subs. req’d) reports today.

At the same time, NPR reports the pro-pollution extremists running the House say American’s aren’t up to the task:

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who chairs an energy and commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, originally supported the program when Congress created it….

“We can’t compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines,” Stearns says.

Seriously.  We invented the modern solar cell, but after that, the GOP says, Americans can’t compete.

UPDATE:  CAP’s Kate Gordon explains at the end why the GOP’s stunning willingness to conceding the clean-energy race to other countries is un-American.

How can Germany do what the GOP says Americans can’t?  They have a bipartisan consensus and no climate denial machine, according to a leading German politician:

Read more

Sammy Chu knows that energy efficiency creates local jobs. He’s seen it for himself. As director of Long Island Green Homes, a local financing program based around Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), Chu has seen the creation of dozens of new contractor positions that have helped his home town of Babylon, New York, invest millions of dollars in efficiency retrofits.

Since the program started in 2008, Chu says it has brought $1.89 in value for every $1.00 invested through savings on energy bills — helping support hundreds of efficiency retrofits and support 50 full-time jobs.

“These are local jobs that can’t be outsourced,” Chu explains in an interview at the Greenbuild Conference in Toronto. “And the value is felt right here, for both the customers and the contractors.”

The town’s program was so successful, one contractor moved over to Babylon from the west coast to set up shop. And in 20 months, his outfit grew from one person to 27 employees:

Read more

by Kate Gordon , Matthew Kasper, and Susan Lyon

There’s one thing we know for certain about green jobs: They are real, well-paid, and growing. The jobs that make up the clean energy economy are on the rise when jobs in many other sectors are slipping away or moving overseas. With 14 million unemployed Americans, they are a sign of hope in an otherwise stagnant economy.

In terms of sheer growth, the clean tech sector glows especially brightly. The July 2011 report “Sizing the Clean Economy” from the Brookings Institution and Battelle’s Technology Partnership Practice makes clear that emerging clean tech sectors saw “explosive growth” in recent years.

In particular, the clean economy sector focused on clean energy—especially wind, solar, fuel cell, smart grid, biofuel, and battery companies—grew far more quickly than the economy as a whole. The Brookings report slices and dices the data in a number of ways. But most striking is the major jobs growth in clean energy between 2003 and 2010: Solar thermal and wind grew by 18.4 percent and 14.9 percent, respectively.

The above chart breaks down the top 10 of these specific clean technology industries in terms of their annual average percent change in jobs from 2003 to 2010.

Segments with initially very few jobs saw particularly dramatic change over time, though the total jobs in the segment may still be much smaller than in others with a larger baseline.

This chart breaks them down in terms of absolute change in jobs:

Read more

by Leo Hickman in a Guardian cross post

Here’s a new documentary that I suspect we’re going to hear lots more about in the coming months.

An Albuquerque-based filmmaker called Mark Mathis has produced a film called Spoiled, which promises to expose the “outright lies” being spread about oil by “the media, politicians and environmental activists”. Mathis says it’s now time to “fill up on the truth”.

The film is just starting to be shown outside his hometown – it premiered at the Albuquerque Film Festival in August – but there are scheduled screenings in California later this year.

In an interview with the Farmington Daily Times, Mathis sets out why he made the film:

There has been a string of films that have tried to portray oil and gas and other energy sources as bad. This is the first film that questions the premise…I would describe it as first, a pro-truth film. The truth is that fossil fuels are wonderful…. We’re not addicted[ to oil]; we’re spoiled. We’re spoiled by these resources like oil and natural gas that have given us this incredibly high quality of life.

Mathis says he is expecting and prepared for a hostile reaction from environmentalists:

They’re very committed to their delusions. As the awareness of the film grows, we fully expect that people who are not fans of fossil fuels will line up to criticize the film.

The only clue to the film’s deeper content and arguments is the trailer that is currently posted on the film’s website. The viewer is introduced to half a dozen or so (unlabelled) talking heads, including Senator James Inhofe, all of which help to feed into the film’s central premise of why we need “an open and honest discussion about energy”. (The film’s co-writer Kevin Miller also talks about the film on an Atlanta-based Christian TV station.)

