Alliance Research Weekly — Reaching across party lines, Coal plants turning to wind, 20 million new green jobs
October 8th, 2008 | Posted by WeCanSolveIt
Each week, the Alliance for Climate Protection’s Solutions Development and Analysis team compiles a series of timely and informative facts about climate and energy issues. We think they’re compelling, so we’ll be posting the “best-of” each week. We hope they spark some lively discussion.
******
Blue + Red = Green
We’ve seen it before.
Every four years, we see the large, electoral map dividing the red states from the blue states – Republicans from Democrats. But, now, both parties seem to be finding common ground on the issue of clean energy. Maybe the red states and blue states are beginning to turn green.
Between August 9-20, WorldPublicOpinion.com conducted a poll of 1,174 Americans:
“Three-quarters of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama’s supporters and 60 percent who support Republican John McCain favor alternative energy even if it increases costs in the short run.” The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland managed the poll.
Supporters of both parties are not the only ones engaging in the clean energy movement. The Associated Press reports a Republican leader is calling for lower carbon dioxide emissions to reduce his state’s impact on global warming:
“South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) called for his state to cut CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020, with voluntary measures driven largely by incentives and laws already in place. Renewable sources should provide the state with 5 percent of its energy needs and another 5 percent is to be met through conservation and efficiency measures. South Carolina’s GHG emissions rose 39 percent between 1990 and 2005.”
Seems like our message, and those of other organizations and leaders, is making the case to the public for the urgency and solvability of the climate crisis. Hopefully more people will realize that the climate crisis is not a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue, but a humankind issue.
And who better to explain the real urgency than a Nobel Prize-winning group of international scientists. A new research study from Global Carbon Project shows emissions caused by humans are on the rise:
“Global carbon dioxide caused by humans rose 3 percent last year. The new numbers, called ‘scary’ by some, were a surprise because scientists thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Most developing nations, however, slightly cut their CO2 output in 2007, while U.S. emissions rose nearly 2 percent, and China and India increased their CO2 pollution to a record high of 9.34 billion tons of carbon.”
However, it seems one carbon-emitting company is taking a step in the right direction. Xcel, one of the largest builders of coal-fired plants in the U.S. is aiming to build its renewable energy portfolio:
Making the switch
“Following Xcel Energy’s announcement to shut down a 156MW and 73MW coal plant, it is adding more wind and solar power. Colorado and Minneapolis-based Xcel, which serves 3.3 million electricity customers in eight states in the Midwest and West, will add at least 1,000 MW of new wind and solar power to its energy portfolio as well as increase its investment in energy efficiency programs.”
Not only will this kind of the switch to renewable energy reduce impacts on the climate, but it will create jobs in the much-needed green economy as well. A new UN report relates the big economic benefits of green jobs:
“The worldwide renewable energy industry is expected to create 20 million new jobs around the globe by 2030 if countries implement and broaden policies to slow global warming. This is nearly ten times the number of green jobs that exist today (2.3 million). Twelve million new jobs are expected in the biofuels industry, 6.3 million in the solar industry, and 2 million in the wind industry. The biggest gains are expected to come in the developing world.”
These potential 20 million new green jobs around the world are proof positive that we can improve the environment and revitalize our economy at the same time.
15 Responses to “Alliance Research Weekly — Reaching across party lines, Coal plants turning to wind, 20 million new green jobs”
This is so clearly the right path. Drilling more so we can burn more fossil fuels is so clearly the wrong path. Getting from here to there will be difficult. But for so many reasons we have to do it, or we may find much more dire consequences than simply higher prices at the pumps. The natural renewable and clean sources of energy are already there for the taking. Wind, solar, waves, currents, geothermal, hydro, it’s all there. We just need to be smart enough to figure how to harnass it, and wise enough to see we haven’t got any other viable option.
er…harness
Well said.. “..wise enough to see we haven’t got any other viable option.” I hear & see these people talking about how something like a wind farm or solar panels are ugly in Suffolk County Long Island, and I just drop my jaw in disbelief of their complete selfishness; when a field, miles away, filled with ways to help save the earth they live on is being condemned. Meanwhile, it’s personal opinion of course, but I think wind farms add a certain beauty, especially when there’s thousands of acres of land without them, and the land will only be considered to be built up or turned into a highway due to overpopulation aNyway. How is the choice not clear?
