'Let's be one country'

Van Jones seeks a ‘healing for our politics’ 5

Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

White House green jobs advisor Van Jones is under attack from Fox News as an “avowed radical revolutionary communist” and from ABC News as a “truther” with a “history of incendiary and provocative remarks.” In an attempt to assassinate the character of Van Jones, the right-wing media are distorting his past political activism and cherry-picking Jones’s critiques of the pollution and injustice that still haunt this nation. However, Jones’s true record is one of turning away from anger and finding hope, abandoning division and seeking consensus.

Speaking at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas this August, Van Jones argued that “for all of the battleground politics that’s going on,” energy policy should be “the one place that should be a safe harbor for all of us.” Van Jones praised the “bipartisanship” of Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who as a representative from Los Angeles succeeded in getting “the first president ever to sign into law a green jobs act, President George W. Bush.” He recognized that the summit participants came to find a “healing for our politics” in a “common ground agenda”:

Many of you have taken chances to start companies, you’ve written books, you’ve been grassroots champions for the change that we need. And I think you’re seeking not just a healing for our economy or a healing for our planet, but a healing for our politics. And I want to acknowledge that many of us are here because we are seeking something deeper. This is the common ground agenda. It should be the common ground agenda. We should be able to come together as a country on this one. Finally.

Watch it:

Jones then explained that “the values that underlie this clean energy conversation” are “the common ground values of America.” Underlying the call for clean energy is the value that “clean air is better than dirty air for the health of our children.” Underlying the call for energy efficiency is that value that treating our country’s resources “with wisdom and respect is more important than wasting them.” And “if we have the opportunity to fight both poverty and pollution by putting people to work in these new industries, we would be wise as a country to do that.”

To extended applause, Van Jones explained that the Obama administration has committed $5 billion to improving the energy efficiency of low-income households because the same investment “that cut unemployment and cut an energy bill and cuts greenhouse gases is also going to cut asthma, and take asthma inhalers out of little girls’ and boys’ pockets.”

Jones discussed in further detail how President Obama’s clean energy agenda tears down traditional ideological divides by “asking questions progressives like” but “giving answers that conservatives should like”:

We’re asking questions progressives like but we’re giving answers that conservatives should like. We’re asking questions about how to move the needle on poverty and pollution and how we create more economic opportunity especially for people in the lower part of our economy. But the answers are answers that conservatives should like. We’re not talking about expanding welfare, we’re talking about expanding work. We’re not talking about expanding entitlements, we’re talking about expanding enterprise and investments. We’re not talking about redistributing existing wealth, we’re talking about reinventing an existing sector, and creating new wealth by unleashing innovation and entrepeneurship. This should be common ground. We should be able to stand together and be one country on this.

Jones concluded by again making the call for us to “be one country” and connect “the people that most need work” to the “work that most needs to be done”:

There is so much work that needs to be done in this country to retrofit America, to cut these energy bills. And there are so many people who need work. This is our opportunity as a country—and it comes around very rarely—to take the people that most need work, and connect them to the work that most needs to be done, to fight pollution and poverty at the same time, and be one country. Let’s be one country.

During the applause at the conclusion of Jones’s speech, prominent Republican oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens—who in 2004 funded the Swift Boat attacks on Sen. John Kerry—turned to Jones and shook his hand.

Transcript:

First of all, it’s good to be here. I want to honor my friend and hero Vice President Gore. It was a brilliant summation, graceful, et cetera.

I also want to honor Senator Reid, who has been such a huge and steadfast champion on this. You haven’t gotten the credit, so I’ll put it on the table. Not only is Las Vegas going to be a leader in generating energy, but there’s also going to be a $5.7 million smart grid demonstration project so we can use that energy better and smarter here. Congratulations on that. It’s a big deal for the whole country. [APPLAUSE]

Senator Wirth and Senator Cantwell, I thank you also for your leadership and effectiveness on these very very important issues.

I also want to thank John Podesta. He sicced—this is a very tough set of problems—he sicced two of the best minds in the country on it, in Bracken Hendricks and in Benjamin Goldstein. This report, I think, is very challenging and visionary in pushing us to think even bigger and bolder. I thank you for that.

I also thank Secretary Chu for making energy efficiency cool again. We get a chance to quote you on that “fruit on the ground” thing four or five times a day. So thank you for saying it’s the “fruit on the ground.”

And also, I’m looking forward to hearing the comments of Secretary of may Labor Hilda Solis, the champion, which I think people sometimes forget, of the first ever federal legislation ever to codify the concept of green jobs, the Green Jobs Act. Not only she able to get it through Congress, she was able to get the first president ever to sign into law a green jobs act, President George W. Bush. So I give you credit for that, for being able to be a leader in bipartisanship and bringing us forward together. [APPLAUSE]

There’s genius around this table.

There’s also genius around this room. I want to acknowledge that there are so many people here who are listening who could easily come up here and talk, and teach us a great deal. I think that you are here, many of you—you wake up in the morning, this issue’s the first thing on your mind. Many of you have taken chances to start companies, you’ve written books, you’ve been grassroots champions for the change that we need.

And I think you’re seeking not just a healing for our economy or a healing for our planet, but a healing for our politics. And I want to acknowledge that many of us are here because we are seeking something deeper. This is the common ground agenda. It should be the common ground agenda. We should be able to come together as a country on this one. Finally. [APPLAUSE]

The reason for that is the values that underlie this clean energy conversation, which we don’t speak to directly enough, are the common ground values of America. Clean air is better than dirty air for the health of our children. That’s common ground. That’s why we need clean energy.

We have been blessed in this country with so many resources. Conserving them, saving them, treating them with wisdom and respect is more important than wasting them. That’s why energy efficiency is so important.

And if we have the opportunity to fight both poverty and pollution by putting people to work in these new industries, we would be wise as a country to do that. That is common ground. That is common ground.

And that is why this administration is so committed to energy efficiency. We think that this is the most fiscally conservative thing that we can do with the federal dollars.

Why do I say that?

I say that because the money that we invest in energy efficiency—these are humble, hard-working dollars. They work double time, triple time, quadruple time. If you take a worker, someone who right now needs work, someone who’s sitting on the bench but has skills or the desire to learn skills, And you give that person an opportunity to stand up and to be an energy efficiency specialist and walk across the street, you put a dollar in that person’s hand. That dollar just cut unemployment. But when she walks across the street and begins to blow in that clean, non-toxic insulation. When she begins to replace those windows and doors. When she begins to do the work of improving and upgrading our homes. That same dollar that cut unemployment is also going to cut somebody’s home energy bill.

And it gets better.

That same dollar’s also going to cut pollution. Somewhere there’s often a coal-powered plant that’s working overtime because our homes are so leaky and waste so much energy. But if we can cut that energy bill by 30 percent, we can cut that pollution by 30 percent.  That cuts not just greenhouse gas emissions, that cuts asthma. That some dollar that cut unemployment and cut an energy bill and cuts greenhouse gases is also going to cut asthma, and take asthma inhalers out of little girls’ and boys’ pockets. That’s the kind of double, triple, quadruple benefit that we’re talking about. That’s common ground. [APPLAUSE]

And I think it’s important that we recognize that for all of the battleground politics that’s going on, this is the one place that should be a safe harbor for all of us. We should be able to stand together.

We’re asking questions progressives like but we’re giving answers that conservatives should like. We’re asking questions about how to move the needle on poverty and pollution and how we create more economic opportunity especially for people in the lower part of our economy. But the answers are answers that conservatives should like. We’re not talking about expanding welfare, we’re talking about expanding work. We’re not talking about expanding entitlements, we’re talking about expanding enterprise and investments. We’re not talking about redistributing existing wealth, we’re talking about reinventing an existing sector, and creating new wealth by unleashing innovation and entrepeneurship. This should be common ground. We should be able to stand together and be one country on this. And that’s why the administration has been so committed.

That’s why we have $5 billion on the table, up from 200 million last year in 2008. Five billion dollars on the table this year to cut energy bills for low-income people by unleashing a tidal wave of energy efficiency workers. That’s why GSA has literally billions of dollars to retrofit our government buildings. That is why HUD has billions of dollars in our recovery package to cut energy costs for public housing. That is why you see with our Recovery Through Retrofit program—which the Vice President asked us to start—12, 13 different agencies and departments standing together for the first time coming up with new ways forward.  I mean Treasury. I mean Commerce. I mean the Small Business Administration. Because we know, as Secretary Chu has said so many times, because this is the fruit on the ground.

