The clean-energy investment agenda 6

This post was co-authored by Center for American Progress Vice President for Energy Policy Kate Gordon, Senior Fellow Bracken Hendricks, and Policy Analyst Benjamin Goldstein. It was cross-posted from Wonk Room.

clean energy logoThe United States is having the wrong public debate about global warming. We are asking important questions about pollution caps and timetables, carbon markets and allocations, but we have lost sight of our principal objective: building a robust and prosperous clean energy economy. This is a fundamentally affirmative agenda, rather than a restrictive one. Moving beyond pollution from fossil fuels will involve exciting work, new opportunities, new products and innovation, and stronger communities. Our current national discussion about constraints, limits, and the costs of transition misses the real excitement in this proposition. It is as if, on the cusp of an Internet and telecommunications revolution, debate centered only on the cost of fiber optic cable. We are missing the big picture here.

Let’s be clear: Solving global warming means investment. Retooling the energy systems that fuel our economy will involve rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. We will create millions of middle-class jobs along the way, revitalize our manufacturing sector, increase American competitiveness, reduce our dependence on oil, and boost technological innovation. These investments in the foundation of our economy can also provide an opportunity for more broadly shared prosperity through better training, stronger local economies, and new career ladders into the middle class. Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is critical to solving global warming, but it is only one part of the work ahead. Building a robust economy that grows more vibrant as we move beyond the Carbon Age is the greater and more inspiring challenge.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous global warming is an environmental challenge, but it is also an economic, national security, societal, and moral imperative. The “cap and trade” provisions, which will set limits on pollution and create a market for emissions reductions that will ultimately drive down the cost of renewable energy and fuel, represent a very important first step and a major component in the mix of policies that will help build the coming low-carbon economy. But limiting emissions and establishing a price on pollution is not the goal in itself, and we will fall short if that is all we set out to do. Rather, cap and trade is one key step to reach the broader goal of catalyzing the transformation to an efficient and sustainable low-carbon economy. With unemployment at 9.5 percent, and oil and energy price volatility driving businesses into the ground, we cannot afford to wait any longer. It is time for a legislative debate over a comprehensive clean-energy investment plan. We need far more than cap and trade alone.

Importantly, many elements of this positive clean-energy investment framework are already codified within existing legislation such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by House of Representatives earlier this year. But with all the attention given to limiting carbon, too little attention has been placed on what will replace it. These critical pieces of America’s clean-energy strategy should be elevated in the policy agenda and political debate as we move forward into the Senate, and used to help move legislation forward that advances a proactive investment and economic revitalization strategy for the nation.

Read the Center for American Progress report, The Clean-Energy Investment Agenda.

John Podesta is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. abray514 Posted 7:06 pm
    22 Sep 2009

    For anyone who has seen the short film, "The Story of Stuff" by Annie Leonard, you will see that both the movie and this article share the same underlying message; we need to shift from a high-carbon, waste-producing economy. Though this article has a more economic undertone than that of Leonard's film, they share a common message, however, for different purposes. This reading clearly provides economic incentives by providing examples of the potential benefits that will result from creating an environmental economy. The point of Leonard's video is not to advocate a green movement in the interest of economic expansion, but rather because of the harm we are inflicting on the earth. She states that we are fundamentally a consumer economy, exploiting finite resources with a blatant disregard for any consequences. Her approach was not to present potential benefits of action, but instead, stating the dreadful repercussions of continued inaction. Although both messages posses entirely different tones, they share a common objective.

    Permalink

  2. amazingdrx Posted 10:08 pm
    22 Sep 2009

    One key program would get free market investment behind this new energy economy. A national HVDC power grid that gives solar and wind power investors access to customers all over the country.

    Cancel these oil wars and invest the cash savings into that project. Get the power of capital behind clean, renewable, cheap energy. Like the intersate highway system, this project needs government leadership. It is more impoortant than climate legislation.

    Permalink

  3. sflewis Posted 10:37 pm
    22 Sep 2009

    ABRAY made a wonderful connection between this article and "The Story of Stuff". This article also reminds me of Jerod Diamond's book "Collapse", namely the later chapters when he explores the plausibility of building an infrastructure for alternative energies. He poses options that countries, namely the USA, could take to reduce pollution as well our dependency on environmentally unsound practices. With proper support towards cleaner energy use, we would see dramatic advancements.

    However, the problem at hand seems to be the problem of so many large corporations having already invested themselves in destructive practices. "The Story of Stuff" touches on the concept of companies profiting from such practices, in order to make our lives more affordable. What I am truly curious about is what sacrifices the average American would have to make to see a cleaner, healthier way of life (if any).

    Permalink

  4. greenisbs Posted 2:03 am
    23 Sep 2009

    Im a strong believer in nuclear energy. Currently there are only about 100 nuclear power plants nation wide. These 100 power plants produce 6 percent of our energy. Biomass, wind and solar energy only produce 1 percent combined. Nuclear plants take up considerably less space than does a wind farm which is better for ecosystems. Nuclear power plants do not produce any green house gasses either. The major risks involved in nuclear energy are the waste produced as well as the transportation of this waste. Both problems are being solved currently. The new proposed storage facility is Yucca mountain in Nevada. It is located far away from civilization and has the capacity to hold hundreds of years of waste. That is my opinion on how to make a shift towards a cleaner world.

    Permalink

  5. PatrickLinnehan Posted 12:27 pm
    23 Sep 2009

    John Podesta writes in this blog about the necessity for climate legislation. He discusses how it is "morally imperative" for economic, and other reasons. Podesta is very successful in describing how important climate legislation is, and great ways of accomplishing it, through greener investments in infrastructure which would create more competition and boost the economy. Podesta also points out how dire the need of legislation is, by explaining the rise of unemployment rates and its correlation with oil prices. The only crucial component Podesta does not include in this blog is cost. Tony Kreindler, who writes blogs for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), discusses the confusion of the costs associated with Climate Legislation. Kreindler discusses how House Republicans are fiddling with the costs to make them more extreme and how non-profit and non-partisan organizations predict the costs to be "small and affordable". While John Podesta creates a valid argument for a desired Clean Energy Bill by supporting his claim with key points like the economic necessity, he could've made his claim stronger by incorporating the costs associated with the bill and how small they could potentially be.

    Permalink

  6. amandag Posted 12:37 pm
    23 Sep 2009

    The movie the "11th Hour" and the article above have the same basic concept that they want to get across. That something has to be done about our over dependense on oil. Unlike that movie "The Story about Stuff" by Annie Leonard where she makes the argument that everything we as humans do on the earth is bad and that we need to stop everything, these articles give send the message that things have to change but we can still keep our way of life. The "11th hour" uses a scare tactic to get peolpe to become more enviromentally friendly where as this article uses a more hopeful economic approach. This article along with the movie shares how we can be a more eco-friendly country as well as an economically thriving one. The both highlight on the idea of moving into a eco-friendly technology era where not only can we help the enviroment but also create jobs for struggling families. Along with other many similiar ideas that can help improve our economy by helping improve the enviroment. The movie and this article may be addressed to different audiences but they are still trying to get the same message out in the most effective way.

    Permalink

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?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement