Time for A Green Bailout? Van Jones Says Clean Energy Investment Can Solve Our Economic and Ecological Challenges

Van Jones is one timely man. With the economic crisis spurring a new search for ways to revitalize and rebuild our flagging economy, Van Jones, the founder and president of Green For All, is ready with answers: "a national commitment to green economic development as a way to address our environmental and economic crises at once."

That's the message of Van's new book, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems (due out in bookstores October 7th), as well as the nationwide Green Jobs Now! day of action organized by Green For All last weekend. He couldn't have picked a better time for the book release and the day of action.

The $700 billion economic bailout plan passed last Friday by Congress may get Wall Street back to square one. But Americans on Main Street want more than a bailout. We want a real plan to move forward. We want a plan to create a more sustainable, prosperous and secure future for ourselves and our loved ones.

In a piece in Huffington Post last Friday (reprinted below), Van points out that investments in a 'green bailout plan' - a series of timely, strategic investments to ignite a new clean energy economy and restart our ailing economy - is our best hope, perhaps the only strategy that can move our troubled nation forward into a new era of shared prosperity. This quote from the intro to The Green Collar Economy sums it up well:

"[W]e cannot drill and burn our way out of our present economic and energy problems. We can, however, invent and invest our way out. Choosing to do so on a massive scale would have the practical benefit of cutting energy prices enough—and generating enough work—to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral."

I look forward to cracking open Van's book this evening (I was lucky enough to get an advanced copy), and I encourage you to pick up a copy for yourselves (you can order a copy here). If there's one question that should be on everyone's mind right now, it's how do we get our economy back on track, kick our dirty energy addiction and ignite a new, clean energy economy. I'm sure Van has some answers.

I'll try to post a review of the book once I've read more of it. For now, here's Van's piece from HuffPost (reprinted with permission from Green for All):

"Now For A Green Bailout: Twice The Bang, Half The Bucks"
By Van Jones

Maybe the Wall Street bailout package is a good idea.

But the only thing I know for sure is this: even if we avert a total economic meltdown, we will still be in a recession. Millions of Americans still will be without jobs -- or in real fear of losing their job. Worse, we will still be dependent on dirty fuels like oil and coal, which are draining our monetary resources and cooking the planet.

The Earth and everyday people will still be suffering.

I wrote a new book to propose elegant solutions for our economic and environmental crises. The Green Collar Economy offers a green cure for the dilemmas we face and the financial messes we are in.

At this point, I am willing to concede that Wall Street and the big bankers need some propping up. But while we are at it, we should find a way to bail out the little people -- and the planet, too.

So how about a green bailout -- to help both? We already took an important step in that direction today. Perhaps the only thing in the whole bailout package that is inarguably good is the support for the U.S. clean energy sector.

After unconscionable delays, Congress finally gave a boost to our wind power industries and our solar power industries by extending the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Production Tax Credit. The price tag was about $9 billion, but the cost was entirely offset, mostly by changes that were made to oil and gas tax rules.

What does America get for that no-net-cost shuffling of the tax code? Plenty. The 8-year extension of ITC alone will create 440,000 jobs. And $230 billion of private investment would be created in the solar and other industries, according to a recent report by Navigant Consulting.

Green Bailout: Half The Money, Twice The Impact

That's a good start. Let's keep going. An all-out "green bailout" could give America TWICE the bang ... for half the bucks.

We just found $700 billion. Let's find another $350 billion. That's half the price tag of the Wall Street rescue - which has no guarantee of success. But with $350 billion investment, we absolutely and positively could retrofit and repower America using clean, green energy - and create millions of new jobs, in the process.

A new report just released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy and a significant improvement in energy efficiency.

Another report just released by the Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for American Progress shows that the U.S. can create two million jobs over two years by investing $100 billion in a green economic recovery plan. The report also shows that this investment would create four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.

Green For All and its partners are proposing a Clean Energy Corps that includes a revolving loan fund to finance the ambitious retrofitting of the nation's building stock. An investment of less than $3 billion per year would provide financing and can be expected to create close to 120,000 green jobs a year and 600,000 over five years, while also lowering home heating and electricity bills for homeowners and small businesses.