There is so much work that needs to be done in this country to retrofit America, to cut these energy bills. And there are so many people who need work. This is our opportunity as a country — and it comes around very rarely — to take the people that most need work, and connect them to the work that most needs to be done, to fight pollution and poverty at the same time, and be one country. Let’s be one country. Thank you very much. [APPLAUSE]

Brad Johnson blogs at the Wonk Room on the climate crisis, energy policy, and building a green economy. Brad holds a bachelor’s degree in math and physics from Amherst College and master’s degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the co-author of Technomanifestos, a history of the Information Revolution, and the founder of HillHeat.com, which covers climate policy in our nation’s capital.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. ParahSalin Posted 12:41 pm
    05 Sep 2009

    Van Jones is obviously intelligent, caring, hard working, and amiable. The problem is that he is a statist. His entire narrative has the concept of government involvement so deeply embedded, he just considers it part of the landscape. Conservatives are not opposed to clean air, energy efficiency, or new jobs for the unemployed. They are opposed to well meaning, overreaching government. Because, when you strip everything else away, government is FORCE, and too often arbitrary force. The 4 trillion pound gorilla of government squeezes out liberty, true creativity, and worse yet, suffocates the soul and spirit which drove America during her first 150 years, turning us into agents whose primary raison d'etre is ministering to the needs of the collective. If you remove government from of his calculus, everything he is saying falls apart. But when you inject government everywhere, everything American begins to fall apart. And therein lies the problem.
    1. Matt Petryni Posted 2:06 am
      06 Sep 2009

      The problem with this post is not the theory. It's the context. This is a reasonable, although I still think wrong, argument for why Van Jones's job should even exist. It does not explain very well why Van Jones shouldn't have it, which is the main question at issue.To be fair, I don't think this post was intended to answer that question. It was mainly to communicate part of the concern about having "czars" and whatnot in general.In short, these are the kind of questions that should be answered at the ballot box, like an appropriate democracy, and through worthwhile legislative policy debate. Taking potshots at the people in the job later because you don't think the job should have been created just doesn't make sense. I suggest to argue instead a reasonable point: that while you feel Van Jones was qualified for the job he had, you don't think it's good policy for that job to exist. This contrasts with what you did argue, which was: that while you feel Van Jones was qualified for the job he had, you don't think he was qualified for the job he had because he believes the job he had should exist while you don't think it's good policy for that job to exist. The problem should be obvious: Van Jones leaves the job and is replaced in that job by another statist. Nothing has been fixed by the success of your argument...
  2. 27Minds's avatar

    27Minds Posted 12:50 am
    06 Sep 2009

    I like the "amiable' part of your comment. I feel put at ease, as if you know I am afraid of this powerful black man and at the same time you strip him bare for me ("..he is a statist."), you preface it with a pillow for my fear's soft landing.I wish he had stayed and fought for his voice in the process. His voice sounds a lot like mine. Though your appraisal of his "calculus" made it clear he was leading "The 4 trillion pound gorilla" to our very doorstep. Gorilla, nice metaphor.
  3. stv_57 Posted 12:56 pm
    06 Sep 2009

    ParahSalin,We might not need these "statist" solutions if we actually had a real free market, as opposed to the pollution-entitlement market we currently have.In other words, the prices we pay today for gas or electricity do not include a penny towards the "externalized" costs related to CO2 emissions, other environmental damages, not to mention  miscellaneous military adventures.Milton Friedman himself espoused a cap-and trade system along the lines of what most conservatives are currently opposing."Rather than direct regulation, Friedman has advocated graduated charges for pollution thus creating a market incentive to clean up the air and water. He has talked about selling the right to emit a certain amount of pollutants into the air thereby establishing a market in effluent rights."  http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060423-5.htmWhether that takes the form of a carbon tax, or a cap and trade program with some teeth, it will create green jobs and reduce environmental impact through market forces as opposed to government programs by pricing oil and coal more realistically. Until that happens, any espousal of the virtues of the free market, or criticism of "statist " solutions, is a little phony. To take it further, in the long term, the best course is to shift our policies to tax our consumption more and our income less. 
  4. 27Minds's avatar

    27Minds Posted 1:56 pm
    06 Sep 2009

    I'm scratching my head over the combo of real free market and cap and trade. I don't live in a world where a free market would not be ruled by the same folks who engineered credit debt swaps. Why wouldn't they?If there is a bully on the playground and the contraints are released (which the bully has pretty well managed to work around anyway) with the understanding that friendships and alliances will balance out... If it won't work on the playground, why expect it to work in the world. We are the same as those children, just bigger.As for cap and trade, Cheat Neutral, http://www.cheatneutral.com/ pretty much sums up the efficacy of this play, including the common sense which seems to flee the room when billions of dollars are fanned out in front of a crowd.Taxing income and consumption is the key, not one or the other.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement