Bill McKibben spoke on the campus of Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) Monday afternoon (11/09/09). McKibben was one of the organizers of a recent global day of action on October 24th called 350.org. Several members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association participated in these 350.org activities throughtout the state of Indiana.
McKibben, author of Deep Economy, challenges us to find ways to create more sustainable communities, both locally and globally, and frames a fresh perspective on where we should lead our economy, environment, and society for a more durable future. An IUPUI 40th anniversary event presented by the Common Theme Project, IUPUI; Christian Theological Seminary; Earth Charter Indiana; Hoosier Environmental Council; Improving Kids' Environment; Indiana State Museum; Indianapolis Winter Farmers Market; and Unitarian Universalist Church of Indianapolis.
The thesis of Bill McKibben’s most recent book, Deep Economy, is twofold: On the one hand, the growth economy described in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations has produced unprecedented gains in many people’s standards of living, aiding the development of liberal democracies and human rights. On the other hand, there are signs that the growth economy is reaching and exceeding the planet’s environmental limits, and economic wealth is not producing equivalent gains in human happiness. The subtitle of McKibben’s book, The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, asks us to consider, what other forms of wealth in our communities are worth investing in, both locally and globally, to create more sustainable, satisfying, and inspiring places to live?
Bill McKibben has a wealth of anecdotes about how people are living more sustainably in local communities, both in the U.S. and around the world. He has proposals for downsizing the scale of farms, energy production, and living spaces, and supporting radio stations, community theaters, and civic organizations in order to enrich the places where people live. At the same time, he appreciates the benefits of markets, and he argues that securing property rights for the world’s poor is vital to global equity. His twin goals of deepening economic ties locally and building up the wealth of communities globally provide an effective framework for conversations about Inspiring Places.
In the Spirit & Place event, McKibben gave a 35-40 minute talk that focused on his insights and proposals, including his work on global movement 350.org’s “International Day of Climate Action.” The lecture was followed by a Q&A session, a book signing , and a public reception.
Audience members have several ways to follow up on this lecture. The Indiana State Museum will sponsor a panel with McKibben on November 10 on the question: Can local food feed Indiana and the world? On November 11, will host a community panel, with audience participation, to discuss the connections and disconnections between market prosperity and vital places today. There will also be lists of the events in IUPUI’s 2009-2010 Common Theme Project, and the audience will be directed to the project’s web resources, which will include bibliographies of books and films with links to community organizations working in relevant issue areas.
McKibben explains that he has solar panels on his home in Vermont.
This tidbit brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
New ASES Report Estimating the Jobs Impact of Tackling Climate Change
The American Solar Energy Society is rolling out a new report 10/30/09. It shows that tackling climate change can be a major net job creator for the U.S. economy.According to the report, aggressive deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency can net up to 4.5 million new U.S. jobs by 2030 and provide the greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary to tackle climate change.
With Congress debating energy policy in Washington D.C., this is the type of information that can really make a difference.
Renewable energy and energy efficient technologies could displace approximately 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions annually by 2030 - the amount scientists believe is necessary to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change.
The report is called, Estimating the Jobs Impact of Tackling Climate Change, and was produced by ASES and top economists at Management Information Services, Inc. based in Washington, D.C.
The report can be found at: www.ases.org/climatejobs
Here's one of the best parts. According to the analysis, renewable energy and energy efficiency deployment costs would be revenue neutral or better!
That's because the costs to implement the technologies are offset by savings from lower energy bills, making total net costs near zero.
As Brad Collins, ASES' Executive Director described it, "The twin challenges of climate change and economic stagnation can be solved by the same action-broad, aggressive, sustained deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The solution for one is the solution for the other."
This jobs report offers the most detailed analysis yet on the potential role of the new energy economy in tackling climate change.
It builds on the powerful findings of ASES' groundbreaking 2007 report Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.: Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions From Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030 edited by Chuck Kutscher.