The Farmington Daily Times put the obvious question to Mathis: who is funding the documentary?

Mathis acknowledges that some of the film’s funding came from individuals with interests in the oil and gas industry.

Read more

by Kiley Kroh and Jessica Goad, in an Environmental Defense Fund cross-post

While coastal degradation is a serious concern for communities throughout the country, it poses a particular threat to the ecosystem and economy of the Mississippi River Delta. Louisiana is home to 40 percent of the wetlands in the continental United States but experiences about 80 percent of all wetlands losses across the country.  This not only harms habitats, but removes billions of dollars’ worth of natural flood protection and environmental services from coastal communities.  Further, the damage wrought by the BP oil spill continues to threaten industries such as tourism and fisheries that drive local economies throughout the Gulf Coast.  However, restoration projects and their recreation benefits are putting residents of the Mississippi River Delta back to work and rehabilitating these critical resources.

For example, the Central Wetlands Unit (CWU) is a 30,000-acre expanse of degraded marsh near downtown New Orleans.  As a new study conducted by Restore America’s Estuaries found, the $72-million project is on track to create 280 direct jobs and 400 indirect and induced jobs, for a total of 680 jobs over the project’s life.   Once restored, the project will provide long-term ecosystem services and economic benefits for the community – and is just one example of the vast potential offered by the conservation economy.

Last week, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report called “The Jobs Case for Conservation:  Creating Opportunity Through Stewardship of America’s Public Lands.”  The report lays out the employment and fiscal impacts of different categories of the conservation economy—recreation, restoration, renewable energy development and sustainable forest management.  We demonstrate that protecting lands and oceans creates jobs, that policymakers should promote policies that manage lands for the conservation value, and that the conservation economy has already created hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.

Read more

NY Times:  At the influential blog Climate Progress, Joe Romm, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, has made a similar point, likening geo-engineering to a dangerous course of chemotherapy and radiation to treat a condition curable through diet and exercise — or, in this case, emissions reduction.

JR:  For those here because of the NY Times piece on geo-engineering, here is an “Introduction to Climate Progress.”  You can find my previous writings on geo-engineering here.  See in particular Martin Bunzl on “the definitive killer objection to geoengineering as even a temporary fix.”

by Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell

A few days ago, the UK-based Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project, or “SPICE,” a project aimed at cooling the earth’s climate, was delayed due to environmental concerns.

SPICE is designed to mimic the effects of volcanic eruptions through the large-scale spraying of climate-cooling sulphate particles into the stratosphere. The first step in deploying the project is to spray water particles from a balloon. But that will have to wait.

The project is part of a much larger debate around the merits and demerits of using geo-engineering solutions to combat climate change. Those in favor are of two minds.

Read more

A round-up of the top energy and climate news. Please post other links below.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Rising Despite Reform Effort

Global fossil fuel consumption subsidies rose in 2010 despite a pledge by G-20 nations to take steps to reduce them in coming years, according to a new analysis.

The International Energy Agency estimated Tuesday that subsidies that artificially lower fuel prices reached $409 billion in 2010, an increase of almost $110 billion above 2009 levels.

Read more

by Michael Conathan

New Englanders are still reeling in the wake of the latest epic collapse of our beloved Boston Red Sox. The last time we took a gut punch like that at the close of a baseball season was when a dribbling ground ball hopped over first baseman Bill Buckner’s glove in Game Six of the 1986 World Series.

As the New York Mets went on to the World Series title that year, the New England groundfishery was in the first year of a new set of restrictions known as the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Today, fishermen on docks from Maine to Rhode Island have come to hate that plan even more than the New York Yankees.

New England fishermen frequently express this animosity using that most quintessentially American medium: the bumper sticker. The message that decorates many a pickup in Gloucester, New Bedford, and other fishing towns reads: “National Marine Fisheries Service: Destroying Fishermen and Their Communities Since 1976.”

The message couldn’t be clearer.  New England fishermen are not fond of their regulators.

Read more