Last night many of the worlds most powerful countries united to try to solve their financial problems. In one night they decided to lower interest rates. I think a feeling of connectedness, dependence and vulnerability and is arising among all the nations of the world. This will serve to solve the global energy and CO2 problems as well.
We only have to look back to 1977 when we were importing 46% of our fuel to meet or needs. When conservation methods were introduced and signed into law imports dropped to 27% by 1985. The oil producing countries were effected the most, low consumption meant less money, so what happened, availability became apparent faster and bigger cars speed limits were increased and by 1995 were we were importing 60% of our fuel and started sending our counties financial resources to oil producing countries and indirectly funding those that wish to hurt us. If we did it then we can do it again.
IF WE DON’T DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WERE NOT GOING TO GET ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
I am 100 percent in support of the clean energy movement. However, we cannot forget that right now we need still need to be investing money into clean energy research. As of now, Biofuels actually have higher CO2 emissions than current gas, and wind power uses just as many resources to upkeep as it puts out. More work needs to be done to perfect these energy methods.
As a Colorado resident, and Excel customer, it is good to see this kind of impact. Xcel is truly leading the way for the kinds of changes that we all need to make. Remember that for this to be realy effective, we also need to sign up to buy the wind energy.
Boycott ABC and their advertisers.
Here is my message to ABC on behalf of WeCanSolveIt.
———————————————————
Because you will not run the WeCanSolveIt, Re-power America ad, my family will not watch ABC television or listen to ABC radio broadcasts any longer. Consequently, we will not be seeing any of the advertisements ABC stations show. However, we will be writing to some of your advertisers to explain our position and actions to them.
Siding with the oil and coal industries will be a very costly decision for you.
You really should think about your grandchildren’s future, if not your bottom line.
————————————————————–
I fail to see how we can have an intellegent discussion on clean energy and replacing filthy coal and fossel fuels without even the mention of nuclear power. All of the solutions that are outlined in this forum are very important but they will not come close to replacing our current or future energy needs. Nuclear is cleaner than virtually all alternative fuels except solar and wind and we can build and operate it safely. The disposal problem can be solved as well by intellegent open minded people.
Can you all fill me in why this discussion is not occuring?
When I read, “Nuclear is cleaner than virtually all alternative fuels … we can build and operate it safely. The disposal problem can be solved as well by intelligent open minded people…” I notice again how effective the lies and propaganda of the nuclear industry have been, even after the Chernobyl explosion and what we now know was a partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in Penna. The insurance industry, however, understands perfectly well what a huge financial exposure a terrorist attack or a meltdown would cause. That’s why they have always refused to insure nuclear plants. We, the taxpayers, are stuck with a cockamamie “insurance” scheme called the Price-Anderson Act, which means that in the event of catastrophe WE (and our grandchildren) have to pay damages. But that’s not all. There’s only enough money in Price-Anderson to pay pennies on the dollar if YOUR home and property are permanently irradiated. In short, if you’re not dead, you’ll go bankrupt and the nuclear industry is not going to care. And in terms of the waste disposal problem, brilliant minds around the world have failed to solve it so far. Just keep hoping.
Julie
I think that you are the one hoping — hoping that another nuclear disaster will occur so you can use a more current referance for the anti-nulcear rhetoric. Three Mile Island occured in 1979. It is not coincidence that we have gone almost 30 years without anything even close to a reoccurance. There were no deaths or injuries at TMI and the Kemeny Commission concluded “there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects.” Chernobyl occured 22 yrs ago in 1986. It really not worth discussion as the design used in that plant (no containment building) would never have been considered in the US. You need to rethink or at least update this scare tactic.
Now let me go over some facts on Price-Anderson so people with open minds can make an intellegent decision. Price-Anderson was establinsed in 1957 and was in effect at the time of the TMI incident. It establishes a pool of over $10 billion that would be paid by insurance companies and the nuclear industry in the event of a incident. The amount paid as a result of TMI (the holy grail of the closed minded anti-nuclear activists) was $70 million. I think you really need to clarify “pennies on the dollar comment”. You also need to revise your rhetoric on this arguement. For open minded people that want to research Price-Anderson there is a huge amount of information on the internet.