Check out the report: www.ases.org/climatejobs
This jobs report offers the most detailed analysis yet on the potential role of the new energy economy in tackling climate change.
Report findings show that:
•Aggressive deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency can net 4.5
million new jobs by 2030. These jobs are not limited to certain regions or sectors – they are widely dispersed throughout the U.S. in virtually all industries and occupations.
•Hot jobs spurred by this new economic growth span a diverse range of skills and experience and include: electricians, plumbers, carpenters, administrative assistants, machinists, cashiers,
management analysts, civil engineers, and sheet metal workers.
•Renewable energy and energy efficient technologies could displace approximately 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions annually by 2030 – the amount scientists believe is necessary to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change.
•Approximately 57% of carbon emissions reductions would be from energy efficiency and 43% would be from renewable energy.
•Energy efficiency measures can allow U.S. carbon emissions to remain about level through 2030, while renewable technologies can provide large reductions in carbon emissions below current levels
•Industries showing the largest job gains include: construction, farming, professional services, public sector, retail, truck transportation, fabricated metals and electrical equipment.
•The construction industry directly benefits from almost all the growing renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors as well as from improvements in overall economic growth due to energy savings. Farming directly benefits from biomass and biofuel technology growth.
•Many of these jobs can not be easily outsourced due to the on-site nature required by these roles.
•The greatest numbers of renewable energy jobs are generated by solar photovoltaics, biofuels, biomass, and concentrating solar power sectors.
The report suggests that policy can play a significant role in both generating jobs and mitigating carbon emissions.
The Indiana Renewable Energy Association is the official state chapter of the American Solar Energy Society. For more information visit www.indianarenew.org.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)
By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html
Washington
CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress
passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly
approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal
with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new
standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global
warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to
Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant
about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States
cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We
are also convinced that we have found both a framework for
climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a
clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect
current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national
security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus
that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate
change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not
months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country
and represent different constituencies and that we supported
different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have
different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that
the best way to make America stronger is to work together to
address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine
bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put
forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among
Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with
stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new
beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and
legislation that is already before Congress.
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
economy and national security. That is why we are advocating
aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that
cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major
emitters through a market-based system that will provide both
flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance
without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs
overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind
and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our
single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear
power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if
we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to
jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the
construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit
system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing
utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do
more to encourage serious investment in research and development
to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get
serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too
long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts
and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity
generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we
will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental
goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States
should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this
reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for
companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration
technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on
additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration —
work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last
Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an
environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and
interests of our coastal states.
Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas.
China and India are among the many countries investing heavily
in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs.
There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to
countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this
reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in
countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with
our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates
strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough
environmental protections.
Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses
— and ultimately consumers — from increases in
energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a
floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This
will also safeguard important industries while they make the
investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize
there will be short-term transition costs associated with any
climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also
believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency
strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the
military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to
sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our
security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability
and poverty that could put our nation at risk.
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not
pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration
will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new
regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and
they certainly will not include the job protections and
investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear:
killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat
of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the
legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to
Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and
investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that
comes with Congressional action.
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put
America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators
to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist
that the rest of the world join us in producing a new
international agreement on global warming. That way, we will
pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean
environment and an energy-independent nation.
John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey
Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html
Washington
CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress
passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly
approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal
with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new
standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global
warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to
Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant
about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States
cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We
are also convinced that we have found both a framework for
climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a
clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect
current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national
security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus
that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate
change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not
months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country
and represent different constituencies and that we supported
different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have
different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that
the best way to make America stronger is to work together to
address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine
bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put
forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among
Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with
stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new
beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and
legislation that is already before Congress.
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our
economy and national security. That is why we are advocating
aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that
cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major
emitters through a market-based system that will provide both
flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance
without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs
overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind
and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our
single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear
power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if
we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to
jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the
construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit
system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing
utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do
more to encourage serious investment in research and development
to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get
serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too
long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts
and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity
generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we
will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental
goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States
should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this
reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for
companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration
technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on
additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration —
work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last
Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an
environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and
interests of our coastal states.
Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas.
China and India are among the many countries investing heavily
in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs.
There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to
countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this
reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in
countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with
our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates
strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough
environmental protections.
Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses
— and ultimately consumers — from increases in
energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a
floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This
will also safeguard important industries while they make the
investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize
there will be short-term transition costs associated with any
climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also
believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency
strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the
military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to
sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our
security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability
and poverty that could put our nation at risk.
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not
pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration
will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new
regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and
they certainly will not include the job protections and
investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear:
killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat
of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the
legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to
Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and
investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that
comes with Congressional action.
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put
America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators
to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist
that the rest of the world join us in producing a new
international agreement on global warming. That way, we will
pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean
environment and an energy-independent nation.
John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey
Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Lugar speech on energy security and climate change
Dick Lugar
U.S. Senator for Indiana
Date: 09/21/2009 • http://lugar.senate.gov
Contact: Andy Fisher • 202-224-2079 • andy_fisher@lugar.senate.gov
________________________________________
Following is the text of a speech by U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar this morning at the Energy Security as National and Economic Security forum sponsored by IUPUI’s Lugar Center for Renewable Energy and the Pew Environmental Group in Indianapolis, Indiana. Today is the first day of Global Climate Week.
Thank you, Mayor Ballard, for your kind introduction and for your important leadership on energy issues in Indianapolis. I also want to thank Chancellor Charles Bantz, Dr. Andrew Hsu, and the entire team at the Lugar Center for Renewable Energy for hosting us today. The Lugar Center is at the forefront of research and education on energy issues. It is a catalyst for the ground-breaking collaboration of Hoosier universities, private industry, government, and our national labs.
The work of the Lugar Center and other energy research endeavors is vital because the United States is confronted by a cluster of national security threats that arise from our economic and cultural reliance on fossil fuels.
First, our immediate dependence on oil, a large percentage of which is controlled by hostile or unstable regimes concentrated in the volatile Middle East, increases our vulnerability to natural disasters, wars, and terrorist attacks that can disrupt the lifeblood of the international economy. It also means that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to authoritarian regimes. This revenue stream emboldens oil-rich governments and enables them to entrench corruption, fund anti-Western demagogic appeals, and support terrorism.
Second, we face the prospect of manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies by producers seeking political leverage. Vulnerability to such leverage has strained our alliances and poses a persistent threat to the global economy. Moreover, nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the threat of a cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the chances of armed conflict, terrorism, and economic collapse.
Third, we face longer term prospects of increased competition for finite resources, most notably, oil. At some point – even with vigorous exploration and development efforts – global demand for oil will exceed supply. As we approach the point when the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict. Although the current recession has softened demand for oil, it has also led to falling investment in the energy sector. The International Energy Agency projects that global investment in oil and natural gas production will fall by $100 billion this year. These cuts come at a time when more investment is needed to counteract high oil field decline rates. This increases the possibility of extreme oil scarcity in the relatively near future.
And fourth, a concern at the center of public debate today is the series of international crises that may arise out of drought, food shortages, rising seas, and other manifestations of climate change.
This list does not necessarily exhaust the consequences we may face. But it underscores one of the dilemmas for policymakers, namely, that the multiple threats related to fossil fuel dependence are not identical. They each have a unique time horizon and threat intensity.
Some actions we might take, such as developing renewable fuels, may be useful in addressing the entire cluster of threats. But some steps that might be beneficial for reducing oil dependence, such as powering new vehicles with electricity generated by conventional coal technologies, may aggravate greenhouse gas emissions. Still other steps that might be beneficial for climate change may worsen other threats in the cluster. For example, EPA regulations on land-use changes could stunt biofuels production, or carbon regulation at home could increase import dependence on refined petroleum products.
