The challenges facing President Obama and the U.S. Congress have not gone away. Paul Krugman worries that "unemployment is likely to stay near its current level for a year or more," because "much of the political establishment now sees stimulus as having been discredited by events, so that it's very hard to come back and scale the policy up to where it should have been in the first place."

But there remains a pathway out of Krugman's dire vision of "a process of defining prosperity down" -- if enough politicians embrace the alternative vision of a green economy, promoted by political leaders as far apart on the ideological spectrum as Van Jones and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The basic concept is simple, as this video from Repower America shows -- heat up the economy by cooling down the planet:

The Recovery Act made a down payment for clean energy jobs, primarily through public spending. But the creation of a carbon market would drive private investment away from pollution and into clean energy. A Political Economy Research Institute clean energy economy report found that public-private investments of $150 billion a year could be sustained over ten years and create 1.7 million net long-term jobs in the U.S. economy. Fossil-based energy production sends money overseas and sinks money into capital-intensive projects like mining and drilling, whereas clean energy and energy efficiency requires greater local and labor investment.

The stronger the carbon cap is in a carbon market, the greater the investment. A $150 billion carbon market would be about double the size of what is being considered by Congress. That investment would be sufficient to construct a nationwide smart grid, retrofit every building in America for energy efficiency, and produce 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources -- all by 2020.

If Congress truly wanted to restart this nation's economy, it would take the legislative framework of the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs Act and the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy Security Act and:

- Strengthen the emissions targets to spur $150 billion in clean energy investment a year

- Strengthen the building efficiency standards to require every building in America be refitted by 2020

- Strengthen the renewable electricity standards to 20 percent by 2020

- Continue the Recovery Act's ambitious smart grid plans

Conservatives are absolutely right that the future of the American economy depends not on long-term government spending but on private investment. But the economy needs to be first restarted by a clean energy stimulus and then pointed in the right direction by strong, swift federal action, ending our fealty to Exxon Mobil and Peabody Coal, and ushering in a new era of clean energy independence.

Update: The original version of this post misinterpreted the PERI report's conclusion that a $150 billion a year investment creates "1.7 million net new jobs a year." As report author Robert Pollin explains:

Related Links:

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

New Energy Finance: Solar power 50% cheaper by year end

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

I think at the Obama administration we all believe that everybody has the right to live in a clean, healthy environment and a prosperous economy. And we're working towards that. We need to reach out to communities whose voices have been ignored and where there are disproportional impacts, whether it's environmental protection or promoting [a] clean energy economy. -- Nancy Sutley interview, July 31, 2009

Question of the week: Given all of their agencies' beautiful rhethoric about "reaching out to communities whose voices have been ignored and where there are disproportional impacts," why haven't EPA chief Lisa Jackson and CEQ administrator Nancy Sutley found three hours in their schedules to visit a mountaintop removal site -- the most egregious environmental tragedy in their administration?

Will they ever visit Coal River Mountain in West Virginia -- the mountaintop removal battleground for clean energy and a healthy environment?

The EPA announced "environmental justice showcases" in 10 communities today, to "highlight the disproportionate environmental burdens placed on low-income and minority communities all across the nation."  Not a single community in the entire Appalachian region was included.

On June 11, in responding to the national outcry over the tragedy of mountaintop removal mining, the Obama administration promised it would, "engage the public through outreach events in the Appalachian region to help inform the development of Federal policy."

And the EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of Interior jointly announced their intent to "work in coordination with appropriate regional, state, and local entities to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and promote the health and welfare of Appalachian communities."

Five months later, where is the Obama administration and its promises to visit the besieged coalfields of Appalachia?

EPA chief Lisa Jackson flew 1,687 miles to the Rocky Mountains of Colorado this week to speak to a high school in Denver, but she -- or any top level of her staff -- has yet to visit a nearby mountaintop removal mine in Appalachia. (In May, Jackson flew 2,001 miles to visit the less controversial Black Thunder Coal Mine in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.)

In the meantime: An estimated 1.6 billion pounds of ammonium nitrate fuel explosives have ripped across the lush Appalachia mountains, as part of mountaintop removal operations, since the Obama administration took power in January.

Appalachian mountaintop removal.Photo courtesy farukahmet via Flickr 1.6 billion pounds of explosives.

Since Jackson began her career with the EPA in the mid-1980s, over 500 mountains have been blown up, 1.2 million acres of hardwood forests have been clear cut, an estimated 2,000 miles of waterways have been jammed with mining waste, and untold numbers of American citizens have been forced to relocate, through mountaintop removal operations.

Horrific violations of the Clean Water Act have reached a state of emergency in the coalfields -- and the front page of the New York Times.

And while affected Appalachian coalfield residents have made numerous visits to Washington, D.C. to plead for environmental justice and their lives in a virtual war zone, and while over 20,000 petitions were hand delivered to the EPA headquarters last month calling for a single visit to the region, there is still no word, no announcement, no plans for a visit by Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley.

Where's the love?

Nancy Sutley believes environmental justice is a civil rights issue, and she traveled over 1,000 miles to New Orleans last month to assure American citizens concerned about coastal restoration and levee safety issues that: "We've heard before and we've heard here again today the need for urgency and we certainly understand the need for urgency."

But Nancy Sutley -- or any top level of her staff -- has never visited a mountaintop removal site in Appalachia where American citizens are literally dying from coal slurry-contaminated drinking water, and have been forced out of their homes from reckless blasting, fly rock, and coal dust.

While the EPA made an important step to actually apply the law with greater scrutiny of mountaintop removal permits in September, only one federal agency has made any attempt to keep the Obama administration's promise to reach out to Appalachia, in Appalachia: The Army Corps of Engineers, and they held quite possibly the most disorganized, chaotic, and violation-ridden hearing in West Virginia in the recent history of the coalfields; residents are still calling for an investigation by the Department of Justice.

And where are those green jobs "to help diversify and strengthen the Appalachian regional economy"?

While small efforts have been made for some reforestation projects, the coal barons and the pitiful West Virginia politicians all know that mountaintop removal has plundered the Appalachian economy, beleaguered the region in eternal costs, and wiped out any diversified economic development and even stopped a tiny tiny initiative for green jobs in West Virginia from passing through the state legislature.

Faced with a declining domestic and world coal demand, the out-of-state global warming-denying union-busting coal barons (CEOs from Virginia, Texas, and St. Louis) held a bizarre seance with faltering West Virginia politicians last week and whipped them into an unfounded frenzy about job losses from environmental regulations.

And that is why mountaintop removal blasting began last month on historic Coal River Mountain, less than a football field away from a dangerous and weak coal slurry impoundment -- to wipe out any attempt at clean energy and a healthy environment. The out-of-state coal barons want to stop the Coal River Wind Project, which would provide more jobs, more energy, more tax revenues, and a healthy environment for the coalfield residents.

Will Lisa Jackson and Nancy Sutley ever find three hours in their schedules to see mountaintop removal first hand and visit Coal River Mountain?

Do they truly believe, as Sutley declared this summer: " ... everybody has the right to live in a clean, healthy environment and a prosperous economy. And we're working towards that. We need to reach out to communities whose voices have been ignored and where there are disproportional impacts, whether it's environmental protection or promoting [a] clean energy economy"?

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Prologue to Copenhagen

Vinod Khosla Nonesense

Read Part 1 here.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), by an 11-1 vote. Since this was the third day of a boycott by Republicans on the committee, the absence of minority members prevented senators from voting on any amendments to the bill due to committee rules. The Senate Finance and Agriculture Committees must now promptly debate and vote on the provisions of the bill under their jurisdiction.

Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans are ostensibly skipping the meetings because they want the Environmental Protection Agency to redo its analysis of CEJAPA with assumptions that produce a result more to their liking.

On the afternoon of the first day of committee deliberations on the bill, EPA Director of Congressional Affairs David McIntosh appeared before the committee to reiterate that CEJAPA and the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), were so similar that computer models would produce nearly the exact same result. He said "economic computer models are not designed to detect fine-grained details in this kind of legislation. So changes in the legislation at that level of detail will not even show up in the economic computer modeling."

If the committee made changes to the bill during its deliberations, it would significantly reduce the analysis's effectiveness. In other words, modeling CEJAPA would require at least $135,000 taxpayer dollars and five weeks to produce nearly the identical result for a bill that will change while the ink on the analysis is still drying. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) noted today, "as soon as you amend it [CEJAPA], you change it again. What are they going to do, wait five weeks to analyze each amendment?"

The Republican committee members' quixotic boycott is not really about getting more in-depth analysis. As McIntosh told the committee, there was no EPA analysis at all before the Environment Committee debated and voted on the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act in December 2007. Yet the committee Republicans did not boycott those sessions. And there was no EPA, Congressional Budget Office, or Energy Information Administration analysis before the Senate Energy Committee passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on May 26, 2005. Then-Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) was chairman at the time. Nor was there a CBO, EIA, or EPA analysis before the Senate Energy Committee passed the American Clean Energy Leadership Act on July 16, 2009.

Instead of seeking analysis, this boycott is really designed to help defeat, weaken, or stall clean-energy legislation. Outside the Capitol this effort is lead by Big Oil and the Chamber of Commerce. Inside the Capitol, Environment Committee Republicans are seeking still more analysis as an excuse for delay. In fact, at least four of the committee's seven Republicans announced their opposition to the legislation before the bill was even introduced. They are boycotting the committee to get more analysis of a bill they already oppose.

