The Hub: Resources for a Clean-Energy Economy

Posted on

"The Hub: Resources for a Clean-Energy Economy"

The Hub: Resources for a Clean-Energy Economy
The clean-energy economy holds the promise to combat global warming, reduce our dependence on volatile and expensive fossil fuels, and create millions of new high-quality jobs for Americans. But the fight to transition to this new economy will be a tough one. Some special interests are currently spending millions of dollars a day lobbying legislators in Washington to support the status quo.

To ensure we usher in a clean-energy future, the Center for American Progress has partnered with allies to compile the arguments, stories, and state-by-state data needed to show that the clean-energy economy will create good jobs, lower consumer costs, spur innovation and entrepreneurship, and position America as a global leader in the new low-carbon energy era.

The key sub-topics covered by The Hub are

signature stories logo

The site has “Clean-Energy Signature Stories” put together by the Apollo Alliance from Tennessee, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, and more.

Finally, today’s featured content is :

worker working on a green buildingClean-Energy Investments Create Jobs

Hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans are already employed in clean energy jobs. Learn about these jobs and how they can help put millions of Americans back to work.

Woman pumping gasA Clean-Energy Economy Will Save Consumers Money

Learn about how transitioning to a clean energy economy will cost Americans only pennies a day while reducing household energy costs.

Researcher stands in front of climate change imagesThe Cost of Inaction Is Far Greater than the Cost of Action

Hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, and floods””learn about the high costs of unmitigated climate change to the American economy.

wind turbine manufacturing in ChinaRegaining Our Clean Energy Leadership

America has fallen behind in the race to develop clean energy technologies while China and Europe speed ahead. Learn how we can get America back at the head of the pack and restore our proud tradition of innovation.

CEO on Nanosolar gives a sales pitchPrivate Investment Pours into Clean-Energy Industries

Public and private investment in the clean energy economy has been a bright spot in the recent recession. Learn about one of the fastest growing investment sectors and what the future holds for clean energy industries.

CAP is always looking for new data and stories for this site. Please contact hub@americanprogress.org to let CAP know about any information you think they should add.

« »

6 Responses to The Hub: Resources for a Clean-Energy Economy

  1. Brewster says:

    Nice to get some good news in with all the gloom…

  2. Sirs:

    No knowledgeable person is advocating inaction. It is quite clear that we have serious energy and environmental issues.

    But let’s not confuse activity with accomplishment!

    As a physicist (and energy expert) what we should be pushing for are Scientifically Sound Solutions.

    In other words, the stakes are too high — and the costs are too great — to be simply shooting in the dark.

    Scientific methodology is the tried and true way to ascertain which proposed options are legitimate, and which simply enrich lobbyists and other profiteers.

    Hopefully ClimateProgress can get behind that motto: Scientifically Sound Solutions, and that that can be the underying theme for ALL of their recommendations.

  3. J4zonian says:

    John droz, jr.,

    If you’re serious, and really want good science to be a major factor in evaluating societal options, I’m with you all the way. But “sound science” has become a Republican code phrase for a system of obfuscating, bureaucratizing, politicizing and denying ACTUAL sound science in fields as diverse as evolution, epidemiology, climate, wildlife biology, and many others.

    It is clear that some people are in fact advocating inaction, not only on climate catastrophe but on most or all other ecological threats to humans and biodiversity as well, and that some of those people are funding science and pseudoscience that is being accepted and even distributed by the conservative advocates of so-called “sound science”.

    Also, to define someone as knowledgable or not depending on their opinions on one issue seems like an invitation to manipulative tautology, while to speak in generalities that mean essentially nothing, and COULD come to mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean, is pretty shaky ground rhetorically, philosophically, scientifically, relationally and credibilityally.

    Please explain, or give us some examples.

  4. J4zonian:

    Your question for clarification is appreciated. Clearly in such a format, comments are necessarily brief.

    Assuring that something makes scientific sense has nothing to do with obfuscation. The simple fact is that the higher the stakes, the more sure we need to be that what we are doing is going to really work.

    Instead we have adopted the opposite mentality: because the stakes are so high, we “don’t have time” to make sure that our “solutions” really work. That is insanity.

    That mentality has also paved the way for profiteers to jump in and say: “Since you are going to spend hundreds of Billions of dollars, I have a solution that will be REALLY good!”

    They have zero proof of their product’s efficacy, and are banking on this “do anything” mentality for people to say “Great, let’s give this guy $200 Billion and see how it works out in 2030. His promise is good enough for us!”

    This is the type of foolishness that happens when we depart from scientific methodology.

    That’s the gist of my main concern.

    I have an electrical energy presentation that explains more “www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation”.

  5. J4zonian says:

    So I checked out your site, got to #24 out of 151, and disagreed with almost everything in it so far. I will look at more later, but most of your ‘statements of fact’ were either wrong, or were opinions–which I just happened to disagree with. Wind HAS been proven technically, it IS sound environmentally (didn’t come to any birdkill nonsense but i sense it in the wind, so just in case… vehicles, windows, communication towers etc kill thousands of times more birds than windmills (which are .04% of deaths caused by objects–4 hundredths of a percent!–not even counting pollution, habitat loss here and at the other end of their migrations, and “other”–plastic islands in the Pacific and such, and per generator kills get smaller all the time as siting and design are improved). It IS proven to be financially sound. See Rocky Mountain Institute, eg.

    Even as one trained in psychotherapy I continue to be baffled why a small minority of people hates wind power with such a burning intensity that they make a screech louder than 10,000 times their actual number. The hatred is almost always supported by multiple, false and irrelevant (to the opposer) points. That is, for example, Republicans who never cared about saving a bird in their lives all of a sudden are shedding crocodile bird tears over half a dozen being killed by windmills while ignoring the trillions that have been wiped out by industrial pollution, apotheosized by the coal plants the windmills could replace. When something isn’t about what someone says it’s about, you gotta wonder what it IS about…

    You who go apoplectic at the sight of a windmill but say nothing and almost certainly don’t even notice the thousands upon thousands of miles of incredibly ugly transmission lines you’ve passed under or driven along in your life… I don’t get you.

    But I don’t expect an answer; people are even less conscious of their real motivations than they are of what they drive past–and therefore most deny they have any other motivations besides the ones they’ve adopted as (unconscious) smokescreens.

    When I got into goat dairying I thought the goats that experienced people liked were ugly–emaciated, malformed… I came to appreciate their beauty over time, partly through form-follows-function thinking, partly through affection coloring my perception. Even though I prefer small-scale local and residential on-site wind and solar (cause of those pesky T-lines as well as economic democracy and deconcentration of wealth) I happen to think windmills are almost as beautiful as tall ships; my heart soars when i see either, even more when i see a hundred on a ridge, (windmills, not tall ships–a hundred of them on a ridge would be a sign of…well, something bad…) because i know not only are birds being saved but people and frogs and orchids and solitary bees are being saved by the decrease in mercury, radiation, heat, climate change, particulates, and the subsidiary destruction caused by most energy use…

    It’s easy to not look for an answer and then say there is no answer; or to look where you know the answer isn’t and then say it’s not there. It’s easy to not look for evidence and then claim that such evidence doesn’t exist. It’s also bad science. Stop projecting. Get someone to take the beam out of your eye.

    This is why I asked for examples. If you said almost the same things about nuclear, about coal, about the unexamined use of oil and its monstrous unintended effects, you would be right. If you said most of that about hydrogen I’d agree with you, or if you claimed AGW deniers were using those bad-science arguments you mentioned, you’d have me all the way. Why, oh why oh why do you feel it so compelling to shut off the BS-detecting part of your spidey sense to pick on such a benign, positive force for good as wind power? Can you examine your innermost feelings and give me just a clue?

    And of course I apologize if you miraculously reverse or brilliantly prove everything in the rest of your slide show. pardon me for going on so long; now I must be off to suffer through more absurdist propaganda.

  6. J4zonian:

    Thank you for looking at the energy presentation. I’m puzzled that you make statemements regarding wind turbines appearances, yet the position in the presentation has nothing to do with their looks.

    Yes we have “put up” with shortcomings with other sources of electricity (e.g. nuclear) but these sources provide us 1) reliable, 2) dispatchable, 3) baseload, 4) inexpensive electricity. These are the foundation of our modern society.

    Wind energy provides NONE of those items.

    My email address is on the presentation, so please email me about any perceived errors, providing the independent scientific real-world evidence that proves something I said wrong. If you do that, I will gladly make an immediate change.