Even as we work for a conversion from a fossil fuel dominated economy to one that depends much more on renewable resources, failure to maintain reliable supplies of oil and natural gas in the interim could be debilitating to our economy and our national security. Therefore, as we seek to reduce carbon output, we cannot afford to be complacent in the development of domestic oil and gas supplies, nor can we neglect bilateral relationships with key energy producers around the world or fail to reinforce multilateral energy cooperation.
Our task is not just to anticipate all possible national security threats that might emerge in the future due to our current energy portfolio. We have to develop timelines that compare the relative immediacy of these threats, and prioritize accordingly. Then we have to make rational choices about where and how to apply limited resources.
Heightened public understanding of the scope of our energy challenge has led to considerable progress on embracing an “all of the above” approach to energy policy. Development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements are all on the table, as they should be. Similarly, a growing consensus is emerging on the need for progress in building out the transmission grid, reforming utilities regulation to allow for dispersed generation and rate decoupling, and using smart meters. With coal generating more than half of the energy we use, carbon capture, storage, and recycling technologies are essential.
Economic Recovery and Climate Change
U.S. Senator for Indiana
Date: 09/21/2009 • http://lugar.senate.gov
Contact: Andy Fisher • 202-224-2079 • andy_fisher@lugar.senate.gov
________________________________________
Following is the text of a speech by U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar this morning at the Energy Security as National and Economic Security forum sponsored by IUPUI’s Lugar Center for Renewable Energy and the Pew Environmental Group in Indianapolis, Indiana. Today is the first day of Global Climate Week.
Thank you, Mayor Ballard, for your kind introduction and for your important leadership on energy issues in Indianapolis. I also want to thank Chancellor Charles Bantz, Dr. Andrew Hsu, and the entire team at the Lugar Center for Renewable Energy for hosting us today. The Lugar Center is at the forefront of research and education on energy issues. It is a catalyst for the ground-breaking collaboration of Hoosier universities, private industry, government, and our national labs.
The work of the Lugar Center and other energy research endeavors is vital because the United States is confronted by a cluster of national security threats that arise from our economic and cultural reliance on fossil fuels.
First, our immediate dependence on oil, a large percentage of which is controlled by hostile or unstable regimes concentrated in the volatile Middle East, increases our vulnerability to natural disasters, wars, and terrorist attacks that can disrupt the lifeblood of the international economy. It also means that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to authoritarian regimes. This revenue stream emboldens oil-rich governments and enables them to entrench corruption, fund anti-Western demagogic appeals, and support terrorism.
Second, we face the prospect of manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies by producers seeking political leverage. Vulnerability to such leverage has strained our alliances and poses a persistent threat to the global economy. Moreover, nations experiencing a cutoff of energy supplies, or even the threat of a cutoff, may become desperate, increasing the chances of armed conflict, terrorism, and economic collapse.
Third, we face longer term prospects of increased competition for finite resources, most notably, oil. At some point – even with vigorous exploration and development efforts – global demand for oil will exceed supply. As we approach the point when the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict. Although the current recession has softened demand for oil, it has also led to falling investment in the energy sector. The International Energy Agency projects that global investment in oil and natural gas production will fall by $100 billion this year. These cuts come at a time when more investment is needed to counteract high oil field decline rates. This increases the possibility of extreme oil scarcity in the relatively near future.
And fourth, a concern at the center of public debate today is the series of international crises that may arise out of drought, food shortages, rising seas, and other manifestations of climate change.
This list does not necessarily exhaust the consequences we may face. But it underscores one of the dilemmas for policymakers, namely, that the multiple threats related to fossil fuel dependence are not identical. They each have a unique time horizon and threat intensity.
Some actions we might take, such as developing renewable fuels, may be useful in addressing the entire cluster of threats. But some steps that might be beneficial for reducing oil dependence, such as powering new vehicles with electricity generated by conventional coal technologies, may aggravate greenhouse gas emissions. Still other steps that might be beneficial for climate change may worsen other threats in the cluster. For example, EPA regulations on land-use changes could stunt biofuels production, or carbon regulation at home could increase import dependence on refined petroleum products.