McCain presidential campaign pollster Bill McInturff suggested that Republicans' opposition to greenhouse gas pollution reductions is partly due to politics. "There are two confluences. One is the actual policy and two is the perspective of, ‘Are you helping President Obama?' Part of the pressure on these Republicans is to not be seen as the deciding vote to help a major Obama initiative."

These and other opponents of clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction legislation are ignoring the numerous benefits of action, and the huge economic burden of business as usual. As old New York Yankees Manager Casey Stengel used to say "You can see a lot by looking." In their faux search for more information about CEJAPA, opponents of the bill aren't seeing its myriad benefits. Now that the Senate Environment Committee has passed the CEJAPA, perhaps other senators will take a look.

Earlier this week, we outlined six benefits of the bill and explained why the bill should be passed by the committee. Here are nine more benefits as the legislation moves forward.

7. The Clean Energy Jobs Act is an "all of the above" bill  

Many public officials have said they favor global warming solutions that include "all of the above" energy sources. In September, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) endorsed the "'all-of-the-above' approach to energy policy," that includes "development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements."  

CEJAPA embraces this notion. Its meaningful, declining limit on carbon pollution would, in effect, establish a price on this pollution. The bill includes provisions to protect ratepayers from electricity price spikes, and it would generate revenues from polluters that could be used for clean-energy initiatives. The price would level the playing field between currently underpriced, cheaper electricity generated from dirty, old coal-fired power plants and newer, cleaner sources of electricity -- regardless of whether these cleaner sources come from renewables, nuclear, natural gas, cleaner use of coal, or other technologies.  

The Clean Energy Jobs Act also has other provisions that would spur investments in a number of clean-energy technologies. These include:  

8. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will reduce electricity bills  

The EPA's recent comprehensive analysis of CEJAPA predicts that with or without the climate bill, "household consumption [of energy] will continue to grow" and that clean-energy legislation would only slow this growth by about one or two-tenths of a percent on average by 2030, with substantial net gains in the short run, and very modest costs spread out in the future.  

Consumers are protected in the bill by the allocation of 30 percent of the revenues from the pollution reduction program to regulated local electric distribution companies, which are required to use the money to "protect consumers from electricity price increases" (Section 772).  

Every large emitter of greenhouse gas pollution must have a permit for every ton of pollution. In the early years of the program some of the allowances are given to electric utilities for free, who must then return the value of these allowances to their ratepayers. Heating oil, propane, and regulated gas distribution companies will also receive some free allowances to protect their consumers against increases in heating costs.  

Here are a few different predictions for what consumers might save under the efficiency and consumer protection provisions in CEJAPA:  

9. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will train workers for the clean-energy jobs of the future  

Growing new industries for clean technologies like advanced nuclear plants, renewables, and energy efficiency will require workers with the skills to design, build, and maintain this new infrastructure. The Clean Energy Jobs Act establishes two nationwide worker assistance and job training programs: one for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and another specific for nuclear industry worker training. These programs will help American workers transition from outdated, inefficient industries to new industries that produce or deploy the clean-energy technologies of the future, and they would help ensure that our economy can remain competitive in the race for clean energy markets.  

10. The Clean Energy Jobs Act would protect the most vulnerable people  

The bill distributes a significant portion of allowances from the pollution reduction program -- 15 percent initially, rising to 18.5 percent by 2029 -- to pay for direct rebates to low-income households. This would ensure that these households do not suffer from increases in energy prices or other goods due to global warming pollution clean-up costs.   The Congressional Budget Office's most recent analysis of the House-passed ACES predicted that the combined effect of consumer protection measures in the bill would actually result in an average net income gain of about $125 per year per household for the least well off 20 percent of Americans.  

11. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will drive competition and innovation  

In addition to finally putting clean-energy technologies on even footing with dirty sources of energy, the bill actually creates incentives for innovation, knowledge sharing, and the transferring of clean-energy technologies from laboratories to assembly lines. It allocates up to 4 percent of allowances competitively to "energy innovation hubs," where companies, knowledge institutions, scientists, entrepreneurs, and government laboratories can collaborate to develop and commercialize new clean-energy technologies, manufacturing processes, and business models.   A recent study by CAP shows how the regional innovation clusters that this policy would help foster would "create jobs, create businesses and, of course, stimulate long-term economic growth."  

12. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will give a much-needed boost to our manufacturing sector  

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are very sensitive to the impact that pollution reduction efforts may have on energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries. CEJAPA therefore provides assistance to such industries, including steel, glass, paper, cement, and chemical companies. The bill would allocate 15 percent of allowance revenue in 2014 and 2015 -- and decline after until 2050 -- to help manufacturers retool and invest in more efficient process and equipment.  

The bill would also help American auto plants retool to manufacture the super-efficient cars of the future by providing 4 percent of allowances for clean-vehicle technologies. Finally, allowances for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program and "clean energy innovation hubs" will help U.S. manufacturers produce clean-energy and energy efficiency components more efficiently, cheaply, and quickly.  

If other countries do not do their part to help avert dangerous global climate change, an additional border measure in the bill that is "consistent with international obligations" will protect against "carbon leakage" -- or making pollution reductions in the United States only to see increases in other countries -- and ensure that clean-energy manufacturing jobs stay in the United States.  

13. The Clean Energy Jobs Act has public support  

Many recent polls show that Americans continue to view climate change as a serious threat, and they support clean-energy legislation. Here are just a few examples:  

14. Business leaders want clean-energy reform  

Many American businesses leaders are advocating for comprehensive energy legislation that includes a declining limit on global warming pollution. They understand that a clean-energy economy will help their businesses grow, and they are putting their money where their mouth is.  

In an open letter signed by 181 global financial institutions representing $13 trillion in capital (equivalent to nearly one-fifth of the globe's annual gross domestic product), entrepreneurs and investors implored world leaders to "reach a strong post-2012 climate change agreement" that sets "a global target for emission reductions of 50-85 percent by 2050." CEJAPA sets a target of 83 percent reduction by 2050.  

Major businesses such as Apple, PG&E, Exelon, and PNM Resources have quit the Chamber of Commerce over its staunch opposition to clean-energy legislation. Other major chamber members such as Nike, Duke Energy Corporation, and Cisco Systems have publicly supported reform and rejected the chamber's views. Meanwhile, Fortune 500 companies including BP, Caterpillar, Alcoa, General Motors, Siemens, Shell, and General Electric formed the United States Climate Action Partnership, calling for immediate action to reduce global warming pollution. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership plan forms the basis of the CEJAPA.  

15. Inaction will harm the economy  

Thousands of scientists, economists, and businesses understand that our unsustainable energy system threatens our economy, public health, and environment. A recent poll of 144 economists who have published about climate change in the top 25 economics journals found that 94 percent favor the United States joining an international climate agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 92 percent wanted a cap-and-trade system to establish a price on carbon, and 84 percent agreed that global warming's effects "create significant risks" to the economy.  

In addition to producing global warming pollution, the combustion of fossil fuels exacts huge public health and economic costs. A recent exhaustive analysis by the National Academy of Sciences found that an average of 54 Americans die every day due to breathing air made dirty from fossil fuel pollution. This hidden impact costs $120 billion per year or more than $1 million per person per day.  

On top of the health costs, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that failing to deal with climate change will cost our economy an average of $27 million to $375 million every day from now until 2050. These figures are based on an ongoing interagency effort by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation to accurately value the economic cost of carbon pollution, but the report warns that these estimate are "very likely to be underestimations."  

A report authored by economists at Tufts and Cambridge Universities and released by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that the increased hurricanes, droughts, floods, infrastructure damage, and higher heating and cooling bills due to global warming will cost Americans an average of $1.3 billion per day by 2050 -- $506 billion annually, or 1.5 percent of GDP -- if we do not reform our energy system and slash global warming pollution.  

None of these numbers take into account the irreversible climate change -- driven damage to our nation's natural heritage  -- our glaciers, rivers, wetlands, and arboreal and ocean ecosystems. The National Resources Defense Council suggests that putting a price tag on these difficult-to-value ecological impacts would cause the price tag for climate disasters to double.  

Between the $120 billion of hidden annual health costs that are predicted to increase until 2050, the $350 billion per year sent abroad to buy foreign oil, and the $506 billion necessary to deal with weather, infrastructure, and increased energy demand, doing nothing to solve our energy problems today means dumping at least a $2.6 billion daily bill on the next generation until 2050 and beyond.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

December 19—the day after COP15

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

On Nov. 3, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to begin debate and vote on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA), sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). At this writing it appears that the committee's Republican members plan to boycott the debate and votes, thus denying a quorum necessary for these deliberations. These members are concerned that there has been inadequate analysis of CEJAPA.

However, this overlooks the fact that CEJAPA is very similar to the House-passed global warming bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). The latter bill has received extensive evaluation and scrutiny from a number of government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Congressional Budget Office, and Energy Information Administration. On Oct. 27, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the Senate Environment Committee that the two bills were so similar that they will likely have the same impact on costs, energy use, and other variables. She said:

Earlier this year, EPA ran the major provisions of the House clean-energy legislation through several economic computer models. When it comes to the specifications that the models can detect, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is very similar to the House legislation. Nevertheless, EPA has examined the ways in which the Senate bill is different and determined which of the conclusions reached about the House-passed bill can confidently be said to apply to the Senate bill as well.

In other words, the updated EPA analysis of the CEJAPA that is based on its assessment of the ACES provides an accurate portrait of the Senate bill's projected impacts. The more in-depth analysis desired by the dissenters would not shed additional light on CEJAPA's estimated impacts. Opponents of the bill are using this as an excuse to block the CEJAPA that they oppose regardless.

Their real agenda is to block action on clean-energy jobs legislation. Such efforts would please big oil companies and other special interests who are spending millions of dollars to block this bill. For instance, the New York Times reports that "the oil and gas industry in the third quarter outspent all of the other sectors lobbying on climate ... Exxon Mobil Corp. led its sector with $7.2 million in lobbying work, more than the total of the entire alternative energy sector."

While the obstructionists attempt to block progress, they will also stop many provisions that would benefit Americans. The list below describes a number of important benefits that government and academic analyses determined about ACES that also apply to the CEJAPA. This list is part one, with more reasons to follow. They provide ample evidence for senators planning to block consideration of the CEJAPA to reconsider, and allow this critical legislation to move forward.

1. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will enhance national security

In 2007, the Military Advisory Board of CNA -- a distinguished panel of retired high-ranking military officers-determined that global warming posed a direct threat to the United States' security. Their conclusion was that "projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security ... Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world."

On Oct. 28, 2009, Former Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John Warner (R-Va.) testified before the Senate Environment Committee, urging "this committee to take action [on climate change]." He warned that "If left unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead to conflict in already fragile regions of the world. ... We ignore these threats at the peril of our national security."

Warner noted that the CEJAPA "has established a beachhead. Now is the time for Congress to move forward."

2. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will create jobs

The House-passed ACES would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to a new state-of-the-art economic model developed by the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and Yale University.

The study predicted that from 2010 to 2020, ACES would lead to:

These findings are consistent with "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts and sponsored by the Center for American Progress. This study projected that ACES, combined with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, would produce a net of 1.7 million clean-energy jobs.

Since CEJAPA is very similar to ACES, it is a safe bet that it too would create a substantial number of jobs and spur additional economic growth.

3. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will increase American competitiveness

A book about the last eight years of our government could be called While America Slept. We have done little to invest in the development, commercialization, or production of the clean-energy technologies that a carbon-constrained world will want. Meanwhile, many of our foreign competitors -- Germany, Japan, China, Spain, and other nations-have invested heavily in them. The United States went from making nearly half of the world's solar photovoltaic cells to making 10 percent of them, while China is now the leader.

Venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt warn, "There is still time for us to lead this global race, although that window is closing. We need low-carbon policies to exploit America's strengths -- innovation and entrepreneurs."

CAP President and CEO John Podesta testified about competitiveness measures in the CEJAPA before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Oct. 29. He noted that the Clean Energy Jobs Act puts a price on carbon pollution, which would

... level the playing field between the prices of dirty and cleaner energy sources ... [and] combined with companion measures before the Senate, would create a clean-energy investment program that would cut greenhouse gas pollution, spur clean-energy technology innovation, create new jobs, and increase American energy independence.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that reducing global warming pollution would boost competitiveness and provide an economic stimulus.

"A commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short to medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity."

4. The EPA finds the Clean Energy Jobs Act is affordable

Because the CEJAPA is very similar to ACES, EPA's analysis determined that "the impacts of CEJAPA would be similar to those estimated for ACES." Most importantly, EPA found that "the average loss of consumption per household will be relatively, on the order of hundreds of dollars per year." In fact, EPA estimates the average annual household cost of ACES to range from $84 to $110 in 2020.

EPA concluded that differences in the bills produce "relatively small differences in estimated costs and may even cancel each other out."

5. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will save oil

The National Wildlife Federation, using data from the Energy Information Administration, estimates that ACES would reduce oil use by the equivalent of 590,000 barrels of oil per day in 2020, rising to 948,000 fewer barrels per day in 2028. From 2012 to 2030, the United States would use 4 billion fewer barrels of oil, and save $658 billion. This is a savings of $5,600 per household.

The American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy estimates similar oil savings due to ACES. It predicts that Americans would consume 640,000 fewer barrels per day in 2020, and 1.4 million barrels per day less in 2030. In addition to reducing global warming pollution, lower oil use would enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It would also shrink the dollars sent to other countries to buy their oil -- often from unfriendly regimes. These funds could be used more productively at home. In 2008, the United States spent an estimated $1 billion per day buying foreign oil.

6. The Clean Energy Jobs Act will produce income for farmers

Both the CEJAPA and ACES provide an opportunity for farmers to increase their income by sequestering carbon pollution in their land via farming practices. EPA's analysis found that ACES would create up to nearly $19 billion annually in net benefit to farmers from offsets. This is an average of $9,500 per farm. The Senate version would allow 50 percent more domestic offsets, which creates an even bigger opportunity for farmers.

The offsets program enables polluters to pay farmers or others to capture or store carbon pollution instead of reducing their own emissions. Since such offsets can be cheaper, they can reduce pollution at a lower cost. The offsets must be measurable, additional, and verifiable. Farmers can create offsets by employing farming practices that store carbon in the Earth, such as no till plowing, erosion prevention, soil conservation, reduced tillage, planting perennial trees and shrubs, utilizing rotational grazing and methane capture with livestock, applying less fertilizer, and restoring watersheds.

According to Ohio State University's Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases notes that "increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity ... while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluated ACES's impact on farm income. In the short run, it would have less than one cent per dollar impact on net farm income. USDA notes that "Other studies...find that ACES leads to higher agricultural incomes, even without offsets."

The Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group also predicts a more profitable future for agriculture under a policy that reduces global warming pollution. "Analysis indicates the increase in farming income from offsets, biofuels, and commodity prices resulting from a cap-and-trade system more than offsets any potential increase in the price of fuel, fertilizer, or other inputs for the agricultural sector," the organization has reported.

Read Part 2 here.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

December 19—the day after COP15

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

This past week Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress released a seminal report on the emergence of women as primary wage earners for millions of families. The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything, marks a promising step forward in the evolution of a society that for too long has failed to adjust policies and practices to women's growing presence in the workplace.

Left in the shadows of this otherwise comprehensive report, however, were the unique obstacles faced by those struggling most to make ends meet-low-income single mothers trying to support their families on paltry wages in jobs that offer no prospects for a better future. Any serious national discussion on the obstacles confronting women in the workforce must include a special focus on the growing numbers of women toiling at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Consider these facts:

The recession has taken a significant toll on low-income single mothers. In September, 11.6 percent of this population were unemployed, compared with 11 percent of men overall and 7.4 percent of married men. Providing low-income single women with the resources to train for and stay employed in jobs with good wages and benefits is the clearest path to a brighter future for millions of families. Since women now make up half the workforce, it is also a vital component of lasting economic recovery for our nation.

As founding members of a new collaborative of women's foundations -- the Women's Economic Security Campaign -- we have seen up close how programs that train women for better paying jobs with the possibility of advancement can make all the difference for families and communities. With the emergence of a green jobs sector, we have an opportunity to advance women's economic security in a bigger and better way than ever before, providing low-income women with a rare chance to get in on the ground floor of a growth industry and learn the skills to compete for stable, higher-paying jobs.

Unfortunately most green jobs, from weatherizing homes and buildings to constructing wind turbines, are in fields that have typically been dominated by men. As a society we have a terrible track record of training and placing women in these non-traditional careers. For example, 0.5 percent of roofers and 1.4 percent of plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters are women, according to a new report from the Women's Economic Security Campaign -- Creating Opportunity for Low-Income Women in the Green Economy. Even at the higher end, women make up just 10.6 percent of civil engineers. The median hourly wage for roofers, at the low-end of the non-traditional job spectrum, is $16.17 an hour -- enough to cover the basic needs of a small family. By contrast, preschool teachers, 98 percent of whom are women, earn just $11.48 an hour. At that wage, a preschool teacher would need to work over 25 hours more per week then a roofer to support a similar living standard.

Fortunately, our country is in a good position to change this pattern. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided states with millions of dollars to train workers for new green sector jobs. We need to ensure that a significant portion of those funds goes to programs that prepare low-income women to successfully compete in the green economy.

Once they are on the job we need to provide women with the supports necessary to stay employed. For low-income single mothers that means child care, flexible hours, and accessible transportation. It also means enforcing anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws that for too long have made non-traditional workplaces inhospitable to women.

As Congress debates climate change legislation, our representatives in Washington, D.C. should stand up for the needs of low-income women when considering provisions aimed at training and placing workers in green jobs. We have the chance to do it right this time and shape a more promising future for the growing number of women and children in poverty. In the process we can help our nation move toward a long-term economic recovery that will benefit us all.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?

Senators opposed to Clean Energy Jobs Act are ignoring bill’s benefits to Americans—Part 2

Doug Letterman via flickrPop quiz: What saves money, saves energy, creates green jobs, fights climate change, can fix the economy, will make America great again, and is both a floor wax and a dessert topping?