Clean Energy Corps: Retrofitting & Repowering America

The United States should have a Clean Energy Corps, combining community service with green-collar job training. Such a program could get hundreds of thousands of people ready to go to work, greening the nation's infrastructure.

The New Apollo Program is a comprehensive economic investment strategy developed by the Apollo Alliance to build America 's 21st century clean energy economy and dramatically cut energy bills for families and businesses. It estimates that the investment of $500 billion over the next 3 years and create more than 5 million high quality green-collar jobs.

It will accelerate the development of the nation's vast clean energy resources and move us toward energy security, climate stability, and economic prosperity. And it will transform America into the global leader of the new green economy.

A massive green economic stimulus package like this could even pay for ITSELF in energy savings and in tax dollars generated by new jobs and businesses.

As Thomas Friedman says, "We don't just need a bailout. We need a buildup." In my new book, The Green-Collar Economy, I spell out other green remedies for our economy.

Friedman: Not Just a Bailout, A Buildup

The bottom line is: we can't base a national economy on credit cards. But we can base it on solar panels, wind turbines, smart bio-fuels and massive, a program to weatherize every building and home in America.

Rather than giving platinum parachutes to those who wrecked the economy, let's throw a green lifeline to the ordinary people who want to rebuild it. We can't drill and burn our way out of our present mess. But we can invent and invest our way out.

Our present economy is based on consumption, debt and environmental destruction. The next U.S. economy should be based on production, smart savings and environmental restoration. You can't have a stable economy based on unregulated greed at the top. But you can have one based on unleashing green, at the bottom.

Millions of green jobs would be a Main Street solution to the Wall Street meltdown.

America's number one resource is not oil or mortgages. Our number one resource is our people.

And it is time to put our people back to work - retrofitting and re-powering America.

That's what my book is all about.

A Pivotal Moment

Cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog and WattHead - Energy News and Commentary...

With Americans focused on energy prices as never before, a game-changing shift is occurring in the American political climate. The time has come for climate and clean energy advocates to adopt a new strategy and policy agenda. Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on global warming. The moment is far too urgent to fall on our swords for a cap-and-trade agenda developed in an entirely different political environment.

There's one thing at the top of Americans' minds these days: energy prices. Prices at the pump have been hitting Americans hard for months now, and an overwhelming majority (87%) do not foresee things getting any better before the end of the year. As of June, concern for energy prices eclipsed the Iraq War as #2 on the Gallup monthly poll of top American concerns (just behind concerns over the ailing economy). And as Republicans and Democrats enter their conventions still sparring over oil drilling, energy is now the #1 election issue.

All of this paints a very clear picture of where Americans are at: they are focused on their pocketbooks, grimacing every time they head to the gas station to fill 'er up.

This new focus on energy prices is a game changer for the world of energy and climate policy.

On the one hand, these developments spell Trouble-with-a-capital-T for politicians and environmentalists pushing a climate-centered agenda and policy solutions aimed at capping and pricing carbon to reduce emissions. At a time of extreme sensitivity over energy prices, we cannot hope to price our way to deep reductions in global warming pollution.

On the other hand, energy now lies at the forefront of the American political environment in a way that it hasn't been since the Oil Shocks of the 1970s. This opens up a unique but urgent opportunity, a chance to advance a robust and bold new policy agenda centered on energy solutions.

Newt Gingrich and his "American Solutions" organization clearly recognized this opportunity. Their "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition garnered over 1.2 million signatures in a matter of weeks. This "drill here, pay less" meme has been so successful, GOP strategists now think energy might be the Republican party's last best hope this election season.

In response, environmentalists and Congressional Democrats scrambled to 'block and tackle' and stop the gathering momentum to simply Drill! Drill! Drill! for more oil. With drilling opponents beaten up by the "drill here, drill now" push, a compromise proposal seems increasingly likely.

Meanwhile, the push for climate policy seems to be on hold, as climate advocates attempt to regroup from the defeat of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Once touted as a bipartisan proposal, the cap-and-trade bill ran into a Republican filibuster in June and failed to secure the support of at least ten Democratic senators. After the repeated failure and declining support for cap-and-trade in Congress, environmentalists and Congressional leaders are surely debating what the next move should be.