Even as we work for a conversion from a fossil fuel dominated economy to one that depends much more on renewable resources, failure to maintain reliable supplies of oil and natural gas in the interim could be debilitating to our economy and our national security. Therefore, as we seek to reduce carbon output, we cannot afford to be complacent in the development of domestic oil and gas supplies, nor can we neglect bilateral relationships with key energy producers around the world or fail to reinforce multilateral energy cooperation.
Our task is not just to anticipate all possible national security threats that might emerge in the future due to our current energy portfolio. We have to develop timelines that compare the relative immediacy of these threats, and prioritize accordingly. Then we have to make rational choices about where and how to apply limited resources.
Heightened public understanding of the scope of our energy challenge has led to considerable progress on embracing an “all of the above” approach to energy policy. Development of renewables, expanded oil and natural gas production, improved use of coal, a revival of nuclear power, and efficiency improvements are all on the table, as they should be. Similarly, a growing consensus is emerging on the need for progress in building out the transmission grid, reforming utilities regulation to allow for dispersed generation and rate decoupling, and using smart meters. With coal generating more than half of the energy we use, carbon capture, storage, and recycling technologies are essential.
Economic Recovery and Climate Change
As we work to address energy-driven security threats, we also must take stock of what individual policies would mean for the economic vitality of our country. Solutions to our energy problems do not exist in isolation from the global economy. The global economic downturn has reduced energy demand, bringing greater flexibility to markets. Yet, when major economies start to recover, energy demand will rebound, causing markets to tighten and prices to rise. Under such conditions, markets will be highly susceptible to vulnerabilities that can produce severe supply shocks. In the near term, if we fail to address these vulnerabilities, the prospects for economic recovery could be seriously imperiled. An oil price shock that hits just as a recovery is beginning and demand for energy is increasing would likely generate inflation, undermine market confidence, and increase the risks of conflict.
Individual Americans and the national budget both face extraordinary economic challenges. While some economic indicators have shown signs of incremental improvement in recent weeks, a number of areas continue to cause concern. This is especially true with regard to unemployment.
Although the pace of job loss may finally be abating, overall unemployment continues to rise. The national unemployment rate now hovers just below 10 percent. In Indiana, we reached the 10 percent threshold six months ago, with a half dozen of our counties contending with unemployment rates above 15 percent. Even more troubling is the presence of greater long term unemployment in this recession compared to previous downturns.
It is within this economic context that the Senate may consider a cap and trade program. The cap and trade mechanism has become a central focus of the energy and climate debate in Washington.
I believe that the U.S. must attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To be successful, we must study, carefully, economic and political realities.
Some observers optimistically estimate that the loss in per capita U.S. GDP resulting from the Waxman-Markey cap and trade approach adopted by the House of Representatives would be between one and two percent. But even that level of reduced national growth is far from benign. Economic growth is the engine through which jobs are created, innovation is spurred, and entrepreneurship is launched – including innovation in the green economy that we are striving to nurture. In the absence of economic revival and sustained economic growth in the United States, it is unrealistic to expect that the American public will maintain support for such a massively expensive carbon control program. In the absence of economic stability worldwide, developing countries are unlikely to make the investments necessary to convert the world to a less carbon intensive existence.
Similarly, public support for steps to reduce carbon would likely be undercut if we experience intense shocks to the American way of life stemming from our dependence on oil. For example, if peak oil scenarios, politically motivated embargos, wars, or natural disasters result in a sustained and severe curtailment of the availability of gasoline and heating oil before we have developed an alternative system, all bets are off for policies directed at mitigating climate change. If the American public and economy are rendered immobile by a sustained oil shock of a severity we have yet to experience, it is almost inconceivable that they would tolerate government imposed sacrifices focused on climate change that add to their burdens and slow the economy further. In this context, breaking our oil dependence, with all the national security, economic, and environmental benefits that would come with such a victory, must be our top energy priority. This does not mean that overcoming oil dependence and addressing climate concerns cannot be pursued simultaneously. They must be. But climate efforts must not cause us to lose focus on the immediate risks presented by our oil dependence, and preference should be given to steps in the climate arena that also have utility in mitigating oil dependence.