Answer: It’s weatherization! And both the U.S. government and the European Union are embracing its potential.

In a report released today, Joe Biden’s Middle Class Task Force (which, hello: still a terrible name) recommends steps toward a national retrofit program, citing a potential $21 billion in annual energy savings and 40 percent cut in energy use. Specific proposals include: an Energy Star-style labeling program for existing homes; a national home energy performance measure; municipal financing that attaches retrofit costs to homeowners’ tax bills; and national standards for workforce training and certification.

“These recommendations can pave the way for a self-sustaining retrofit market, a market that can reliably cut energy bills while also creating good green jobs and saving consumers money,” says the report. Hear that? Weatherization will save us all.

Next step? Another task force! Yesssss. The interagency Energy Retrofit Working Group will submit an implementation plan to Biden in thirty days. At which point he will create a subcommittee to ... oh hell, just go add some insulation to your attic. We’ll let you know when the good stuff comes.

Meanwhile, across the pond, a draft EU report recommends retrofitting 15 million buildings in Europe over the next decade as part of an “energy efficiency action plan” aimed at cutting energy use by 20 percent. The European Building Initiative would generate about $19.7 billion in savings and could create 300,000 jobs a year, the report estimates: “Investing in energy efficiency in buildings can play a key role in the EU’s economic recovery.”

Hear that? Go on, repeat after me: Weatherization will save us all.

Related Links:

You don’t have to be big to go green

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

by Rinku Sen & Billy Parish

Last week, the Labor Department reported that youth unemployment stands at 18.2%, nearly twice the national average of 9.8%. The percentage of young people without a job is a staggering 53.4 percent, the highest figure since World War II. Looking deeper, the statistics for youth of color are terrible and telling. 

According to the most recent data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40.7% of black youth between 16-19 are unemployed, almost double the amount of whites teenagers (23%). For Latinos the same age, the rate is nearly 30%. Get a little older and the gap grows wider. Unemployment for black Americans aged 20-24 is 27.1%, over twice that faced by white youth (13.1%) in the same age range.

The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.

Without more opportunities for young people, those un- and under-employed will suffer in the short and long-term, especially in their ability to attend college, afford health insurance, buy homes, and save for retirement. In short, they won't be able to make a living. The great promise of the green economy to end poverty as well as environmental suffering can only be fulfilled if we’re prepared to fight, not just for green, but also for racial and economic equity.

There’s a long history of clashes between environmentalists, workers’ organizations and racial justice movements, as each operated on the assumption that they had conflicting goals. Yet, the objectives of all three are interdependent for two big reasons. First, poor economies and environmental degradation have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. People of color occupy jobs in the most hazardous industries and homes in the most environmentally degraded neighborhoods. That’s not accidental. It is a predictable result of persistent segregation, which strips communities of color of their power, facilitating the discriminatory placement of toxic incinerators, power plants, factories, and other big polluters in their communities.   

While economics has contributed to the dual degradation of the environment and communities of color, racism has accelerated environmental and economic problems. “White flight” from inner cities fueled suburban sprawl, leading to more driving, more highways, and more carbon in the atmosphere. And in industries like agriculture and food production, with prominent racial hierarchies, employers find it easy to generate competition and scapegoating between various groups of workers, killing unionization drives that could produce better wages and conditions for all of us.

Luckily, a growing number of people know better than to separate environmental and economic recovery from race. Local groups have started green jobs programs for young people that are inclusive and future-oriented. In Oakland, California, for example, the brand new Green Media Youth Center boasts a green job training program that can help create pathways out of poverty for young people in the city. Last Friday at the Center, Milani Pelley recorded her latest song in a brand new studio. Jhamel Robinson showed off the permaculture garden behind the building. And the list goes on.

But great programs here and there aren’t enough. We need to bring those programs to scale, and create both training and the actual jobs through federal, state and local policy. We need to spend real money funding job creation, and then closely monitor implementation to make sure new programs generate local hiring, affirmative action, great wages and benefits and long term career paths, among other elements that will make them work.  

This year, a national alliance of organized labor and civil rights, social justice and environmental groups has worked to create a vibrant clean energy economy that can not only improve the environment and economy, but also close the racial gap. In the House version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), this alliance secured the eleventh-hour addition of a billion dollars for green jobs training, as well as equity provisions for access to the jobs created. The Senate version released last week maintains those provisions.

These policies are a good start, but if they’re to survive and lead us to the additional billions and effective implementation that we need to get control of unemployment, we have to be prepared to fight on the race front, as well as the green. All signs indicate that opponents will bait American racism with brutal inventiveness. If the right’s attack on Van Jones isn’t enough of a warning, then we should take our lessons from the health care debate. We can expect conservative pundits to call equity guidelines reverse racism, or to put up immigrants rather than corporate pollution as the true cause of environmental collapse.

To counter that rhetoric, we need to be able to articulate more than a “lift all boats” approach – which improves things but leaves the racial and poverty gaps in place. We need to move support for a “fix all boats” approach that ensures full recovery for all. It’s our responsibility to change the rules and structures that threaten to exclude people of color from taking part in the new, green economy.

Young people are going to have to take the lead in this because they’ve got the most at stake. The decisions we make as a country now will affect them far longer than anyone else. The powers that be like to call these Millennials the first "post racial generation." They claim that young people take racial equality so much for granted that fighting racism is low on their list of priorities. The polluters of the gray economy will take that idea straight to the bank, unless young people themselves make it clear that they understand racism shows up in all our issues, including the environment.

We should amplify and grow efforts to build an inclusive green economy. In doing so, we must always ask two key questions about new policies and programs: is it green, and is it fair

Rinku Sen is the Executive Director of the Applied Research Center, which promotes racial justice through media, research, and activism.  Billy Parish is the founder of the Energy Action Coalition, a national youth clean energy coalition.

This entry is cross-posted at The Huffington Post.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

December 19—the day after COP15

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

This is part of a series of interviews with people working to make U.S. communities smarter, greener spaces. Got a suggestion for an interviewee? Send it our way or leave it in the comments section below.

Earlier this year, officials from sixteen U.S. cities gathered in Cambridge, Mass., to compare notes on a surprisingly hot topic: building retrofits. The meeting was held just as the Obama Administration announced the creation of a “Recovery through Retrofit” interagency working group, and hopes were high that federal funding, green jobs, and energy savings would flow forth. I dropped in on that event and spoke with Stockton Williams of conference sponsor Living Cities, a coalition of foundations and banks—including such heavyhitters as the Gates Foundation, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank—that aims to “improve the lives of low-income people and the urban areas in which they live.” Brimming with quiet confidence, he’s one of those people who leaves you feeling like good things actually can happen—and are happening. I decided to follow up with him to see what came out of the conference, what he thinks of Obama’s urban efforts so far, and what advice he has for the rest of us.

Q. Tell the good people: what is your occupation, and what does it look like on a day-to-day basis?

Stockton WilliamsA. I am senior advisor and director of green economy initiatives for Living Cities, a consortium of global foundations and financial institutions that invests in local efforts to expand opportunity for low-income people in U.S. cities. I work with cities and nonprofit organizations to design and implement building energy retrofit initiatives and other strategies to create clean energy jobs and foster more sustainable urban development. I also work with federal, state, and local officials to develop policies that will make the green economy work for low-income people and places.

Some of what we do involves making grants and loans, which is critically important to getting innovative efforts off the ground. Just as important, we think, is the role we play as a convener of leaders on various issues and source of unbiased expertise and real time market intelligence on the most promising approaches for strengthening cities.

Q. When we met earlier this year, you were at a “Boot Camp” for officials from several cities around the country. How was that experience, and what came out of it?

A. The Living Cities Green Boot Camp convened more than 100 senior local officials and their partners in the energy and workforce sectors from 16 cities for two days of discussion and peer networking on scaling up building energy retrofits. These cities are at the forefront of a growing recognition in communities across the country that building retrofits at scale can create substantial economic and environmental benefits, from progress on climate change to lower costs and new jobs.

At the boot camp we learned a lot about what cities are trying to do, and where they still face challenges. Ensuring that local retrofit initiatives create opportunities for low-income people is one of them. Since the Green Boot Camp, most participating cities have made a lot of progress. We are providing funding and technical support to a number of them individually and creating ways for all of the participants to learn from and support each other’s efforts.

Q. Which cities—either among those who attended the camp or in general—do you think are doing the best job of becoming smarter, greener places to live?

A new wind’s blowing in Cleveland.GCBL.orgA. There is an enormous amount of environmental innovation happening at the local level in all parts of the country. At Living Cities, we are focused on how cities are making the clean energy economy work for low-income people. On that score, Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis-St.Paul, Newark, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle are certainly among the national leaders.

Smaller cities like Babylon, N.Y., Charlottesville, Va., and Flagstaff, Ariz., are also doing leading edge work in the area of retrofits.

Q. We occasionally run a column called “Sexy Retrofits,” in which we take a look at high-profile buildings that are getting greener. What role does retrofitting play in fighting climate change, and do you think such splashy projects help the cause or are a distraction?

