Comments on: A Green New Deal? http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy On Point is a live, two-hour morning news-analysis program, produced by WBUR 90.9 and NPR. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:44:55 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ed L. http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7359 Ed L. Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:22:02 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7359 I just read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Hot, Flat, and Crowded" which surveys a wide range of worldwide issues and describes how they are all connected to varying degrees to energy. Combine that with the timing of the auto exec's pleas to Congress, and it just reinforces for me that the right prescription is: 1. Let them go bankrupt 2. Institute a gas tax that keeps oil over $100/barrel 3. Create a federal portfolio requirement for utilities similar to some of those enacted in some states and Europe 4. Then initiate a federal Green Deal program so that any auto factories that get closed down or workers laid off get converted to producing green energy products (thru tax breaks and retraining programs). I believe this will address many connected problems: - unemployment (putting workers into a new industry we can be more competitive in) - health (improved energy efficiency and reduced usage will improve air and water quality) - balance of trade with China (they will be importing our green tech) - dependence on oil (even though we don't import most of our oil from the Middle East, it's a world market so we effectively do, and every fluctuation in oil prices makes it impossible for us to make thoughtful long term investments) - middle east violence (Friedman makes the claim that historically extremist violence and reduced state freedoms in the Middle East go down as oil revenues go up; that the most free and non-violent societies in the Middle East are those that don't rely on oil revenue alone - so let's start shifting the importance of oil now) I agree with all the points regarding the high energy density and low cost of oil, but that low cost isn't real. We pay for all the indirect costs of oil (and coal) in other ways (military expenses, health expenses, etc...). And it is true that few alternatives except nuke are capable of immediately replacing the scale of implementation of oil, but that's why we need to pursue a portfolio and that's why we need a scale of free market investment on the level of the dotcom boom (I think Friedman said it was over $500 billion) after the government sets the right price signals to guarantee the investments of wall street will not be wasted. thx I just read Thomas Friedman’s “The World is Hot, Flat, and Crowded” which surveys a wide range of worldwide issues and describes how they are all connected to varying degrees to energy.

Combine that with the timing of the auto exec’s pleas to Congress, and it just reinforces for me that the right prescription is:

1. Let them go bankrupt
2. Institute a gas tax that keeps oil over $100/barrel
3. Create a federal portfolio requirement for utilities similar to some of those enacted in some states and Europe
4. Then initiate a federal Green Deal program so that any auto factories that get closed down or workers laid off get converted to producing green energy products (thru tax breaks and retraining programs).

I believe this will address many connected problems:
- unemployment (putting workers into a new industry we can be more competitive in)
- health (improved energy efficiency and reduced usage will improve air and water quality)
- balance of trade with China (they will be importing our green tech)
- dependence on oil (even though we don’t import most of our oil from the Middle East, it’s a world market so we effectively do, and every fluctuation in oil prices makes it impossible for us to make thoughtful long term investments)
- middle east violence (Friedman makes the claim that historically extremist violence and reduced state freedoms in the Middle East go down as oil revenues go up; that the most free and non-violent societies in the Middle East are those that don’t rely on oil revenue alone – so let’s start shifting the importance of oil now)

I agree with all the points regarding the high energy density and low cost of oil, but that low cost isn’t real. We pay for all the indirect costs of oil (and coal) in other ways (military expenses, health expenses, etc…). And it is true that few alternatives except nuke are capable of immediately replacing the scale of implementation of oil, but that’s why we need to pursue a portfolio and that’s why we need a scale of free market investment on the level of the dotcom boom (I think Friedman said it was over $500 billion) after the government sets the right price signals to guarantee the investments of wall street will not be wasted.

thx

]]> By: Topic http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7179 Topic Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:05:33 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7179 Wow, I found the comments of listeners are more practical and insightful than the guests on the show. Great brain storm, I hope these are the people are involved with government's green projects. I feel hopeful now. Wow, I found the comments of listeners are more practical and insightful than the guests on the show.

Great brain storm, I hope these are the people are involved with government’s green projects.

