""The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence"
1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars
2. Invest In More Efficient Factories
3. Encourage High Performance Building
4. Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances
5. Modernize Electrical Infrastructure
6. Expand Renewable Energy Development
7. Improve Transportation Options
8. Reinvest In Smart Urban Growth
9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future
10. Preserve Regulatory Protections
The Apollo Alliance Project argues for this ten point plan in order to move our economy in the direction of sustainable development and green jobs. I think this initiative makes a lot of sense, but the hard part is making action plans and sticking to them. How do we move these ideas and enforce them? I know that some areas have picked up interest by our new Administration, but we need more structure if we are going to follow up with all of these ten points.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
"Poor Countries need carbon cuts" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7773799.stm
These developing countries have a great opportunity to build their country into a more sustainable, energy efficient environment. Because most developed countries have to deal with destructing the old order of efficiency and climate abuse, these developing countries have a less daunting task ahead of them. If they started building an energy efficient city, and reduced their carbon emissions while establishing their new economy, this would put them ahead of the world game in comparison to what they would be with the status quo.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Climate Change and Labor -- http://www.climate-l.org/2008/05/g8-labor-and-em.html
"G8 Labor and Employment Ministers Address Employment and Social Challenges Related to Climate Change"
Climate change is inevitable. With the amount of carbon emitting sources out there -- there is no argument that our climate is changing, which will have adverse and dangerous affects on human species and the planet if we don't act quickly and curb the carbon emitting producers. The carbon trading scheme, and the tax incentives put into place are the first step in the right direction. But with this new movement comes a lot of questions.
1. What happens to the jobs of people in the "ditry" industries such as coal, oil, biofuels, agriculture (livestock emissions), etc. when these industries start getting taxed heavily based on their carbon emissions? Will they remain competitive, productive?
2. How do these companies survive with the new carbon trading themes. By simply thinking about Revenue and Costs -- how do these "dirty" producers comply with the carbon trading scheme if they are the most aggressive culprits of carbon emissions? Will the high taxes just wean these producers out of the market? Capital costs are high as it is. And what if there isnt enough trading to go around. In terms of trading - is all carbon counted the same all over the world? What sort of approvals are needed to make the carbon emission trading scheme fair?
3. What happens when there is a lesser need for employees, and new business and development in these industries? Do these workers retire - or do we give them training for new green jobs?
4. Who is going to pay for these new skills? If workers are mid age or near retirement, are they going to be compensated for lost work in their current industries or do they have no choice but to learn new skills?
5. Given the new policies, who is going to be in charge of making sure all of these companies abide by the new rules? What sort of enforcement or regulatory agency is going to be responsible for "trying" any firms that do not comply?
These are just a few of my questions -- but its something to think about. Changing the way our world acts towards the planet and curbing carbon emissions and other practices that are destructive for the Earth is a wonderful plan. But we need to think past the plan and get into the specifics. How should labor unions react to the evolving green job market?
Climate change is inevitable. With the amount of carbon emitting sources out there -- there is no argument that our climate is changing, which will have adverse and dangerous affects on human species and the planet if we don't act quickly and curb the carbon emitting producers. The carbon trading scheme, and the tax incentives put into place are the first step in the right direction. But with this new movement comes a lot of questions.
1. What happens to the jobs of people in the "ditry" industries such as coal, oil, biofuels, agriculture (livestock emissions), etc. when these industries start getting taxed heavily based on their carbon emissions? Will they remain competitive, productive?
2. How do these companies survive with the new carbon trading themes. By simply thinking about Revenue and Costs -- how do these "dirty" producers comply with the carbon trading scheme if they are the most aggressive culprits of carbon emissions? Will the high taxes just wean these producers out of the market? Capital costs are high as it is. And what if there isnt enough trading to go around. In terms of trading - is all carbon counted the same all over the world? What sort of approvals are needed to make the carbon emission trading scheme fair?
3. What happens when there is a lesser need for employees, and new business and development in these industries? Do these workers retire - or do we give them training for new green jobs?
4. Who is going to pay for these new skills? If workers are mid age or near retirement, are they going to be compensated for lost work in their current industries or do they have no choice but to learn new skills?
5. Given the new policies, who is going to be in charge of making sure all of these companies abide by the new rules? What sort of enforcement or regulatory agency is going to be responsible for "trying" any firms that do not comply?
These are just a few of my questions -- but its something to think about. Changing the way our world acts towards the planet and curbing carbon emissions and other practices that are destructive for the Earth is a wonderful plan. But we need to think past the plan and get into the specifics. How should labor unions react to the evolving green job market?
Friday, December 5, 2008
"Energy Goals a Moving Target for States" link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05power.html?src=linkedin
Well, we all knew this was coming. The new administration may vote for new legislation that requires all states to get 10 or 15 percent of its electricity from renewable sources within a certain deadline. I've heard some debate on this topic. I took an energy trading class a few months back and the speaker said that this would be nearly impossible, since (for electricity) the renewable energy sources today are only at 2-3% of the grid.