A. The homes, apartments, commercial properties, and community facilities all around us are a major opportunity for achieving greater efficiency and reducing global warming pollution. Buildings in the U.S. consume 72 percent of the electricity and 55 percent of the natural gas—and account for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Off the shelf technologies and common sense construction practices can cut building energy use by as much as 40 percent. In the process, building retrofits save money, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs. Critically, many retrofit jobs—from construction to audits to property management—offer opportunities to train low-income workers for long-term careers.

Splashy projects can be beacons of innovation and inspiration, as long as they are understood as such. But most of the climate benefit from better buildings comes from the less sexy improvements—unless you think a caulking gun is sexier than a solar panel.

Q. What are the biggest challenges that officials intent on creating more sustainable cities face?

Sign of the times.A. One set of challenges is related to the recession and foreclosure crisis, which has hammered city budgets, forced cutbacks in essential services, and limited many cities’ ability to make the progress they had hoped on climate protection plans. Another set of challenges flow from the reality that a true clean energy economy is only just emerging in this country, so local governments, like the rest of us, are still learning how to make the transition.

Finally, public policies are often a barrier to greener cities. These include federal transportation programs that encourage excessive road building and sprawl, housing policies that drive demand for larger homes on larger lots away from the urban core, and energy policies that underinvest in incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the built environment. They also include local building codes, zoning policies, stormwater management procedures, and land-use requirements that undermine and sometimes prevent cooler, smarter, and greener growth and development. The good news is that public policy as well as consumer demand is clearly starting to shift; both are demanding greener cities, and as the economy recovers, we will see much faster progress at the local level.

Q. As you look at the current administration’s actions on urban and transportation issues so far, what jumps out as the most promising? What do you wish they’d put more emphasis on?

A. The administration has made a strong commitment to environmental sustainability as a central priority in its broader urban and transportation policies, stronger than any previous administration. We will see this reflected in the renewed debate this fall on cap and trade legislation and the forthcoming rewrite of the major transportation laws.

More broadly, there is an unprecedented degree of joint policymaking occurring between the federal departments of housing, transportation, energy, labor and the Environmental Protection Agency on sustainability issues. One example is the Recovery through Retrofit Interagency Working Group, which is developing a comprehensive blueprint for retrofitting the nation’s residential housing stock.

We are working with the administration to make sure policies to spur the clean energy economy also expand opportunity for low-income people. That cannot be an afterthought; it needs to be at the top of the list. The administration has very talented, dedicated people working on this, but prior experience and current budget and political realities underscore the need to be vigilant, relentless, and insistent on this point.

Q. If you could wave your magic wand and make one thing happen in every city right now, what would it be?

A. Cities would have the resources to meet the basic needs of their citizens, with a little left over—and more available from the federal government to reward the leaders—to accelerate their transition to being greener communities.

Q. Do you have any advice for how people can make change in their own communities?

A. Our economic and environmental future depends mostly on cities. Every citizen has a stake in their city’s plan—or lack of one—for responding to the catastrophic threat of climate change. Find out what your city is doing, ask how you can help, and send any message you can to your federal elected leaders that we can’t wait any longer to act as a nation.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

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.

The 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.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

December 19—the day after COP15

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

“Where are you from?”  I was often asked that question while growing up in Southern Indiana in the 1970s.  I didn’t look like anyone else in my white hometown and people had a hard time believing I belonged there. I hated the question, but for them it was a polite way of dealing with their confusion over how the hell a biracial Asian girl ended up in their community.

“Where are you from?” is the question I thought people were thinking when I sat through a Western Climate Initiative stakeholder meeting last spring, once again in a place where I didn’t look or sound like everyone else. Sitting next to me was a white guy in a starched, button-down shirt representing the petroleum industry.  Then there were other corporate types right out of central casting vying for their stakeholder interests. And finally a small cadre of passionate environmentalists who spoke in terms I didn’t yet understand, like “greenhouse-gas emissions,” “carbon offsets,” and “cap and trade.”     

I had spent most of my career fighting for economic justice, working with people of color and those with lower incomes.  Their struggle is to keep food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and access to social services, while clawing at their chance for the American Dream.  Back in the mid-1990s, I founded what became Washington state’s largest anti-poverty organization.  We mobilized thousands of people with low incomes to raise their voices for change and won significant victories.  

So why was I in this room discussing carbon emissions?  Because climate change is an economic-justice issue. Regardless of how our government ultimately decides to handle climate change policy, poor people will be affected.  They can be included in the new clean energy economy or they can be further pushed out in the cold. 

What do I mean by that?  Doing nothing on climate will only make things worse for the poor and people of color in this country.  The result of decades of inaction on this issue has already dramatically affected the lives of people: from more intense hurricanes that disproportionately hit people who cannot escape the rising tide, to the higher cost of food in a fossil fuel–driven economy, to heat waves that often trap the elderly in stifling apartments.    

Even doing something, unless done right, can be harmful. Because climate legislation is intended to provide market signals to encourage energy efficiency and the development of clean alternatives to fossil fuels, any effective legislation will necessarily result in higher prices for fossil-fuel energy and energy-related goods. Those higher prices, if left unaddressed, would hit low- and moderate-income households hardest, because necessities like gasoline, food, and home-heating costs take a much bigger bite out of their pocketbooks than those of wealthy households.  Low-income families are also less able to respond to higher energy prices by conserving energy because they do not have the capital to invest in more energy-efficient appliances and vehicles. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that without consumer relief, low-income households would see their costs increase by an average of $425 per year as a result of climate legislation.  This is money that families earning $16,000 a year simply can’t spare.  Unless these costs are offset, the purchasing power and living standards of these lower-income consumers could fall significantly over time.

Fortunately, the opportunities for people living in poverty are abundant if we design an effective and equitable climate policy.  Doing so will improve the lives of many in the U.S. and will better position the Obama administration to be a leader as our nation engages in an international discussion on addressing global warming in Copenhagen this December.   

The House of Representatives has already taken the lead by designing climate policy that would not drive low-income households further into poverty.  The bill that passed in the House established a key principle that low-income Americans as a group must be no worse off because of the higher prices associated with climate legislation.  On top of the relief all households—regardless of income—would receive on their utility bills, the House bill includes a climate rebate for families and individuals in the lowest income quintile that would compensate for increases in energy costs as well as other necessities.  These provisions send a strong message about the importance of protecting low-income households from the costs of climate legislation. The House bill takes an efficient and effective approach to making sure we reach the right people by using two existing systems:

Neither approach on its own is sufficient; however, in combination, they reach the overwhelming majority of the lowest-income households.  This direct relief must be in addition to any indirect compensation that may be provided through electric and gas utility companies.  Because the majority of the additional cost for people with lower incomes would come from areas other than home utility bills, relief solely through utility companies is inadequate.

As the Senate begins to take action on climate, it is critically important that, at a minimum, it maintains the same commitment adopted by the House to fully protect the lowest-income people from net cost increases.

In addition to protecting low-income consumers, climate change policy also provides the opportunity to make investments that can move people out of poverty.  Along this vein, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the term “green jobs” in the climate debate. And this is an exciting possibility for real change in our economy and for workers in the U.S.  However, for green jobs to live up to expectations, the jobs created must be unionized and pay a living wage, with focus on training and employing people living in poverty and people of color. 

Passing climate legislation this year is a necessary and crucial step in controlling greenhouse-gas emissions and encouraging the development of renewable-energy technologies that will create these green jobs.  As people living in poverty in the U.S. and around the globe are increasingly and disproportionately harmed by global warming, the obligation is on the democratically elected representatives in our rich nation to act with courage. 

As leaders from around the world gather in Copenhagen to tackle the challenge of reducing global-warming pollution, an important question they will want to ask each other is, “Where are you from?”  And because of the shared risks of climate change, all the answers should be identical:  “The same place as you: planet Earth.”

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Optimistic or pessimistic about the Copenhagen climate talks?

Copen-talkin’: Smarties offer their takes on COP15 climate talks

Van Jones sent this message out to friends and supporters on Tuesday, Sept. 15.

Dear Friends:

My family and I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support that we have received over the past week or so. I resigned from the White House on Sept. 6, and I have remained silent since then -- in keeping with my promise not to be a distraction during a key moment in the Obama Presidency.

Over the past several days, however, many people have been asking how they can help and what they can do.

The main thing is this: please do everything you can to support both President Obama and the green jobs movement. Winning real change is ultimately the best response to these kinds of smear campaigns.

I ask everyone to:

1. Support President Obama's efforts to fix our nation's health care, energy and education systems. His victory last fall did not represent the "finish line" in the fight to renew America; his election was just the "starting line." This autumn, it is time to make history again -- with victories on health care and clean energy.

2. Sign up to support groups that are working for green jobs.

As others seek to vilify or marginalize the movement for a clean energy economy, the leading groups deserve increased support. This is the year to ensure that the clean energy transformation creates good job opportunities for everyone in America.

3. Spread the green jobs gospel. The ideas and ideals of the green jobs movement are grounded in fundamental American values -- innovation, entrepreneurship, and equal opportunity. My true thoughts can be found in my book: The Green Collar Economy. Check it out from the library -- or order a copy and share it with a friend. See for yourself why clean energy and green jobs are good for our country.

4. Stay connected and speak up for me via your favorite blogs (e.g., Huffington Post, Grist, Jack & Jill, etc.), on message boards and all of your favorite social networking platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Supporters have set up a couple of them, to help you stay engaged, including: I Stand With Van Jones and I Love Van Jones.

