Report: Clean energy policies would create 1.4 mill jobs

[HarleyDelight]

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A new report released today by the Sierra Club, the United Steel Workers, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), UNITE/HERE, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that a clean energy policy would create 1.4 million new American jobs while saving the average American household more dollars every year on energy, resulting in a $1,275 annual saving in 2025. The report, “Smarter, Cleaner, Stronger: Secure Jobs, a Clean Environment, and Less Foreign Oil,” authored by Redefining Progress, uses classic economic modeling to demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of adopting a cleaner, smarter energy policy: the creation of new American jobs, lower energy bills, and increased protection of our air, water and land.

"This report shows that there is a better way. A smarter energy plan would create good new American jobs, while cleaning up the environment," said David Hamilton, national Director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming & Energy Program. "Protecting the environment creates jobs, but the Bush administration is protecting its friends in the oil and coal industries and putting average Americans at risk by blocking smarter, cleaner, stronger energy policy."

The clean energy policies laid out in the report stand in stark contrast to the Bush administration’s energy plan. That measure embraces increasing oil dependence by the U.S., while ignoring global warming. Further, the Bush plan offers little more than lip service to increase energy efficiency and our use of renewable energy such as solar or wind power.

In addition to releasing the report, the coalition is placing print ads in media markets around the country. The print ads feature an x-ray of a human skull with a peanut where the brain is located. This image is framed by the headline, "Investing in Clean Energy Will Create 1.4 Million New American Jobs - So Why Isn’t This a No Brainer for the Bush Administration?"

The Bush administration has put working families and the environment at risk by pursuing a backwards and polluting energy policy. Crafted in secret with energy industry lobbyists, the Bush administration’s energy plan calls for more polluting power plants, more oil and gas drilling on public lands, and billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporate polluters. In addition to pursuing its flawed energy policy, the Bush administration has shown a marked hostility across the board to the environment and workers’ rights.

"Labor unions and environmental groups are standing side by side today because good jobs and clean energy are a no brainer," said Dan Becker, Washington Director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming Program. "We can all breathe easier because the United States will gain 1.4 million jobs and curb global warming from this package of energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy, and clean cars."

The report released today examines a suite of clean energy policies that will increase energy efficiency, renewable energy, and improve fuel economy.

[Hubb]

okay so how many people lose there jobs when the oil industry nose dives....im sure its more than 1.4 million

[HarleyDelight]

Originally Posted by Hubb

okay so how many people lose there jobs when the oil industry nose dives....im sure its more than 1.4 million

But the point is to better our planet in a more eco friendly way. Sure people will lose jobs on the oil side, but we gotta look at the bigger picture!

I'm sure the Sierra Club is remarkably impartial in its reporting as well.....

[dfwtrader]

i read the complete report and other than the half a paragraph towards being less reliant on foreign energy, the rest seems very typical. albeit a first draft with lofty goals there are no specifics. so they say they can creat 1.4 million "quality" jobs but they dont give any of those job descriptions. are they going to be labor intensive....white or blue collar.....high or low paying.....union or non union(keep in mind they are teaming with organized labor)

they also claim a 1200 per year savings on energy, but i bet if you dig deeper there would be some type of tax to subsidize the non revenue generating aspect of their plan that would exceed that savings. or if all the jobs created are union then you can expect prices of goods and services to inflate reducing that savings.

finally, they concentrate on "global warming" i have yet to find a consensus among the scientific community. for every scientist that believes in global warming there is one that can definitively refute their findings. once again it sounds good on paper, but do they really have a viable alternative??

just some things to keep in mind

[Satchel]

Also, even if we are lucky enough to stay at the current inflation rate, by 2025 1200 bucks isn't that significant. I'm all for taking steps for cleaner renewable energy sources, but let's be honest, it isn't going to be economical for at least a century. That's about as likely as Iraqi oil reserves paying for their reconstruction.

[dfwtrader]

good point....i overlooked that....is it 1200 2005 or 2025 dollars....sometimes they estimate a forecasted inflation adjusted savings but i did not see a footnote

Originally Posted by Satchel

Also, even if we are lucky enough to stay at the current inflation rate, by 2025 1200 bucks isn't that significant. I'm all for taking steps for cleaner renewable energy sources, but let's be honest, it isn't going to be economical for at least a century. That's about as likely as Iraqi oil reserves paying for their reconstruction.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by Satchel

but let's be honest, it isn't going to be economical for at least a century.

that's funny, that is about the time when we are supposed to run out of oil if current trends continue.

with an influx of funding and interest in the search for and production of eco-tech energy sources it is hard to refute that the amount of research being done will increase, which means an increase in the number of researchers and staff, and then there is the creation of new production facilities to make these items, then there are the companies that make the items the new factories are going to need to tool or re-tool their facilities, and the list goes on. Definitely a win win situation.

As far as the oil companies go, petroleum is so integral to our economy that there is no chance that we will see massive unemployment due to research into eco-friendly energy sources or even the production and sale of such technologies. At least, before we start to run out and they loose their jobs naturally.