It's time to recognize that these two conversations - how do we halt the push for more oil drilling and how do we advance a new climate strategy - are really the same conversation. The question at the heart of both discussions is this: how do we meet Americans where they are at and give them compelling solutions to our mounting energy crisis?

In today's new political context of economic insecurity and energy price spikes, we must provide Americans with what they want: credible promises of affordable, abundant energy.

That calls for a critical pivot away from a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and halting climate change and towards a new focus on making clean, cheap American energy sources a reality.

It's time to get serious about winning the frame game and make the critical pivot to a new message, a message that sounds something like this:

Oil is hurting our economy. Coal is poisoning our air. Both are threatening our climate and our future. It's time to make clean energy cheap and abundant. Which would you rather invest in? Coal and oil - the old, dirty, expensive stuff? Or clean, cheap, new American energy sources? Which will power America's future?

Americans are crying out for new energy solutions. They are hurting at the pump and ready to turn to anyone who can offer a credible path forward. Gingrich beat us to the punch, but the game isn't over.

Support for drilling as the solution to our energy woes seems to be pretty shallow, especially once alternatives are presented. We want somebody to do something, so in the absence of any compelling alternatives, the "drill here, pay less" meme is kicking our butts. But Americans aren't stupid. We understand that the old stuff really isn't working very well and that more of the same will not relieve the strain on our pocketbooks.

If climate and clean energy advocates consistently position the dirty, old, expensive, poisonous stuff on the one hand and present compelling examples of clean, new, renewable, stable, secure and affordable energy sources on the other hand, I think the choice for Americans will be pretty clear and easy. I also can't think of anything else that will work!

This pivot goes far beyond just fighting off a push for drilling and far deeper than simply adopting a new messaging veneer on top of the same old policies. It goes right to the core of our entire energy and climate agenda.

This kind of message - "make clean energy cheap and abundant" - is incompatible with a policy agenda that expects unrestrained carbon prices to do the heavy lifting in igniting a clean energy future - i.e. a "hard" cap-and-trade program without provisions to control the price of carbon. One could conclude that we should shy away from this new message and find one more consistent with the carbon pricing-based policy agenda that has been the focus of climate advocates for so long.

The conclusion I reach, however, is the exact opposite: we don't need to abandon the "clean, cheap energy" message in favor of cap-and-trade; we need to make this change in focus about more than just our message.

If we want this message to stick - and I believe the success or failure of our entire effort to advance a clean energy future may hinge upon that success - we need to adopt a policy framework that's actually in synch with our message. We need a policy agenda focused on developing clean and cheap energy for every American. If we don't, we'll soon find ourselves incoherent and inconsistent, and our message will fail when the public sees that.

The time has come to advance a compelling and effective set of solutions focused on making clean energy cheap and abundant, not making dirty energy expensive and scarce.

Gore's clean energy "moon-shot" speech was (almost) dead-on. He shifted the focus from climate change to the energy challenge and from reducing emissions to increasing clean energy production. Whether we make this transition to 100% clean energy in ten years, twenty, or longer, I think the timetable is far less important than the overall thrust of the message: we're going to make your energy cheap and clean and secure. And who wouldn't want that?

I'm sympathetic to arguments that failing to price global warming pollution at it's full societal cost is simply economically inefficient. And I understand that principles of justice would call for a push to make "polluters pay." However, as we develop our new suite of clean energy solutions, we must make sure that our policy is built as if politics actually mattered. Our ultimate success depends less on appeals to economic efficiency and principles of justice than it does on our ability to meet Americans where they are and overcome the vagaries of the U.S. Senate.

This new policy platform should be centered around a new national project of strategic investments necessary to spark a clean energy economy and develop cheap and clean energy for every American. Carbon pricing and regulation play a role here, but they cannot be the top-line items when it comes to messaging, nor are they likely to do the heavy lifting that unlocks our clean energy potential.