In due course, I will be offering my perspective on what has happened -- including correcting the record about false charges. In the meantime, I must get my family affairs in order and sort through numerous offers and options.

I want to be clear that I have nothing but love and admiration for President Obama and the entire administration. White House staffers are there to serve and support the President, not the other way around. At this critical moment in history, I could not in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. The White House needs all its hands on deck, fighting for the future.

Of course, some supporters actually think I will be more effective on the "outside." Maybe so. But those ideas always remind me of that old canard about Winston Churchill. After he lost a hard-fought election, a friend told him: "Winston, this really is just a blessing in disguise." Churchill quipped: "Damned good disguise." I can certainly relate to that sentiment right now. :)

Nonetheless, we must keep moving forward. Let's continue our work to make an America as good as its promise. These are historic times. And we have a lot more history to make.

Sincerely,

Van Jones

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

President Barack Obama put a green spin on Tuesday’s address to autoworkers at the GM assembly plant in Warren, Ohio.

The president sounded confident that the rescued, retooled, reinvented, more or less government-owned GM would be “good for American workers, good for American manufacturing, and good for America’s economy.” And it may just be a good thing for the global climate too.

“For too long,” the president told the autoworkers, “our auto companies faced uncertain and conflicting fuel economy standards. That made it difficult for you to plan down the road. That’s why, today, we are launching—for the first time in history—a new national standard aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in America. This action will give our auto companies some long-overdue clarity, stability, and predictability.” And hopefully some welcome fresh air for the rest of us.

The president pointed to the “unlikely allies” that came together to make an agreement on new fuel standards possible. “Automakers, the UAW, environmental advocates, Democrats and Republicans, California and more than a dozen other states—all of them pledging to set aside the quarrels of the past for the sake of the future.”

As for the future of those Warren, Ohio, autoworkers, well, it’s looking a little brighter these days. According to the president, “[T]his plant is about to shift into higher gear. 150 of your coworkers came back to work yesterday. More than 1,000 will be coming back to work in less than three weeks as production of the Cobalt ramps up. And next year, this plant will begin production of the Chevy Cruze, a new car that will get more than 40 miles per gallon.”

“You’re doing your part to move us forward and make sure that the high-quality, well-engineered, safe and fuel-efficient cars of the future will be built where they always have been—right here in Ohio, right here across the Midwest, right here in America.”

It’s yet another example, said the president, that his administration is “fighting for an America where clean energy generates green jobs—jobs that can’t be outsourced; jobs that help free us from the grip of foreign oil; jobs that make sure the cars of the future and the technologies that power them are made right here in the U.S.A.”

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

The New York State Senate and Assembly, too often a model of corruption and dysfunctionality, rose above petty politics last week to pass forward-thinking legislation on climate and energy, setting a precedent for bipartisanship and a sensible cap and trade system.  The State Senate passed the groundbreaking Green Job/Green New York Act, with strong support from Republicans, Democrats, and the Working Families Party, which spearheaded the legislation. The bill -- expected to be signed into law this week by Gov. David Patterson -- leverages $112m in revenue from the Northeasts's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) into $5 billion of private investment to finance home weatherization, energy efficiency projects, and green jobs creation.

We should all be paying closer attention for three reasons:

1) It is one of the first large-scale pieces of legislation that concreteley demonstrates why green jobs are a win-win-win. Homeowners win by reducing their energy costs. The private sector wins by gaining a safer investment with strong expected returns. And New Yorkers benefit through the creation of 16,000 new jobs and the increased economic activity and tax receipts the program will generate.  It's a blueprint that can work in other states and regions as well.

2) It's also a model for sensible national climate and energy policy. While the version of the American Clean Energy & Securities Act that passed in the House gives away a substantial portion of the pollution allowances to utilities, the RGGI program in the Northeast auctions off the credits creating the $112 million in revenue, which the state is leveraging 50x to create new jobs and save homeowners on their heating and electricity bills. 

3) Finally, the Green Job/Green New York Act highlights the power of bipartisan efforts to achieve common sense solutions. Republican support is what made the bill possible. Rather than fight any effort for sensible policy like the national Republican leadership, local leaders have proven to be in touch with the concerns of their constituents, helping to pass the bill 52-8 in the Senate and 147-0 in the Assembly. But putting politics aside and the needs of New Yorkers first, they showed the way for national cooperation on this issue.

To learn more about the bill and its passage, check out David Sasson's piece on SolveClimate.org.

Related Links:

You don’t have to be big to go green

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Photo: 1SkyAside from all the immense negatives, the recent Van Jones character assassination has done one very important thing for the climate movement: catalyzed our passionate opposition to dirty energy and politics as usual, while cementing our determination to achieve clean energy solutions this fall.  

It’s as if you can hear the collective fist-clenching of youth organizers and activists in communities and campuses across the country.  It is a signal that the battle for just and prosperous clean energy solutions has begun again.  The climate movement has been preparing for this moment, and whether we fail or succeed, the movement as a whole will look back on this fall as the turning point in our activism.   

As this summer progressed, and especially as the events of the last few weeks transpired, all of us have realized that the Senate side of the climate-bill debate will be much different and much harder than our spring organizing in the House.  The game has changed, new players have arrived, and the climate movement has been forced to adjust to the new playing field. 

The health-care debate showed that there was no floor for the underhanded and scandalous tactics of entrenched industries and interests.  The coal and oil companies quickly copied the playbook.   Now the most important global legislative challenge of our time has begun to take a back seat due to the current “political climate,” and the administration seems unwilling to get into the ring.  To overcome these barriers and achieve legislative change during this vital window of opportunity, the climate movement needs to mobilize, engage, and collaborate on an unprecedented level -- and that’s exactly what it is preparing to do.        

Three national partners are set to join forces for the first time by executing a collaborative and diverse campaign.  Energy Action Coalition, Avaaz, and Focus the Nation, each with their unique campaign plans and strategies, have spent the last few weeks coordinating to maximize impact and flex the most organizing muscle possible. 

EAC’s Power Shift campaign is preparing for statewide Power Shift summits in targeted states across the country, and as its numbers swell with youth activists signing up, it remains the most visible beacon within the youth climate movement to get involved and take action.  With the help of national and regional partners, EAC will not only generate great statewide trainings, but also tens of thousands of letters and phone calls into the White House and Senate offices calling for a strong climate bill and a strong presence at the COP15 global climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

Focus the Nation has transformed its 2008 town-hall model into a system of more inclusive and diverse community forums.  In targeted states across the country, these “clean energy forums” will bring constituents together to discuss clean energy solutions and make strong asks of their senators, thus creating important systems of political accountability and intergenerational constituency-building for the Senate debate on climate legislation. 

Avaaz and 350.org will host actions to increase the visibility of the debate, and create important levels of inspiration and awareness across the country and the globe.  Avaaz is set to host a series of creative demonstrations around the capital throughout the fall, and 350.org has set Oct. 24 as a day of action across the world.  Powerful images of these actions and demonstrations will circulate to policy makers and media outlets across the grid to maximize impact and remind people that every voice counts in this fight -- even if politics isn’t your cup of tea.

Catapulted by the momentum generated in its “Back to DC” campaign, 1Sky is also gearing up to activate its large grassroots network for Senate-side engagement.   The new Clean Energy Works Coalition is set to join the fight as well.  The coalition, made up of hunters, farmers, veterans, environmental, and labor organizations, plans to target 28 Midwestern, Western, and Southern states with hundreds of field workers, a lobbying campaign, and television, radio, and internet advertising.                      

Whether they are planning a state Power Shift summit, a clean energy forum, a 1Sky “Flood the Senate” house party, or all of the above, young people across this country are igniting their peers and communities for action.  The same generation with the organizing and electoral power to elect the first black president is set to accomplish another great feat. 

If successful, this movement will give the Senate and Obama administration a clear choice: Stand up, utilize the political backing they have been given, and strengthen and support the climate legislation; or ignore their constituency, and gamble their children’s future away by representing the dirty industries of a failing and unjust pollution-based economy.  The creation of this dichotomy will not just achieve the climate solutions we and future generations all deserve, but it will lift our towns up and shift the political winds back to a system where policy makers are accountable to those they represent.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Learning how to count to 350

Cross-posted from Wonk Room.

Joe Klein, the prominent Time Magazine liberal columnist, has embraced the right-wing assault on Van Jones, the White House green jobs advisor who resigned this weekend. Stung by a successful boycott for calling the president a “racist,” Glenn Beck led a campaign against Van Jones as a “self avowed communist” who is a “danger to the republic.” Yesterday, Klein said “good riddance” to the “too-angry blowhard” Van Jones, comparing him to a “white supremacist” and a “Nazi”:

Anyway, Jones: He has, in recent years, done some valuable work trying to steer green jobs into poor communities…but there is a bright line in American political life: Self-proclaimed “communists” need not apply. Communism is too odious and foolish a philosophy for anyone reasonable to believe in, or even to use as red-flag hyperbole, as Jones did after the Rodney King riots of the early 1990s, when he said that he’d been a [black] nationalist, but was now a communist. It’s sort of like a Republican President appointing someone who had said, “I used to be a white supremacist, but now I’m a Nazi.” So, good riddance. The work of this presidency is too important to be side-tracked by a too-angry blowhard spouting foolish radicalism.

In the past decade, Van Jones has been at the vanguard of a green capitalism that combines progressive and conservative ideals, “focusing on job, wealth and health creation” in poor and minority communities while healing the planet. His work has helped establish the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, the Green Jobs Act, and community partnerships for job training and retrofit programs in cities across the nation.

Before becoming a leading green capitalist, Jones was a progressive leader in the Bay Area. The “communist” smear hinges on a 2005 interview with the East Bay Express, in which Jones described how he had “renounced” his radicalist politics of the 1990s, when he participated in STORM, a utopian, anti-racist peace collective in Berkeley, CA that drew from Marxist teachings. Jones was radicalized by the 1992 Rodney King trial, in which four LAPD officers were acquitted of police brutality although their beating of Rodney King was caught on videotape. While acting as a legal observer for a non-violent rally in San Francisco protesting the trial and its aftermath, Jones was caught in a mass arrest for which the city later apologized.

Klein’s comparison of Jones to a “Nazi” “white supremacist” is both repugnant and ironic, considering Jones’s record of fighting racism and embracing compassion for all people. Following the Rodney King verdict, Jones worked effectively against police brutality, establishing first the Bay Area PoliceWatch and then the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The Ella Baker Center successfully campaigned against San Francisco police officer Marc Andaya, who led a team of cops in beating Aaron Williams, “emptying three cans of pepper spray into his face, and hogtying him in an unventilated police van where he died.” With its “Books Not Bars” campaign, the Center also stopped the construction of the Alameda County “Super Jail for Kids” in 2001.

Klein — a compelling writer who has argued for legalizing marijuana, a war crimes tribunal for the Bush administration, and the same green-jobs vision as Van Jones — should be the last person to promote a McCarthyite purge of “left-extremists” from the Obama administration.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?

Senators opposed to Clean Energy Jobs Act are ignoring bill’s benefits to Americans—Part 2

The end of Van Jones' brief career as a White House insider, in the semi-obscure position of special adviser for green jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality, is likely good for Van Jones and very good for progressives.

Yes, currently it seems as if Fox News' Glenn Beck -- who spent the past few weeks viciously smearing Jones -- has won one. In fact, Beck has done Jones, and all of us, a mitzvah.

And considering that the White House, and for that matter Washington's liberal establishment, failed to come to his defense in the face of relentless attacks by the right-wingers at Fox (very similar to what Fox did to Barack Obama leading up to the election), Jones's liberation should make him a happy camper.

Early Skepticism

Much of Jones' broad base of fans was excited when word spread that he would be taking his prodigious talents to the White House, working on the inside to spread the gospel of green jobs. Many were surprised and pleased to see Obama, ever the centrist, willing to bring in a firebrand like Jones to shake things up.

But more than a few wondered, "Jeez, how is that going to work?" They knew that Jones, arguably the most effective communicator in Democratic and progressive politics -- and yes, that includes  Obama -- was going to have to control his tongue, and in many cases shut his mouth.

Part of what made Jones popular was telling it like it is. Jones inspired audiences, especially young people, with the notion that a radical vision, combined with innovative ideas and fundamental organizing, could work in tandem with our political system.

And some also wondered, was green jobs enough when it was health care, the banks and economic crisis, the escalation in Afghanistan, and the battles with the right that were dominating the national discourse? We knew he was the "green jobs czar," but there were 30 czars in the White House -- so many that Obama was known to joke about a show called "Dancing with the Czars."

Why was Jones going indoors, when there were big fights outdoors, all across the country?

As it turns out, the White House may have taken him in with open arms, but apparently was glad to see him go.

FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher wrote: "Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35 percent of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11. Well, that and calling Republicans 'assholes.'"

So where are all the statements defending Van Jones by those who were willing to exploit him when it served their purpose? Why aren't they standing up and defending one of their own, who has done nothing that probably the majority of people in the Democratic Party haven't done at one time or another? Is he no longer "one of their own"?

So yes, Jones tried the inside, but now he's back on the outside. Here are five reasons why we are all better off:

1. Now he's a household name: Beck has increased Jones' visibility and name recognition immeasurably. Although he has been wildly popular in progressive circles, and a headliner at progressive conferences like Take Back America and the Netroots Nation, Jones was still a relative unknown for the population at large. Now he has a national stage.

2. He's been rescued from obscurity: Special adviser to the Council for Environmental Quality. Hmm. That doesn't quite have the ring of power and influence. Jones took one for the team by taking an obscure position in the first place. And he took another one for the team by realizing quickly that the right-wing smear campaign against him was going to be a distraction.

Now Jones is free to climb to a much higher level of visibility and influence millions of people in ways he couldn't at that White House job.

3. He's the leader progressives need: Let's face it. For reasons not altogether clear, there is no single powerful, articulate leader of progressive forces, which include many millions of Americans. It's time we have such a leader.

With key elements of the union movement squandering enormous resources and time fighting each other, and many issues competing for air space, a credible, charismatic strategic leader like Jones could help to give direction, set priorities and generally give shape to what has so far been an anemic progressive presence in the Obama era.

Those with the most popularity and name recognition among progressives -- Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Bill Moyers and Robert Reich to mention a few -- can't do what Jones can do. Donna Edwards and Keith Ellison are emerging in Congress as national leaders, and they will be strong complements to Jones -- in fact, the three represent a new progressive generation, one less lily white than the one that preceded it. But Van is the Man.

4. He has a renewed charge to speak the truth: Jones was attacked by the right for basically saying what is true: that Republicans are assholes (but he also said: "I, Van Jones can be one, too."); that green-jobs organizing has to go far beyond solar panels; that African Americans are victimized by environmental racism by "white polluters, and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color's communities because they don't have a racial justice frame"; and the biggie -- that the Bush administration had to be challenged on 9/11.

At a minimum, given all the information they had, Bush, Cheney and Co. were colossally, and perhaps criminally, inept leading up to 9/11, and no doubt there is much more to be told about their story.

5. He can provide real vision and organizing framework: Jones' book, The Green Collar Economy, was briefly a New York Times best-seller, and now it just might make it back on the list (just as Jeremy Scahill's book on Blackwater has reappeared on the N.Y. Times extended list for the third time due to Blackwater staying in the news).

The liberation of Van Jones will give him the opportunity to fully explain his blueprint on green jobs, but also connect it to the political economy and the need for resources to train young people in the skills needed to bring a green economy to the U.S.

But perhaps even better is that Jones will be free to draw out the complex connections between various issues, such as the huge waste of resources and lives in the war on Afghanistan and how that affects jobs and the environment -- here in the U.S. and in that war-torn, abysmally poor country.

And Jones will be free to mobilize people in support of climate-change protection. As my colleague Addie Stan notes:

The right-wing attacks on Jones may well be linked to organizing against Obama and the Democrats' plans on the environment. GOP Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who lends his endorsement to Grassfire, an organization that organizes members of the armed patriot movement through its ResistNet site, called on Jones to resign, saying, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate.

Grassfire is currently organizing ground-level opposition to the clean-energy legislation -- especially its cap-and-trade mechanism -- supported by the White House."

Jones Will Be Stronger

Some may think that the relentless red-baiting and piling up of distortions and lies by the right-wing media machine might leave Jones politically wounded. I doubt it.

Fame is a valuable commodity in our society. And now, it is clear that Jones is a celebrity. In a short time, people will have a hard time remembering exactly what made Jones famous, but famous he will be. And he will have a major pulpit -- thanks to his oratory gifts and to how the media treats notorious celebs.

There is a long history of political resurrection in America. Remember that the Rev. Al Sharpton was sued for slander and ordered to pay $345,000 in damages after he was deemed guilty for making defamatory statements about the Dutchess County, N.Y., prosecutor, Steve Pagones, after Sharpton insisted in the infamous Tawana Brawley case that Brawley's fabricated story of rape was true.

And according to Wikipedia, on May 9, 2008, the Associated Press reported that Sharpton and his businesses owed almost $1.5 million in unpaid taxes and penalties. Sharpton owed $931,000 in federal income tax and $366,000 to New York, and his for-profit company, Rev. Al Communications, owed $176,000 to the state. Yet few would disagree that Sharpton is currently one of the 10 most influential African Americans in America.

Consistently, fame seems to trump radicalism and scandal.

Yes, Jones was a leader in the retro-named, radical group STORM: Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. But that is nothing compared to Germany's Joschka Fischer. Fisher was able to become foreign minister, despite the fact that Fischer was a leader of a radical group called the Putzgruppe, which had fought in several violent street battles with the police.

A series of photographs taken at a street battle in 1973 clearly show Fischer clubbing a policeman, to whom Fischer later apologized. This was but one of a range of politically radical acts by Fischer.

Seeing what happens next in the trajectory of Jones will be very interesting. But the betting on this end is that Jones will return to his role as visionary leader of progressive forces, and he will be in a stronger position to promote change, provide inspiration and rally the troops.

This piece was originally posted at AlterNet.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters

Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?

