ENERGY SOLUTION: MADE IN THE USA

By: samrasoul
Published On: 3/1/2008 4:54:09 PM

  Last September I bought a hybrid car, which I had long wanted. The decision to buy at that time was a practical one: campaigning in the 6th district required driving from Roanoke to Woodstock with a side trip to Lynchburg. I had to decrease gasoline costs. At the same time I wanted a comfortable ride. Just when I needed it most, I was able to buy the first American-made hybrid sedan on the market.

   That car symbolizes the solution to three serious problems we face. Despite Congressional efforts to ignore the facts, over the past decade the United States has lost 3 million jobs in manufacturing, jobs that paid a living wage and provided benefits such as health insurance and retirement packages. Over those same ten years, our leaders slowly and reluctantly acknowledged a potential global environmental crisis and accompanying energy crisis. While lobbyists push Congress to keep $18 billion in big oil subsidies, every hour we spend $41 million on foreign oil, oil we buy most often from countries that lack stability or democracy, threatening our national security.

   We can no longer afford denial or procrastination. One answer to the three-pronged environmental, energy, and job crisis, a sustainable solution, is the creation of "green collar" jobs. We can and must produce clean, renewable energy, and we can and must insist every phase of that production takes place in the United States at the hands of American workers. At the same time, we must increase energy efficiency, including retro-fitting buildings, jobs which by their very nature will stay at home. Wrapping up a house and sending it to China for an insulation upgrade is impossible, of course, but we also must make sure our wind turbines and solar panels are not manufactured offshore. As George Sterzinger, executive director of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, explained "it makes no sense . . . to wean America off its dependence on foreign oil only to become dependent on other countries for products in sustainable energy production."

   Private industry is already increasing production of wind and solar and other renewable energies. For instance, when a Maytag factory closed in Newton, Iowa, a company making wind turbine blades decided to take advantage of the skilled workforce already in town. This company once built boats but moved to turbines a few years ago because they saw more opportunity for growth. The wind turbine company guaranteed 500 jobs within three years with decent entry salaries.

   However, private industry can't carry the burden alone. We can make an opportunity out of a crisis, an opportunity to put America back to work while at the same time taking the first steps in long-term solutions to energy, environmental, and national security issues. The Apollo Alliance, dedicated to creating high-wage jobs and energy independence, projects that with sufficient federal commitment, we could add more than 3 million jobs to the market over the next ten years.

   But do we have the political will? The federal government will have to provide incentives and make a serious investment in our future. We need a Congress that will extend the investment tax credit for renewable energy. We need a Congress that will extend the tax credit for efficient new housing and commercial building and appropriate additional funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program. We need a Congress that will invest in job training programs geared toward clean energy production. We need a Congress that will help US automakers produce cars that rely less and less on petroleum and a Congress that will significantly raise fuel economy standards (raising the standards from 27 mpg to 35 mpg over the next 15 years is neither significant nor serious) . We need a Congress that will encourage local sources of renewable energy and open the electricity grids. We need a Congress serious about the environment, energy, jobs, and national security, a Congress, as I have said before, that sees beyond the next 4 years to the next 40.


Comments



Do you support a carbon tax? (Lowell - 3/1/2008 5:19:49 PM)
If so, what do you think it should be?  If not, what alternative approach do you support to limit carbon emissions and what's your reasoning?  Thanks.


Yes (layaly4samrasoul2008 - 3/1/2008 6:05:46 PM)
Yes I do support a carbon tax, but this needs to be treated as a short-term solution.  Our nation needs an energy portfolio that leads us for the next 50 years, so investment away from energies that have harmful emissions is essential.  I do believe that carbon taxes should be administered by the states, but we should have emission goals as a nation that are reasonable.  I hardly believe going from 27 mpg to 35 mpg in 15 years is reasonable...this is a joke.


I completely agree with you that (Lowell - 3/1/2008 6:10:28 PM)
35 mpg is a complete joke with regard to global climate change, energy independence, you name it.  What ever happened to the United States as a "can do" nation?  Instead, in this area, all we hear is whining from the automakers about how improving fuel economy will drive them out of business.  Well, excuse me, aren't they already losing billions of dollars, jobs and market share churning out gas guzzlers?  The question is, how are we going to overcome these entrenched, powerful interest groups in Washington?  