A policy like this is really the only way we're going to pass something in a political climate of high energy prices and economic insecurity, and the only way we'll enact a solution set that gets the job done.

Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on global warming. The moment is far too urgent to fall on our swords for a cap-and-trade agenda developed in an entirely different political environment than the one that exists today. Nor do we have time to just make Americans care enough about global warming to act.

What we have is a unique moment of opportunity when Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about energy and about energy prices, and hungry for new solutions. If we can credibly advance "make clean energy cheap and abundant" as an alternative to the "drill here, pay less" crowd, we can win the battle. In fact, it's probably the only way we can win.

Some Refreshing Common Sense! BLM Removes Solar Roadblock

Cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog...

Well ask and you shall receive I guess...

On monday, my colleague and I called on the federal Bureau of Land Management to stop being an Energy Delayer and lift a moratorium that locked up the vast reserves of solar energy located on federal lands. Today, the BLM announced that they would lift the planned twenty-two month moratorium on land it stewards in six southwest states rich in solar energy. The BLM had claimed that an extensive environmental impact review was necessary before solar development on federal lands could move forward and called for the moratorium on May 29th.

Today's refreshingly smart move from the federal government clears the way for over 130 solar energy development projects already submitted to the BLM to move forward and opens up the possibility of further development of this untapped and vast American energy resource.

"We heard the concerns expressed during the scoping period about waiting to consider new applications," BLM Director James Caswell said in a statement, "and we are taking action. By continuing to accept and process new applications for solar energy projects, we will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while ensuring environmental protections."

I'd love to think my blogging had something to do with this, but there were plenty of voices that arrived at the same conclusion Helen and I did. Among those calling for an end to the insane moratorium on solar development was Senate Majority Leader and solar-rich Nevada's senator, Harry Reid who I imagine might be slightly more influential than this blogger...

Either way, it's clear that as the price of oil continues to rise, buoying inflation and economic insecurity along with it, the time is now to tap our vast reserves of abundant renewable energy and develop the clean and cheap new American energy sources that will power the 21st Century.

So wether it's the Bush Administration, Congressional demogauges or NIMBY enviros, we can't afford to let Energy Delayers stand in the way of a new American energy future.

Energy Delayers, Get Out Of The Way: A New American Energy Future Awaits

By Helen Aki and Jesse Jenkins, cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog

Just as the time becomes ripe for a major push towards clean, cheap sources of electricity, the Bureau of Land Management threw a two-year stumbling block in the path of solar power development last Friday. As solar power ramps up--the Bureau has received 130 proposals solar plants since 2005--the Bureau decided to put a hold on further development, claiming that that an exhaustive environmental impact report must be completed before solar plants can be installed on federally owned lands. Meanwhile, the push continues for oil drilling in protected offshore areas and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (an endeavor that really merits an environmental impact assessment!).

Using environmental justifications to suppress the growth of new, clean, American energy sources doesn't fly with environmentalists (who must feel like their political tool (the EIS) has been perversely co-opted by the "dark side"). But the Mojave ground squirrel aside (a species allegedly threatened by the solar development), it strikes me that anything that actively blocks much needed new clean, renewable energy is not only perverse or ironic, but actually dangerous.

Timed as it is to coincide with the expiration of critical renewable energy incentives, this new road block is bad news for the solar industry-- and actively blocking the advancement of new sources of clean, American energy is bad news for the economy as a whole. Now more than ever, as the price of oil continues to rise, buoying inflation and economic insecurity along with it, the transition to new clean sources of American energy is critical to secure continued economic prosperity.

As the New York Times reports:

"It doesn't make any sense," said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. "The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry." (emph. added)

Even if the moratorium on solar plants in public lands does not entirely smother the solar industry--after all, privately owned lands are still fair game--it is symbolic of a structural failure to fully acknowledge and understand the problems we face, or embrace progressive and effective policies to solve them.

The price of gas has exceeded $4 a gallon in most of the country (it was well over $4.50 in northern California this weekend), the economy is in a downturn, and Americans are crying out for new energy solutions. Cheap, abundant supplies of oil may have powered the United States of the past, but our continued reliance on this depleting and increasingly expensive fossil fuel is now imperiling our economy and our way of life. The obvious answer - to everyone but the federal government apparently - is to tap our vast reserves of abundant renewable energy and develop the new clean, cheap American energy sources that will power the 21st Century.

Instead, all we hear from our Bush Administration throws up roadblocks to the clean energy sources at our fingertips and calls to Drill! Drill! Drill! for more oil (i.e. more of the same). Meanwhile critical renewable energy incentives gasp their final, rattling breath in Congress.

Why? Though the answer may lie with oil interests, there is a deeper trend. In his most recent New York Times op-ed, Thomas Friedman laments the current state of the union and insists that we need to rebuild a dysfunctional nation. He writes that, "It's the state of America now that is the most gripping source of anxiety for Americans," adding that "our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities" -- a myopia which is only too evident in a policy such as the BLM's, and in the absurd energy solutions proposed by the current administration.

Friedman goes on to say:

"I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry -- renewable energy and clean power -- and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry."

We are living in a dangerous time, a time of energy crisis. Out of this danger comes opportunity, and a choice between futures.

We can choose to continue towards a future of oil dependency that spells disaster for both our economy and our climate, putting up impediments to essential new American energy industries and providing "life support" in the form of continued subsidies to the mature ones in decline. Or we can choose to recharge America with the power sources of a truly novel era, letting go of that which is no longer politically or economically strategic and cultivating that which will lead us into an age of clean energy and prosperity.

It seems that, so far, we have only chosen the former. Which future do you choose?

Image source: NY Times

WSJ Says: Don't Bet on LNG to Reduce US Natural Gas Prices

Econ 101 taught us increased supply = lower prices. That's the main argument for new liquefied natural gas import terminals. Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal warns things are a bit more complicated than that and we shouldn't bet on LNG to reduce North American natural gas prices. This is Econ 202 stuff at least...

Amidst concerns about a potential North American natural gas supply crunch, several energy developers are betting big on new terminals to import liquefied natural gas into the United States market. Three terminals are proposed in Oregon, and they have generated considerably controversy and strong opposition from local communities.

There are many reasons to be concerned about imported liquefied natural gas, or LNG, natural gas that has been supercooled to -260 degrees F in order to turn it into a liquid ready to transport on specially-designed tankers from LNG exporting countries like Indonesia, Russia, Iran and Qatar. From increased dependence on foreign fossil fuels to increased greenhouse gas emissions, seized farmland for new pipelines and health and safety concerns, citizens of potentially impacted communities have found plenty of reasons to rally against LNG terminals and pipelines.

The principle argument to forge ahead with new LNG terminals despite these concerns is the assumption that increasing North American natural gas supplies with LNG imports will reduce prices. It's a simple "laws" of supply and demand that increased supply will reduce prices, right? That's what we all learned in economics 101, right?

Unfortunately, a recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal (April 18) warns us that the economics of LNG is a bit more complicated than that. This is economics 202 stuff at least (the online copy is here, sub$cr. required).

The gist of the story is that we shouldn't be betting on increased LNG imports to help lower natural gas prices in the US. Read on to find out why...

Unlike oil, which is easily shipped globally and has been a globally traded commodity for some time, natural gas has developed more regional markets separated by delivery constraints, each with different gas prices. LNG changes the game, and increased global LNG capacity is making natural gas a global commodity with a global price. That's bad news for the United States, where natural gas prices are about half what Japan is willing to pay for a shipment of LNG, for example.

According to the WSJ article: "Today, a tanker of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, pulling into port in Japan can command close to $20 per million BTUs, roughly double the price of the U.S. benchmark."

As with any globally traded commodity, the marginal price sets the price for everyone. If Japan is willing to pay $20 per million BTUs (mmBTU) for LNG, prices globally will float up towards this price, and that's about what we should expect to pay here in the Northwest if an LNG terminal is built. We'll essentially be linking our mostly regional market to an intensely competitive global market for LNG, where the price is set by the highest bidder.

It'd be foolish then to bet on LNG, for which international competition can drive prices up to around $20/mmBTU, to help lower Northwest (or North American) natural gas prices, which are now in the vicinity of $6-8/mmBTU. In fact, the very opposite could occur. If LNG prices set the marginal supply cost for LNG in the Northwest, domestic natural gas prices may even rise to this new marginal cost. That's how commodity markets work, isn't it (told you this was Econ 202 kind of stuff)?

In short, the main argument for new LNG terminals in North America (and here in the Northwest) is that they will help reduce natural gas prices regionally by increasing supply. Problem is, that's not how this competitive global market works. Instead, we'll merely be hooking ourselves up to another global market for a foreign fossil fuel and put ourselves in a competitive bidding war with Japan, Korea, India, China, Spain, and others to see who lands that next shipment of LNG. Not exactly a competition I'd like to get into.

Oh, and did I mention that there's talk of forming a new cartel of LNG exporting countries, just like OPEC, to manipulate the markets to exporters' advantage. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration cautions:

"One risk that cannot be ignored is the likely formation of an LNG cartel, given that so few countries control such a large portion of the world’s stranded natural gas reserves, and its power to affect LNG prices."

This was new stuff for me - I thought the old Econ 101 argument seemed pretty sound - and I didn't expect this kind of warning to come from the Wall Street Journal of all places. Seems like we've got yet another reason to be cautious about proposed LNG terminals in Oregon and elsewhere.

[Graphic credits: LNG terminal map from MSNBC; LNG tanker and terminal from LNGWorldwide.com]

Oil Hits Record Price. Gas Nearing $4.00. President Bush, Clueless…

Happy Friday! Oil hit record-prices today: $103.05 per barrel. Bully for us...

That tops the inflation adjusted high of $102.53 set in 1980. Oil first inched over $100 to welcome in the new year on January 2nd and has hovered around $100 since then, routinely spiking into new record territory. Now we've blown past the final record: the inflation adjusted highs reached in the '80s.

This news comes as analysts predict $4.00 per gallon gasoline when refiners switch over to reformulated blends in Spring.

Of course, you and I already know that. We see it every time we drive past a gas station, or god forbid, actually pull in to fill up our tanks!

You'd assume President Bush would be clearly aware of the state of gas prices as well, given how much they impact average Americans every day. Well, you might assume that about another president anyway... I wasn't too shocked to learn that President Bush is actually completely clueless that gas prices are soaring towards $4.00!

In a press conference today, he revealed his complete ignorance of what life is like for real Americans on the street in an interview that began with a simple question from Peter Maer of CBS News. Here's the transcript of the exchange, courtesy of NTYimes blog, "the Lede":

Q: What’s your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing –

MR. BUSH: Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q: A number of analysts are predicting –

MR. BUSH: Oh, yeah?

Q: — $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

MR. BUSH: That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.

"I hadn't heard of that?!" Seriously?! Well that explains a lot...

Like why President Bush has routinely blocked the US Congress's fiscally responsible attempts to re-invest wasteful oil subsidies to kick-start new sources of clean, homegrown renewable energy.

Three times now, the House of Representatives of the 110th Congress has passed bills that would end wasteful subsidies to oil companies designed to spur domestic oil exploration at a time when oil priced in at about $20.00/barrel. With oil prices at record levels over five times higher than when Bush took office, it's simply fiscally irresponsible to shower an industry recording record profits with taxpayer subsidies while denying the most promising and fastest growing clean, homegrown renewable energy technologies critical incentives that spur their growth.

The House passed their third attempt to correct this irresponsible tax spending and shift funds to extend critical renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits, as well as support purchases of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Perhaps the third time's a charm, but this victory could be short lived, with President Bush again threatening to veto and a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate expected (again!).

But I guess if President Bush doesn't have a clue what oil and gasoline prices are really like these days, he can be forgiven for ignorantly and irresponsibly defending oil subsidies to Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and friends... These oil companies are incidentally reaping record profits off of the record prices paid by every-day Americans at the pumps, all while the economy tanks... But maybe President Bush doesn't know that either.

So maybe we should go light on President Bush... After all, he doesn't know any better!

But WE, the every day American tax payer do!