I feel hopeful now.

]]> By: globi http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7154 globi Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:06:23 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7154 Kevin, ironically, China has roughly 10 times more solar hot water capacity installed than nuclear power. Even though China subsidizes nuclear power and does not subsidize solar hot water collectors. Maybe green is too expensive for Americans, but according to the facts, it is obviously affordable for the Chinese people: http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf Kevin,

ironically, China has roughly 10 times more solar hot water capacity installed than nuclear power. Even though China subsidizes nuclear power and does not subsidize solar hot water collectors.

Maybe green is too expensive for Americans, but according to the facts, it is obviously affordable for the Chinese people:
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

]]> By: Building a Green Economy | Young Black Professional Guide http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7110 Building a Green Economy | Young Black Professional Guide Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:56:24 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7110 [...] Jones Forecasts Green Job Revolution – News & Notes A Green New Deal? – On Point Green Jobs [...] [...] Jones Forecasts Green Job Revolution – News & Notes A Green New Deal? – On Point Green Jobs [...]

]]> By: kevin http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7101 kevin Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:17:49 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7101 If you force 'green" it won't work. There has been nothing stopping "green" power except that it's too expensive and not reliable. If you force ‘green” it won’t work. There has been nothing stopping “green” power except that it’s too expensive and not reliable.

]]> By: Derek http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7094 Derek Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:13:44 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7094 Tom, I enjoy listening to your show and today's was not a disappointment. I'd encourage all those interested in this space to read Dr. Hermann Scherr's book, "Energy Autonomy". He's an MP in Germany and was instrumental in setting govt policy such that the market could know the rules of the games. Since then Germany's solar use and job creation has been noteworthy. Tom,
I enjoy listening to your show and today’s was not a disappointment. I’d encourage all those interested in this space to read Dr. Hermann Scherr’s book, “Energy Autonomy”. He’s an MP in Germany and was instrumental in setting govt policy such that the market could know the rules of the games. Since then Germany’s solar use and job creation has been noteworthy.