Due to our state’s heavy reliance on coal for electricity, jobs tied to energy intensive manufacturing sectors, and broad agricultural base, GDP losses under the Waxman-Markey bill would be disproportionately felt by Hoosiers. Concessions made in the Waxman-Markey bill to appease a broad host of interests, including allocations made to power producers, may have made this worse by shifting some transition funds from the Midwest to coastal consumers.
Congress should continue to examine options for establishing policies that provide consistent signals to guide markets toward long-term energy transformation and continual innovation. Cap and trade, in a variety of formats, is one among several policy alternatives that the United States Senate will discuss in an effort to solve the most basic energy policy challenge before us, which is that many consumption decisions being made in the United States do not account for the basket of security costs posed by our current energy portfolio. The same can be said of the long-term costs of greenhouse gas emissions on our environment. In such cases, classic economics indicates that one of the most efficient solutions would be to enact policies that price our energy consumption decisions as accurately and transparently as possible.
Externality pricing alone, however, is not a cure-all for our energy security problems. In some cases, targeted interventions are justified to correct specific market failures and can bring achievable results in the near term. For example, many readily available and cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades exist for new homes, yet they are not widely used. Improved home and building energy efficiency codes, which automatically increase over time, would overcome inefficiencies and encourage manufacturers and developers to find new and cheaper ways to save energy, and, thus, save money for home owners and building managers.
It is prudent to act on policies to guard against climatic change and adapt to changes already likely to occur. But we should also give priority to steps that would simultaneously yield benefits for other U.S. priorities, such as bolstering energy independence, strengthening our economy, generating export markets for high technology industries, developing our rural economy and improving air quality. In other words, economic sacrifices undertaken by the American people in pursuit of energy and environmental security must deliver far more than just a reduction of U.S.-produced carbon.
Achieving Energy and Climate Gains
Notwithstanding my caution on the Waxman-Markey cap and trade formula, we should act quickly on a number of measures that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help limit the foreign policy risks of global hydrocarbon dependence, support economic growth, and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Relatively quick progress on cutting oil dependence and slashing carbon emissions can be achieved from biofuels usage, even as we also transition to a more electrified transportation system. Efficiencies in buildings, homes, appliances, and manufacturing facilities are easy wins for our economy and the environment. Innovation is already happening, but we need fiscally-prudent and tactically-focused programs to jumpstart such actions to scale. To this end, Senator Merkley and I recently introduced a bill that would facilitate loans for homeowners and small businesses to make energy saving renovations.
Our main oil savings will come from the transportation sector, which contributes about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions. If current federal goals are met, biofuels produced in the United States would equal 20 percent of our current fuel needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent compared to the fuel they replace. Although we have passed an expansive renewable fuels mandate, the mandate alone does not ensure that the necessary technological breakthroughs and infrastructure enhancements will occur.
Urgent attention should be given to improving the mix of feedstocks that can be turned into fuel. We should transition out of the current static biofuels subsidy programs, which, in my judgment, will become more difficult to extend as the cost rises and therefore will become less effective at encouraging investment. Instead, we should embrace market assurances tied directly to the price of petroleum, creating more reliable incentives and adopting a more taxpayer friendly approach. And finally, we must ensure that all new vehicles can employ multiple fuel sources, giving choice to consumers and spreading the reach of biofuels at low cost.