In his decade-long obsession with Dr. Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover revealed himself as one of American history's most reprehensible figures.  Feeding on a stew of racism and anti-communism, Hoover used his considerable power as FBI Director to try to torment King into leaving public life.   His tactics were noxious - illegally taping King in his most private moments - and inexcusable - he refused to report legitimate assassination threats to King's security team.  Most notably, as he realized that King was made of steely stuff, he went after his allies.  Stanley Levison and Bayard Rustin, two indispensable advisers to King, were mercilessly targeted by Hoover.  Their previous associations with communist causes were more than enough grist for Hoover's malicious mill.

What Hoover was to law enforcement during the King years, Glenn Beck is to a free press during the Obama years.  For each of these demagogues, a sacred foundation of democracy is nothing more than a means to a twisted end: promoting racially-driven paranoia in order to serve their own vanity.  Hoover's insights into the vulnerabilities of others helped him become a consumate bureacrat; Beck's channeling of 'the paranoid style of American politics' has helped him become a highly popular broadcaster.  Differences abound: Hoover did his bidding in private, while Beck is embarrasingly public. But in the end, each leads the same futile fight: trying to stop the steady growth of a more just, more diverse and more hopeful America.

Hoover came to mind this weekend with the announcement that Van Jones had resigned from Obama's CEQ. Viewed one way, this was a victory for Beck and his Fox News patrons, and it was right out of the Hoover playbook.  Find a few seemingly embarrassing moments from your target's vibrant past, cast them in the most damning light, and then let a well-oiled system take over.  And as the targeting of Levison and Rustin were meant to weaken King, so with Jones and Obama.  Progressives and climate-movement activists are rightfully outraged by all of this.

But with reflection, we can find solace in history.  It's true that Levison and Rustin were each 'thrown under the bus' at key moments in the fight for civil rights.  Just as Hoover had hoped, disclosures about their past led King and his other advisers to shun these two for a time.  But you know something: it didn't last.  After being cast aside, Rustin went on to co-organize the 1963 March on Washington; Levison was soon back in King's inner circle.  Hoover, simply, could not stop them from shaping history's grand push toward freedom. 

So I'm sure it will be with Beck, Jones and Obama.  Does anyone really think that Van Jones won't be leading again soon, with renewed vigor? And does anyone really think that Glenn Beck's vision for America - too grizzly to even detail! - will triumph over that of Jones? 

Indeed, what Jones has lead so brilliantly over the last several years, as the climate movement has come into its own, is the development of a new vision of a greener and more just America.  'Green jobs' is not just a slogan.  It captures the muscular idea that our urban centers can be revitalized as we build a clean-energy economy.  In this Step It Up montage, one can bear witness to Jones's vision - and how a new generation has worked alongside him to make it their own.  And it is this generation that will, as the years pass, implement Obama's higher call.

To get there, what should we do right now?  For climate activists, two lessons from the Hoover-Beck analogy should ignite action.  First, note that the FBI head was allowed to corrupt national politics for way too long.  Amazingly, Hoover was in that position for almost half a century.  Beck is a relatively young man with, disturbingly, what might be called a 'promising' future.  Millions read his books and watch his show. It is right, therefore, for climate activists to re-double their efforts to stop him, so that his moment in history, unlike Hoover's, is fleeting. 

To take away Beck's power, we should start by supporting the consumer boycott led by the Color of Change.  By every account, it's working.  And of course, we need to shed light on Beck's despicable ways with our own research and words: here's a great post from Juliana Williams and a new website that she has co-founded.  These and related online efforts will have a cumulative effect.

Getting Beck, though, is not the most important action for us now.  In fact, pursuing Beck in isolation might well play to his hand.  For what he and Limbaugh and others really thrive on is vitriol, bitterness and hate - whether provided by them or their opponents.  When opponents of birthers yell, it reinforces the Beck worldview that created the birthers in the first place.  If we just attack and yell, Beck wins.

Ultimately, what King, Levison, Rustin and all of the other civil rights leaders teach us is the power of anti-Hooverism, of anti-Beckism.  Indeed, it's a lesson that cuts across the centuries.  When President Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, re-affirmed his faith in "the better angels of our nature," he was reaching out to us now, reminding us now of the "mystic chords of memory" that bind us as we work to create a better future. 

Van Jones surely binds us from one age to the next, to the visions of Lincoln and King and to the leadership of so many of today's young leaders.  We can thank him, we can honor him best by redoubling our own efforts to begin the world anew.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

The resignation of President Obama’s green jobs adviser was touched on during several of the TV networks’ Sunday morning political gabfests. Here are the relevant excerpts:

NBC’s “Meet the Press”

HOST DAVID GREGORY: Another domestic matter—Van Jones, who has been an advisor to the White House on environmental policy, resigned overnight because of some inflammatory comments he has made, over time, including a petition he signed that blamed the government for the 9/11 attacks. Was this an issue that got to the president? Did he personally order that he be fired?

OBAMA ADVISER DAVID AXELROD: Absolutely not. This was Van Jones’s own decision. You know, he is internationally known as an advocate for green jobs, and that’s the basis on which he was hired. He said in his statement that he didn’t want his comments to become a distraction from the issue, which is so important to the future of our economy and communities around the country. And I commend him for making that decision.

MR. GREGORY: Was he the victim of a smear campaign, as he alleges?

MR. AXELROD: Well, look, this is a—you know, the political environment is rough, and so, you know, these things get magnified.

But the bottom line is that he showed his commitment to the cause of creating green jobs in this country by removing himself as an issue, and I think that took a great deal of commitment on his part.

MR. GREGORY: But was the president offended by what he said?

MR. AXELROD: I haven’t spoken to the president about this. As you know, this thing has bubbled up in the last few days and, frankly, my conversation with the president has mostly been about health care, which is where our focus should be right now.

MR. GREGORY: Do you find what he said objectionable?

MR. AXELROD: Well, I haven’t read all of his comments, either, David. Again, I’m focused on how well we get health security for our all Americans; how we get this economy moving in the right direction. We’ve pulled back from the abyss of a potential collapse, and now we have to build for the future and get people back to work. I think those are the things that we should be focused on, and that’s what I am focused on.

Fox News Sunday

HOWARD DEAN: Well, I was just going to say this guy’s Yale-educated lawyer. He’s a best-selling author about his specialty. I think he was brought down. I think it’s too bad.

Washington’s a tough place that way, and I think it’s a loss for the country.

HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Governor, how about the fact that he had made a series of statements and had signed this petition in 2004 indicating—suggesting that the government might have some role or some complicity in 9/11?

DR. DEAN: Well, he was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else, so I think that’s too bad.

Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign, and he learned the hard way you ought not to do that.

But I don’t think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11.

MR. WALLACE: Senator Alexander, your reaction to the Jones resignation?

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER: Well, I don’t think he’s the issue. I think the czars are the issue. We have about two dozen so-called czars—the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House.

And that really is an affront to the Constitution, because the Constitution was set up to say that the president is the executive, but the people who manage the government the secretaries, the Cabinet members, of which I was one, have to be approved by the Congress and have to report to the Congress.

So when you take all these people and make policy close to the president and the White House to people who don’t go to the Congress and aren’t approved by the Congress, you’re just adding fuel to the fire by those who think Washington is taking over everything.

ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”

HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the president believe that he is the victim of a smear campaign or does the president think that Jones actions and words merit resignation?

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: Well what Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs and lay the foundation for our future economic problem…The president accepted his resignation, but Van Jones as he said in his statement he was going to get in the way of the President.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  So the president doesn’t endorse in any way the things that Van Jones said before but the president doesnt want him to go?

GIBBS: He doesn’t but he thanks him for his service.

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Around the web:

WASHINGTON, Sept 6, 2009 (AFP)—President Barack Obama’s special adviser for green jobs has resigned under pressure from leading Republican politicians and revelations about his controversial past statements.

Van Jones, a former civil rights activist from California, had been working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality since March.

“I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today,” Jones said in a statement dated September 5 but released shortly after midnight on September 6.

Jones went on the say that on the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, “opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign” against him.

“They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” he continued. “But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.”

Jones became the focus of public attention last week when it was revealed that he had signed a petition that questioned whether officials in the administration of former president George W. Bush “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

It was also revealed that Jones used a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

As a result, several prominent Republicans demanded action against Jones. Republican Representative Mike Pence on Friday called on Jones to resign or be fired.

Jones’ “extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate,” Pence said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on the ABC show “This Week” that Obama thanked Jones for his service, and for “helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs that are going to lay the foundation for our future economic growth.”

When asked whether Obama had wanted Jones to resign, Gibbs was evasive.

“The president and the CEQ accepted his resignation because Van Jones, as he says in his statement, understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward on something as important as creating jobs in a clean energy economy.”

Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chair, said he spoke to Jones, a Yale-educated lawyer and bestselling author, about the controversy and lamented his departure.

“I think he was brought down. It’s too bad,” Dean, a former presidential contender, told Fox News.

“Washington is a tough place that way and I think it’s a loss for the country.”

With respect to the petition, Dean said that Jones had made the mistake of signing it without reading it carefully.

“He was told by the people waving those clipboards around he was signing something else,” the former Vermont governor said.

“I don’t think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11.”

More news and opinions:

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

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]

Related Links:

How to make 1.7 million new clean energy jobs permanent

India aims for 20 gigawatts solar by 2022

New Energy Finance: Solar power 50% cheaper by year end