]]> By: Jim L http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7087 Jim L Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:01:34 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7087 The energy issue is an incredibly complex set of problems, both economic and scientific. Unfortunately both masters must be served. Producing new clean and efficient energy sources will definitely take additional capital. Unfortunately, (for the alternative energy idea) the price of oil has dropped drastically in the last two months. This has greatly reduced if not removed the profit motive behind the push for new cleaner more efficient energy sources. The might of the US economy will not get behind the alternative energy movement unless there is an expectation of profits for the companies/shareholders involved. This leaves a Manhattan Project type of government investment as one possible solution. The problem here is that the government is terribly inefficient, and the potential for fraud, waste and abuse is rather large. Because of this, I believe that a better way to ensure this profit motive is by setting an artificial price floor on the price of oil through a tax. By doing this, alternative energy companies would be able to invest in technology and could have a certain amount of protection against drops in price that suddenly make them unviable from a cost standpoint. This would also increase government revenues that could then be used for incentivizing energy efficiency projects, and new green tech projects. Finally, it would give consumers an incentive to purchase energy efficient appliances, vehicles, and homes. The high cost of energy over the last two years has destroyed the SUV market, and caused people to focus on energy efficiency in many areas of their life for the first time since the early 80s. Energy is currently lower in price due to the global recession that we have entered, but this will change in the near future when the economy picks up. China and India will continue to grow if at a slower pace, and will consume increasing quantities of energy. This will of course drive the price back up. Added to that fact is the problem that eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. When that occurs, energy costs will sky rocket. We must ask ourselves if we want to spend a moderately larger amount for energy now, or do we want to be crippled by an astronomical increase at some time in the future caused by increased demand, and greatly reduced (eventually completely) production of fossil fuels. A higher gas price right now in order to develop alternatives will be much less painful. We must also look at the time frame required for developing these alternative energy projects. They are not items that pay off quickly. Coupled with this is the fact that executive compensation is often based on current profitability and or stock price. This gives corporations incentive to focus on the immediate and does not pay a dividend for forward thinking and long term focus. On the government level, I think that a floor on oil price will provide the long term price stability in the energy market for corporations to look to forward and invest in long term projects. At the corporate level, I would like to see boards of directors base executive compensation on future profitability. This gives the executives the incentive to look to the future and not use short term fixes that make the books look good now at the expense of the corporations’ future success, and would drive these forward looking projects that are incredibly profitable when oil is 100, 200 or 300 dollars a barrel. Warren Buffet if you are listening… The energy issue is an incredibly complex set of problems, both economic and scientific. Unfortunately both masters must be served. Producing new clean and efficient energy sources will definitely take additional capital. Unfortunately, (for the alternative energy idea) the price of oil has dropped drastically in the last two months. This has greatly reduced if not removed the profit motive behind the push for new cleaner more efficient energy sources. The might of the US economy will not get behind the alternative energy movement unless there is an expectation of profits for the companies/shareholders involved.
This leaves a Manhattan Project type of government investment as one possible solution. The problem here is that the government is terribly inefficient, and the potential for fraud, waste and abuse is rather large. Because of this, I believe that a better way to ensure this profit motive is by setting an artificial price floor on the price of oil through a tax. By doing this, alternative energy companies would be able to invest in technology and could have a certain amount of protection against drops in price that suddenly make them unviable from a cost standpoint. This would also increase government revenues that could then be used for incentivizing energy efficiency projects, and new green tech projects. Finally, it would give consumers an incentive to purchase energy efficient appliances, vehicles, and homes. The high cost of energy over the last two years has destroyed the SUV market, and caused people to focus on energy efficiency in many areas of their life for the first time since the early 80s.
Energy is currently lower in price due to the global recession that we have entered, but this will change in the near future when the economy picks up. China and India will continue to grow if at a slower pace, and will consume increasing quantities of energy. This will of course drive the price back up. Added to that fact is the problem that eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. When that occurs, energy costs will sky rocket. We must ask ourselves if we want to spend a moderately larger amount for energy now, or do we want to be crippled by an astronomical increase at some time in the future caused by increased demand, and greatly reduced (eventually completely) production of fossil fuels. A higher gas price right now in order to develop alternatives will be much less painful.
We must also look at the time frame required for developing these alternative energy projects. They are not items that pay off quickly. Coupled with this is the fact that executive compensation is often based on current profitability and or stock price. This gives corporations incentive to focus on the immediate and does not pay a dividend for forward thinking and long term focus. On the government level, I think that a floor on oil price will provide the long term price stability in the energy market for corporations to look to forward and invest in long term projects. At the corporate level, I would like to see boards of directors base executive compensation on future profitability. This gives the executives the incentive to look to the future and not use short term fixes that make the books look good now at the expense of the corporations’ future success, and would drive these forward looking projects that are incredibly profitable when oil is 100, 200 or 300 dollars a barrel. Warren Buffet if you are listening…

]]> By: Julie from Michigan http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7085 Julie from Michigan Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:17:13 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7085 Though the big three auto companies do have headquarters in or near Detroit, I find it a vast misrepresentation and somewhat ignorant when people use "Detroit" as a synonym with the companies. The people of Detroit began to lose their jobs in the late 1950s and the city has continued a precipitous population decline since then. Meanwhile most white-collar executive families live outside Detroit, causing the greatest disparity of income between areas in the US. I don't think that "telling Detroit" what to do is any way to address the poverty, lack of access to food and health care, and a decaying infrastructure - it's important to recognize both the difficult context and the hard work of the residents of Detroit. Though the big three auto companies do have headquarters in or near Detroit, I find it a vast misrepresentation and somewhat ignorant when people use “Detroit” as a synonym with the companies. The people of Detroit began to lose their jobs in the late 1950s and the city has continued a precipitous population decline since then. Meanwhile most white-collar executive families live outside Detroit, causing the greatest disparity of income between areas in the US. I don’t think that “telling Detroit” what to do is any way to address the poverty, lack of access to food and health care, and a decaying infrastructure – it’s important to recognize both the difficult context and the hard work of the residents of Detroit.