WE know that lavishing subsidies on established and highly profitable industries is a pretty poor use of taxpayer money.

We ALSO know that subsidizing the energy industries of the past will not help us solve the energy challenges of the future! To do that, we're going to have to be Energy Smart! We're going to have to invest in new, clean, domestic energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, energy efficiency, new 100+ mpg plug-in hybrid cars and more in order to have an energy supply that is sustainable, both environmentally AND economically.

WE know better, so let's let the Senate and President Bush know it's time to re-invest! Let your Senators know it's time to be smart with our energy subsidies.

Tell the Senate to pass H.R. 5351 the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 so we can take a step towards a sustainable, prosperous and secure America!

Can MLK's Dream Be Reborn in the Economic Stimulus Package?

When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated forty years ago in Memphis, he was calling for a campaign that would unite the poor and working classes of all races behind a shared economic future. Today, with ever increasing income gaps, rising oil prices, rapid climate change, expanding outsourcing, and economic instability, Dr. King's dream is as necessary as ever.

As we honor King's life and vision tomorrow, it's time for his dream to be reborn, not only to meet the still-lingering challenges from his time but also the unique challenges of ours.

Today, as Congress prepares a giant Economic Stimulus Package, there is no better way to honor Dr. King’s memory and continue his struggle than to demand that Congress go green and go equal in the stimulus.

The economic stimulus package could simply go towards short-term consumer spending that may temporarily prop up our economy, or it could help lay the foundation of prolonged economic prosperity. We could invest in new iPhones or in a sustainable, just, and prosperous energy future. It's up to Congress now to decide which.

Cross-posted at DailyKos...

While crafting a national stimulus package, Congress should develop policy measures that not only help keep our economy out of recession in the short-term, but also make smart investments in longer-term, sustained economic prosperity by moving our nation towards a clean energy economy that provides employment opportunities for all Americans.

In addressing America's current economic difficulties, we have a unique opportunity to not only avoid a recession, but also to address one of the root causes of our current economic woes: high energy prices and our dependence on dirty and depleting fossil fuels. We have an opportunity to act boldly to strengthen American energy independence, invest in the clean, sustainable energy sources that will form the foundation of a new era of economic prosperity, and take aim at global warming - all while putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work.

More specifically, Congress should ensure that all tax cuts and direct spending measures promote a clean energy economy that provides economic opportunities for all Americans, including the poor and working class. This would mean, for example:

• Funding a public Clean Energy Corps that offers work and service opportunities to the young and poor to combat climate change through energy efficiency and weatherization projects;


• Expanded and immediate funding of the recent Green Jobs Act (GJA), Title X of the EISA;


• Directing infrastructure investments toward transit, “green” infrastructure in water and sewer, mixed use dense development, walkable communities, and overall reductions in vehicle miles traveled and our nation’s carbon footprint;


• Investing in improving our electricity grid to be “smarter” in improving end-use efficiency, allowing greater use of distributed renewable energy generation, and increasing its own efficiency in using the interconnected components of our national energy generation system;


• Using additional monies allocated to LIHEAP for improving building energy efficiency as well as home heating assistance, and removing current constraints on such use;


• Establishing federal credit guarantees for state and municipal “efficiency utilities” promoting energy conservation efforts in transportation, industry, and buildings;


• Establishing a federal revolving loan fund to support such efforts;


• Provide personal tax credits or rebates to encourage the purchase and installation of energy efficient appliances and heating and cooling systems;

By increasing national energy efficiency, reducing out-of-pocket energy spending, and creating employment opportunities, the measures above will meet basic stimulus goals while furthering national objectives of climate protection, energy security, and economic equity. This year's stimulus package offers the unique opportunity to advance all these aims, and we encourage you to seize it.

A new clean energy economy must provide equal opportunity and equal protection for all. Dr. King was working towards this dream when he was killed. Let us come together now to continue his unfinished work and create a more sustainable, just, and prosperous America. Help spread the word and put pressure on Congress to focus on solutions to the recession that also achieve longer-term economic prosperity, equal opportunity and a sustainable energy economy.

Let the Dream be Reborn!

[Image source: MLKOnline.net]