Similar focus and policy coherence needs to be given to accelerating advanced vehicle technologies and the batteries necessary to make them practical – areas in which Hoosier companies and workers excel. The potential of electric vehicle technology is tremendous. Since most commutes are less than 40 miles a day, a vehicle with a 40-mile battery range could eliminate daily gasoline needs for most Americans. Automotive innovation can help give new economic life to communities that have struggled because of the auto industry’s woes. We have seen new entrepreneurial companies like Bright Automotive and Carbon Motors choose to locate in Indiana. Federal government programs meant to foster research and leverage private investment must be geared toward true innovation, spurring transition in our existing infrastructure and ensuring that programs are suitably calibrated to support new entrepreneurial companies at the cutting edge of innovation.
Innovative technologies like those being developed at the Lugar Center and in the labs and companies represented by many of you today are the key to achieving security and environmental gains without sacrificing economic growth. If we are to succeed, we must have consistent research support and prevent innovative technologies from being lost in the so-called ‘valley of death’ between R&D phases and commercialization due to lack of affordable credit – a situation that has worsened with the recession.
Tools such as loan guarantees can help new technologies prove their commercial viability. However, the Department of Energy completed the first such loan guarantee just two weeks ago – four years after the program was authorized. This inconceivable delay underscores the need for a far more focused effort. Recently I joined with Senators Bingaman and Murkowski to offer legislation that would establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration with the mission to help new technologies prove themselves commercially and facilitate wide-scale deployment over a limited period of time. Such assistance needs to be fiscally responsible and careful to energize private investment, not crowd it out.
Finally, governments at the federal, state, and local levels should ensure that their own substantial procurement funds are promoting innovative materials that save energy – and save taxpayers’ money. Federal facilities should use the most energy efficient building materials available and can serve as test beds to demonstrate new products. Our vehicle fleets should use hybrids and electric vehicles, and they should be flex-fuel capable of using high-blends of biofuels. Even as the procurement power of the government enlivens markets for innovation, it will also help demonstrate to Americans that cost-effective energy and climate solutions exist today.
A Global Challenge
The challenge of deploying clean energy technologies is not limited to our domestic efforts. The energy choices being made around the world impact our own security, economy, and environment. The scale of the challenge dwarfs our own transition. Emerging economies far outpace us in energy demand growth. For many people in impoverished countries, this growth is a matter of survival, not luxury, so we should not be surprised when countries pursue the lowest-cost power options such as coal and firewood. Yet, many countries in the developing world are also the most susceptible to variations in energy markets, manipulation of energy supplies, and possible impacts of climatic change.
We have a common interest in finding cleaner and affordable energy solutions soon, and deploying them as quickly as possible on a global scale. The United Nations recently estimated that the cost of such a transition in the developing world will be $500 to $600 billion annually over the next decade. Bridging this gap will depend on innovative programs that leverage large-scale private investment in developing nations. We also must have mechanisms for assisting other countries to develop inexpensive energy saving and producing technologies and techniques. U.S. leadership now would help capture blossoming market opportunities for American products and services.
Freer trade in clean energy technologies can help boost competition, find efficiencies of scale, and open valuable markets for U.S. companies. Yet, global trade barriers on such technologies are substantial. Considering that a central goal of climate change advocates is to spread clean energy technologies, it is ironic that climate change is being used as a foil for protectionism. For example, the Waxman-Markey bill would raise tariffs, threatening to set off trade confrontations with those countries we most need to adopt new energy technologies – and buy our government bonds.
More fundamentally, we must integrate energy concerns at the top of our diplomatic and foreign assistance agenda. As we seek to find ways to spread innovative energy technologies and techniques around the world, we must bear in mind that they will only be effective at scale with underlying policy frameworks reinforced with improved governance and political support in place. In other words, addressing energy security and climate change is an issue of governance and development, and we must integrate those into our ongoing dialogues around the world, not separate them. The advancement of the rule of law and transparency in partner nations is critical to ensuring that energy investments are efficient and productive.
The United States should demonstrate its leadership by adopting the pro-energy security and pro-climate change steps I have elaborated here today, and many more that I have not had time to detail. Complex treaty negotiations are not a pre-condition for implementing a pro-growth campaign of initiatives that would have an immediate and direct impact on the entire cluster of problems associated with our fossil fuel dependency.