]]> By: Ellen P http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7084 Ellen P Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:55:11 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7084 I was hoping to hear on this program today about the car that runs on air. If you haven't heard about this, check out this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0 I was hoping to hear on this program today about the car that runs on air. If you haven’t heard about this, check out this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0

]]> By: Doug from St Louie http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7083 Doug from St Louie Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:54:06 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7083 I'm currently an electrician at an ammunition manufacturer in the rust belt. I spend more time worrying about losing my job than I do working. I feel there may be relief to lose my position and go to work as green collar electrician. I know the machines I fix every day are contributing to war. I say we sand down the rust belt and paint it green. I’m currently an electrician at an ammunition manufacturer in the rust belt. I spend more time worrying about losing my job than I do working.

I feel there may be relief to lose my position and go to work as green collar electrician. I know the machines I fix every day are contributing to war.

I say we sand down the rust belt and paint it green.

]]> By: Doug from St Louie http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7081 Doug from St Louie Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:35:35 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7081 Remember that gas prices dropped dramatically without drilling for new oil! Remember that gas prices dropped dramatically without drilling for new oil!

]]> By: Doug from St Louie http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7080 Doug from St Louie Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:30:20 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7080 Great Subject. I've distanced myself from you(On Air) in the last couple of years but keep up the good work and I'll return along with several others. Great Subject.

I’ve distanced myself from you(On Air) in the last couple of years but keep up the good work and I’ll return along with several others.

]]> By: Steve Adamson http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7078 Steve Adamson Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:06:33 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7078 Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt?

]]> By: Frederic C. http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7074 Frederic C. Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:20:35 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7074 Next, our efforts in battery technology are so unreasonable. The Chevy Volt uses 400 lbs of battery to store the energy of one gallon of gasoline. The cheapest energy storage media is compressed air..........[Gray Kinney] To be clear, that's energy storage in a massive cavern, that allows for storage of off-peak production. It is then available for delivery at peak periods. Not for powering cars al la whooosh. Do you know how much energy is required to fill a compressed air tank? Next, our efforts in battery technology are so unreasonable. The Chevy Volt uses 400 lbs of battery to store the energy of one gallon of gasoline. The cheapest energy storage media is compressed air……….[Gray Kinney]

To be clear, that’s energy storage in a massive cavern, that allows for storage of off-peak production. It is then available for delivery at peak periods. Not for powering cars al la whooosh.

Do you know how much energy is required to fill a compressed air tank?

]]> By: globi http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7073 globi Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:19:25 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7073 <b>Germany introduced feed-in tariffs 1990 already and German together with Danish wind turbine companies own 70% of the windturbine market worldwide.</b> The solution: <i><b>'feed-in tariffs'</b></i> already exists and has been a success for over a decade (particularly in Europe)! The feed-in tariffs are adapted/lowered each year to prevent a cost explosion and since it only pays per kWh which has actually been produced, there's no corruption, bad-quality etc. possible. Germany had 235,000 people working in the renewable energy sector 2006 already! http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/39983/5466/ <b>Renewable energies do create many jobs and a fast growing job market. It's a proven FACT - not theory!</b> Germany introduced feed-in tariffs 1990 already and German together with Danish wind turbine companies own 70% of the windturbine market worldwide.

The solution: ‘feed-in tariffs’ already exists and has been a success for over a decade (particularly in Europe)!

The feed-in tariffs are adapted/lowered each year to prevent a cost explosion and since it only pays per kWh which has actually been produced, there’s no corruption, bad-quality etc. possible.

Germany had 235,000 people working in the renewable energy sector 2006 already!
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/39983/5466/

Renewable energies do create many jobs and a fast growing job market. It’s a proven FACT – not theory!