Carbon tax (Ron1 - 3/1/2008 8:11:15 PM)
This is definitely not an area of in depth expertise for me, but I am not sure a carbon tax is actually the best way to get us to a carbon neutral energy economy. How does a carbon tax make wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, etc. more affordable? I guess it would make them more affordable in relation to fossil fuel energy sources, but would that be enough to overcome the inertia of an economy dominated by fossil fuel interests, especially considering all of the current means of delivery are geared toward fossil fuels/hydrocarbons?

I am more of the opinion that the Congress needs to set up a proper market that accounts for the environmental externalities that are not currently part of energy prices. Now, while this may end up being a de facto carbon tax (and the more I think about it, I guess it kind of is), it would also incentivize carbon sequestration and carbon-free energy sources.

I absolutely believe we need to get to a 100% carbon neutral environment, but I guess I'm wondering what the best way to get there is. I would much rather see nuclear plants be built in the near term than more coal-fired power plants. Long-term, I think the answer is in biofuels/ethanol for automobile fuel needs, and a combination of wind/hydroelectric/nuclear/biomass for other energy needs (I am skeptical about solar being a viable option, because at some point we're going to run out of the materials we need to make all these solar panels, especially silicon -- but I hope to be wrong and that solar becomes viable).

What are the market forces that can be brought to bear by the Congress to encourage such a shift? Are we talking tax credits or outright payments for carbon neutral energies (at the expense of taxes imposed on coal/oil/gas companies)?

It's an interesting policy debate.  



A carbon tax is by far and away (Lowell - 3/1/2008 8:16:53 PM)
the most economically efficient means of internalizing the externalities involved in fossil fuel consumption.  The beauty of taxing carbon is that it immediately provides strong economic incentives to the market and kick starts a massive influx of private capital into energy efficiency, renewables, and even carbon capture/sequestration technology.  No need for the government to micromanage it, let the capitalist system work its wonders, given incentives that aren't distorted as they are now.  By the way, the carbon tax can be revenue neutral to sidestep the kneejerk anti-tax people's opposition.  Also, we should immediately remove all subsidies to fossil fuels and move that money into R&D for energy efficiency and renewables.  If we do all that, we'll be well on our way to breaking our oil addiction and solving the problem of global warming.  


I'll have to read up (Ron1 - 3/1/2008 8:23:30 PM)
What you say makes a lot of sense, and I 100% agree that market-based incentives are the best way to get the outcome we want. I guess I just need to chew on it some more. If you know of any good books or articles on the subject, I'd be interested in taking a look. I guess I'm worried that the political will won't be there to implement a carbon tax, when that means the price of gasoline will go up significantly -- or that we can only implement a minor carbon tax that doesn't get us there fast enough.

And it is sickening that the most profitable companies in the history of the world are getting preferential tax treatment. (This is the kind of crap that makes me think we should just completely eliminate the corporate tax, and recapture the money through higher taxes on dividends and capital gains; That way, all the incentives for Congress to pick winners via the tax code are eliminated.)



Reading (Lowell - 3/1/2008 8:53:39 PM)
Congressional Budget Office: "Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions"

Carbon Tax Center

John Dingell: "The Power in the Carbon Tax"

Time Magazine: "Pay the Carbon Tax"

"Carbon Tax Provides Fairest Incentive For Curbing Global Warming"

Greg Mankiw: "Carbon Tax vs Cap-and-Trade"

LA Times: Time to tax carbon ("A carbon tax is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to combat cataclysmic climate change.")



Thanks (Ron1 - 3/1/2008 9:45:34 PM)
I appreciate you aggregating the links.  


No problem. (Lowell - 3/1/2008 10:03:15 PM)
I hope all this helps explain why a carbon tax makes so much sense from an economics point of view.


Sorry I did not realize my wife was logged in (samrasoul - 3/1/2008 6:07:03 PM)
My comment above.


stimulus package (skippy smooth - 3/1/2008 8:45:05 PM)
Imagine that 150 billion dollars donated to our electric coops for wind turbines.