Conclusion
We have a common interest in finding cleaner and affordable energy solutions soon, and deploying them as quickly as possible on a global scale. The United Nations recently estimated that the cost of such a transition in the developing world will be $500 to $600 billion annually over the next decade. Bridging this gap will depend on innovative programs that leverage large-scale private investment in developing nations. We also must have mechanisms for assisting other countries to develop inexpensive energy saving and producing technologies and techniques. U.S. leadership now would help capture blossoming market opportunities for American products and services.
Freer trade in clean energy technologies can help boost competition, find efficiencies of scale, and open valuable markets for U.S. companies. Yet, global trade barriers on such technologies are substantial. Considering that a central goal of climate change advocates is to spread clean energy technologies, it is ironic that climate change is being used as a foil for protectionism. For example, the Waxman-Markey bill would raise tariffs, threatening to set off trade confrontations with those countries we most need to adopt new energy technologies – and buy our government bonds.
More fundamentally, we must integrate energy concerns at the top of our diplomatic and foreign assistance agenda. As we seek to find ways to spread innovative energy technologies and techniques around the world, we must bear in mind that they will only be effective at scale with underlying policy frameworks reinforced with improved governance and political support in place. In other words, addressing energy security and climate change is an issue of governance and development, and we must integrate those into our ongoing dialogues around the world, not separate them. The advancement of the rule of law and transparency in partner nations is critical to ensuring that energy investments are efficient and productive.
The United States should demonstrate its leadership by adopting the pro-energy security and pro-climate change steps I have elaborated here today, and many more that I have not had time to detail. Complex treaty negotiations are not a pre-condition for implementing a pro-growth campaign of initiatives that would have an immediate and direct impact on the entire cluster of problems associated with our fossil fuel dependency.
Conclusion
I conclude with this thought. Energy is at the root of multiple threats to our country. Some of those threats we see today and feel personally, others may develop in the more distant future. As we endeavor to act on climate change, we should favor and accelerate policies that strengthen America against other threats that also are derived by how we generate and use energy. We are fortunate that many win-win policy options are achievable today. Energy security improvements and greenhouse gas reductions demonstrate commitment to our security, to working with global partners on common threats and, most importantly, commitment to future generations.
Thank you.
###
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Climate Change Roundtable Discussion Scheduled July 9th at IUPUI
What Are the Local Impacts of Climate Change?
A Public Round Table Discussion
Environment America and the Richard G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) will host a public round table event to discuss a recent report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program on the impacts of climate change in the U.S. Expert speakers will give their reactions to the report and talk about the impacts of climate change from their individual perspectives.
THURSDAY, JULY 9TH
12:00 pm
IUPUI CAMPUS CENTER, ROOM CE 305
420 University Blvd.Indianapolis, IN 46202
Panelists:
Bill Keith, President, SunRise Solar A Public Round Table Discussion
Environment America and the Richard G. Lugar Center for Renewable Energy at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) will host a public round table event to discuss a recent report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program on the impacts of climate change in the U.S. Expert speakers will give their reactions to the report and talk about the impacts of climate change from their individual perspectives.
THURSDAY, JULY 9TH
12:00 pm
IUPUI CAMPUS CENTER, ROOM CE 305
420 University Blvd.Indianapolis, IN 46202
Panelists:
Reverend Mike Mather, Broadway United Methodist Church
Dr. Gabriel Filippelli, Chair, Department of Earth Science, IUPUI
Jimmy Bricker, County Extension Director, Benton County
Representative, Truman National Security Project
Parking and Directions:
https://www.parking.iupui.edu/visitors.do
http://www.iupui.edu/about/maps/directions.html
Access to report:
http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/newsroom
Contacts:
LuCinda Hohmann, Environment America: 312-291-0696 x220
Kyle Cline, Richard Lugar Center for Renewable Energy: 317-278-4723
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