]]> By: Matt D. http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7072 Matt D. Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:53:23 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7072 Arguing that Green Energy should no longer be a priority because of low oil prices is an example of the worst type of short-sightedness. It's only a matter of time until gas prices sky rocket again. It may take 12-24 months but it will happen. And when it does happen it will be comforting to know that the appropriate amount of resources are being invested in sustainable energy sources. Arguing that Green Energy should no longer be a priority because of low oil prices is an example of the worst type of short-sightedness. It’s only a matter of time until gas prices sky rocket again. It may take 12-24 months but it will happen. And when it does happen it will be comforting to know that the appropriate amount of resources are being invested in sustainable energy sources.

]]> By: Alex Szczech http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7071 Alex Szczech Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:41:22 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7071 Investing in green technology is a no-brainer. Hopefully Obama, with his superior communication skills, can build the popular support necessary to to get this done. Investing in green technology is a no-brainer. Hopefully Obama, with his superior communication skills, can build the popular support necessary to to get this done.

]]> By: Frederic C. http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7070 Frederic C. Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:20:46 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7070 Sorry, from. Sorry, from.

]]> By: Frederic C. http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7069 Frederic C. Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:20:16 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7069 Decouple holidays with consumerism. Decouple holidays with consumerism.

]]> By: MyronK http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/11/obama-and-the-green-economy/comment-page-1#comment-7068 MyronK Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:02:37 +0000 http://www.onpointradio.org/?p=13191#comment-7068 I finally got through at around 10:50 and they said there wasn't enough time to introduce this as a new idea to here goes (great show BTW). A way to stimulate the economy, grow US jobs and reduce energy consumption is to fund a massive swap-out of inefficient HVAC systems (air conditioners and boilers) and appliances. Many of the top manufacturers are US companies manufacturing in the US (Carrier, Honeywell, Lennox, Trane, Burnham, A.O. Smith, Mestek, GE, Whirlpool), they already have Energy Star rated products that are developed and available that are way more efficient than what is currently installed and in use. Most consumers don't buy these super efficient products because they are more expensive and the ROI is not always clear. Rather than giving consumers stimulus checks to buy plasma TVs made in China that increase power consumption, give them very substantial rebates/incentives to swap out inefficient air conditioners, boilers and appliances with new (hopefully US-made) products. This is not just a 10% off type of promotion but a financial incentive that really motivates people to act. Everyone wins: the retailers like Best Buy and Lowe's have something to sell, manufacturers have to add jobs to meet demand and have profits to invest in even higher efficiency products, trades people get service revenue from the installation, consumers will save money from greater efficiency and we reduce our consumption of electricity and carbon footprint. California has shown that mandating super efficient systems and appliances can have dramatic results in reducing consumption. I'm no economist but believe that something like this could stem the energy consumption tide until we develop new renewable technologies. I finally got through at around 10:50 and they said there wasn’t enough time to introduce this as a new idea to here goes (great show BTW).

A way to stimulate the economy, grow US jobs and reduce energy consumption is to fund a massive swap-out of inefficient HVAC systems (air conditioners and boilers) and appliances. Many of the top manufacturers are US companies manufacturing in the US (Carrier, Honeywell, Lennox, Trane, Burnham, A.O. Smith, Mestek, GE, Whirlpool), they already have Energy Star rated products that are developed and available that are way more efficient than what is currently installed and in use. Most consumers don’t buy these super efficient products because they are more expensive and the ROI is not always clear.

Rather than giving consumers stimulus checks to buy plasma TVs made in China that increase power consumption, give them very substantial rebates/incentives to swap out inefficient air conditioners, boilers and appliances with new (hopefully US-made) products. This is not just a 10% off type of promotion but a financial incentive that really motivates people to act.

Everyone wins: the retailers like Best Buy and Lowe’s have something to sell, manufacturers have to add jobs to meet demand and have profits to invest in even higher efficiency products, trades people get service revenue from the installation, consumers will save money from greater efficiency and we reduce our consumption of electricity and carbon footprint.

California has shown that mandating super efficient systems and appliances can have dramatic results in reducing consumption. I’m no economist but believe that something like this could stem the energy consumption tide until we develop new renewable technologies.

]]>