Research and transition to Eco-Friendly energy sources is also the only viable way to put a significant dent in our dependence on foreign oil. plans such as drilling alaska will peak at lower than a 5% dent in 2025. That is not much.

In addition, there is a general consensus among Petroleum geologists that all of the worlds major oil fields have been discovered and that we are going to run out....soon.

Plus, regardless of what the consensus is on Global Warming, pollution does have a negative impact on the environment. i think that we should do what we can to aviod that. that would prolly be a good thing to do.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

In addition, there is a general consensus among Petroleum geologists that all of the worlds major oil fields have been discovered and that we are going to run out....soon.

Listen man, according to Weekly Reader from my fifth grade classes.... we've been out of oil for a decade.... which was a general consensus of Petroleum geologists at the time.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Listen man, according to Weekly Reader from my fifth grade classes.... we've been out of oil for a decade.... which was a general consensus of Petroleum geologists at the time.

a lame and over used refutation and yeah, this is true, but there are admittedly factors that do affect such estimates such as the discovery of new fields etc.

the problem now is that there is no place left that oil can be that we haven't looked, or perhaps get at.

Regardless, it is a finite resource and we will run out. THAT is not debatable.

This does nothing to refute or discredit any point i made in my original arguement.

[Krash]

Goody, more debates on oil.

C, I thought you said the US wasn't an oil company? Ya'll sure sound like shareholders round about now

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

a lame and over used refutation and yeah, this is true, but there are admittedly factors that do affect such estimates such as the discovery of new fields etc.

Yeah, but it was just meant to be funny.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

the problem now is that there is no place left that oil can be that we haven't looked, or perhaps get at.

But that's exactly the same argument that was used decades ago EW.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

Regardless, it is a finite resource and we will run out. THAT is not debatable.

Absolutely true and I've advocated putting strong incentives in place to induce private industry nito developing alternative fuels and engines...

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

This does nothing to refute or discredit any point i made in my original arguement.

no - like - I said - I was just trying to be funny

Originally Posted by Krash

Goody, more debates on oil.

C, I thought you said the US wasn't an oil company? Ya'll sure sound like shareholders round about now

Ever watch The Kids in the Hall? Canadian sketch comedy? There's a bit where a company is bought out "By the Japanese" says a secretary lamenting her impending termination in the transistion of management... the manager says, "No, Japan is a country not a company. We've been bought out by the Americans who are a company" or something like that

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

Regardless, it is a finite resource and we will run out. THAT is not debatable.

Actually it is debateble. About 30 years ago there was no debate, Oil came from Dinosaurs. Today, there are numerous scientists who refute that claim saying that it's Geological conditions that create oil. So, you recreate those conditions and voila, you have more oil. It's a simple sumation, but you get the jist of what I'm trying to say.

Not to mention the fact that last year I read an article about a Scientist who is creating a device that will turn everyday trash into Oil that can be refined into gasoline.

To say that Oil is a finite resource and we will run out is a bit presumptious taking into account that man will somehow find a way around the current problem. We always do.

Oil in the ground and drilling in it's present form my be finite, but the production and accumulation of oil in the future may be a totally diferrent process altogether.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by Element4040

Actually it is debateble. About 30 years ago there was no debate, Oil came from Dinosaurs. Today, there are numerous scientists who refute that claim saying that it's Geological conditions that create oil. So, you recreate those conditions and voila, you have more oil. It's a simple sumation, but you get the jist of what I'm trying to say.

Not to mention the fact that last year I read an article about a Scientist who is creating a device that will turn everyday trash into Oil that can be refined into gasoline.

To say that Oil is a finite resource and we will run out is a bit presumptious taking into account that man will somehow find a way around the current problem. We always do.

Oil in the ground and drilling in it's present form my be finite, but the production and accumulation of oil in the future may be a totally diferrent process altogether.

wouldnt these be alternative fuel sources and not petroleum and more specifically wouldnt the trash thing be eco friendly, or at least more so than true petroleum.

the problem is that the dollars are not going to the research in large enough amounts and industry is not implementing the changes fast enough.

and once again my point has been proven. petroleum is a limited resource.

ANWR is not going to save us. At the most generous estimates, ANWR is about half the size of Prudhoe bay, which in and of itself was not a hugely significant contributor to US oil production after drilling began in 1973 or 74 (At least not enough to push the US above its record production levels in 1970.) And ANWR is about HALF the size and probably less. Also at the most generous estimates, it will reduce US consumption of foreign oil somewhere between 3 to 5%. That is it. Once again, aint much.

the truth is, yes, we can find a way around this problem, we are always capable of that, but we have to try. actually make a concerted effort. we must find alternatives and spend the money on the research and development of such technologies AND actually implement these changes.

oh, and i notice that noone questions my contentions about the economic and political gain that can be had thru the development and implementation of alternative fuel sources, which is really the topic at hand.