I used the word “solved” above and probuly should not have. Its too vague. To anti-nuclear minds no nuclear waste at all probubly would not “solve” the problem. To pro-nuclear the situation we have now may be fine. I think that we need to look at ways of reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel and reducing it to a managable levels.
Enjoyed this blog. I am from Calif and having a difficult time figuring out prop 7. Does anyone have a recommendation?
karian333@aol.com
Karen,
A little late in getting back to you. I really hate the proposition system because it allows indivuduals with a lot of money mount a campain to change state laws. There a couple of propositions, 5 for instance, that have two major backers that have funded almost all of the campaign to change the State law. Interestingly, both of these major backers are New Yorkers!! What business do they have changing CA laws!!
While we still have this very poor system in place, my first thought is to vote against anything that changes current law. If I see a proposition that has merit, I look at who is providing the funding for the FOR and AGAINST campaigns and make my decision based mostly on that.
Unfortunately; nothing being proposed here does anything to reduce the 35% and growing overload of GHGs, mostly carbon dioxide. Everything proposed is just getting emissions reduced, but not the overload, and the most recent data from NOAA indicates that 2006 was perhaps the worst in GHG emissions with methane showing up as rising suddenly.
NO ONE sees any other source of GHG emissions, when one exists that would have many benefits to control. The messes of organic wastes and sewage as presently handled quickly undergo biodegrading to reemit much of the trapped carbon as carbon dioxide. And those messes are getting mishandled to be causing environmental pollution. EPA announced at the end of Aug. calling a conference in Dec. to evaluate drugs in DRINKING WATER. Just over a week ago NAS released a report calling for major action to curb pollution coming from storm drain systems.
If someone will wake up to these other major crises, a program can be set up to destroy the germs, toxics and drugs in those messes while actually removing some carbon from getting reemitted. I have outlined to the Alliance press people a program to use pyrolysis on the organic wastes and separated solids from sewage. Pyrolysis, the process to make charcoal, is done in a closed air-free chamber heated to high temperature, close to 1000 degrees F., causing organic matter to form charcoal along with some organic chemicals and water that are expelled as gases like car exhausts that can be passed through a turbocharger. The gases can then be condensed and refined to get chemicals to make drugs, cosmetics,soaps, etc..
In the process all germs, toxics and drugs will be destroyed and the hot charcoal can be passed through a heat exchanger for power generation. This will be much like a fossil fuel driven steam power plant but with major benefits of destroying those hazards in the messes and getting some carbon in inert form actually removed from circulating. Another bonus is that new dump sites without the organic wastes will have greatly reduce expenses for maintaining the sites having only inert carbon being put in along with bricks, sheet rock, floor tiles, broken glass, plaster, cement and other inerts.
We may have hydrogen available as a fuel in a few years as 5 reports on different catalysts to split water have been reported in the past year. Unfortunately, our govt. seems unaware and keeps wasting megabucks on biofuels. One report is from Chinese scientists so China may become the leading country for clean energy, while we piddle around with biofuels that only recycle carbon dioxide, never removing any of it from the atmosphere.
I hope that some reading this will see that the Alliance can be tackling several major environmental crises by getting pyrolysis applied to handle those messes. Those ever-expanding, never-ending messes may soon be a bigger cause of global deterioration and human suffering than emissions as the oceans are being reported to have expanding dead zones and reduced phytoplankton activity. One group claimed a few years ago that seafood would no longer be harvested from the oceans in 50 years. If phytoplankton get killed off, the oceans will be taking up less carbon dioxide to worsen the climate crisis. GET THE ALLIANCE TO EXPAND ITS PROGRAM TO DO MORE. Dr. J. Singmaster, Fremont, CA
Yes, it will be difficult (to replace oil with wind and solar power), considering the fact that the USA burns almost NO oil to generate electricity. We use imported petroleum for liquid transportation fuels (Gasoline and Diesel Oil). So, what is needed is an alternate source for these fuels.
Synthetic fuel using an organic source of Carbon (biomass, garbage, sewage sludge, agricultural waste, etc.) appears to be the only immediate alternative.
Reply to this Comment