Those who say that this would be impossible reason that while it may be manageable to produce renewable energy, the biggest problem is getting that energy onto the grid for each respective power market. This camp also says that coal plants and other brown sources are still more efficient than creating new reneable energy sources.
Now those who are pushing for this mandate are saying that this is not only necessary but imminent because we are running out of time in a world where carbon emissions may set off a series of events that will destruct our way of life in the near future. I believe that this nation can do anything, and if the law says that states have to move towards reallocating their energy sources from brown energy to renewable energy, we can and shall do it. Look at other countries - the Danish are a perfect example. If you tax oil or brown energy high enough and offer incentives for renewable energy, that combination alone can change the way the market works. Electricity is too important a need for people in this nation. No business can run without it, and I believe that people would be willing to pay a large percentage of their income to sustain their way of life.
Those who say that this would be impossible reason that while it may be manageable to produce renewable energy, the biggest problem is getting that energy onto the grid for each respective power market. This camp also says that coal plants and other brown sources are still more efficient than creating new reneable energy sources.
Now those who are pushing for this mandate are saying that this is not only necessary but imminent because we are running out of time in a world where carbon emissions may set off a series of events that will destruct our way of life in the near future. I believe that this nation can do anything, and if the law says that states have to move towards reallocating their energy sources from brown energy to renewable energy, we can and shall do it. Look at other countries - the Danish are a perfect example. If you tax oil or brown energy high enough and offer incentives for renewable energy, that combination alone can change the way the market works. Electricity is too important a need for people in this nation. No business can run without it, and I believe that people would be willing to pay a large percentage of their income to sustain their way of life.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
"Small Players Vie for ‘Green Car’ Loans " by LESLIE WAYNE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/business/02bailout.html?src=linkedin
I definitely knew this was coming -- a few blog postings earlier, I commented that this would be a good idea. The government can help the auto industry with loan packages, while changing the fuel efficiency requirements for the production of new cars. Now thats what i call "killing two birds with one stone".
I definitely knew this was coming -- a few blog postings earlier, I commented that this would be a good idea. The government can help the auto industry with loan packages, while changing the fuel efficiency requirements for the production of new cars. Now thats what i call "killing two birds with one stone".
Frightening article...did the Bush Administration scare scientists into "misinforming" us about climate change?
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/back-to-reality/?8dpc
"Back to Reality" by Olivia Judson
And this again reinforces my point of this blog. The majority of scientists are in almost complete agreement on the fact that climate change is going to pose severe problems such as global warming, and destruction of animal, plant, human life, and the way our earth system works. Yet the tiny percentage of scientists who claim that reducing carbon emissions is useless and decry that this need for maintaining climate change is a myth have been getting much attention from our previous administration. If one didnt know any better, one would think that there was a long ongoing climate debate amongst scientists.
Reminds me of the movie - "Thank You for Smoking", where the big tobacco companies pay medical doctors and scientists to claim that smoking does not in fact lead to lung cancer.
"Back to Reality" by Olivia Judson
And this again reinforces my point of this blog. The majority of scientists are in almost complete agreement on the fact that climate change is going to pose severe problems such as global warming, and destruction of animal, plant, human life, and the way our earth system works. Yet the tiny percentage of scientists who claim that reducing carbon emissions is useless and decry that this need for maintaining climate change is a myth have been getting much attention from our previous administration. If one didnt know any better, one would think that there was a long ongoing climate debate amongst scientists.
Reminds me of the movie - "Thank You for Smoking", where the big tobacco companies pay medical doctors and scientists to claim that smoking does not in fact lead to lung cancer.
"A Wartime Mobilization" by Lester R. Brown
A WARTIME MOBILIZATION
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch13_ss1.htm
I keep hearing talks that our economy has to move in a different direction if we are going to make any progress with sustainable development and climate control.
Lester Brown makes a very solid point - that the government needs to place incentives and disincentives so that people will be forced to take action and work towards reducing carbon emissions, and move in the direction of renewable energy instead of dirty brown energy.
Since our generation will not necessarily feel the negatives of our consumption, its hard to force the public to choose a (usually more expensive) and complex option when it comes to hybrid cars, buying green energy from renewable sources, and reducing carbon emissions both on a local level, and lobbying for it at a more national and even international level.
Hopefully, our government will choose to act quickly and rebuild America's economy while changing the way the people react to climate, sustainable development, and the new revolution of green.
It's time for a new America - one that reinvents itself with the changing times.
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch13_ss1.htm
I keep hearing talks that our economy has to move in a different direction if we are going to make any progress with sustainable development and climate control.
Lester Brown makes a very solid point - that the government needs to place incentives and disincentives so that people will be forced to take action and work towards reducing carbon emissions, and move in the direction of renewable energy instead of dirty brown energy.
Since our generation will not necessarily feel the negatives of our consumption, its hard to force the public to choose a (usually more expensive) and complex option when it comes to hybrid cars, buying green energy from renewable sources, and reducing carbon emissions both on a local level, and lobbying for it at a more national and even international level.
Hopefully, our government will choose to act quickly and rebuild America's economy while changing the way the people react to climate, sustainable development, and the new revolution of green.
It's time for a new America - one that reinvents itself with the changing times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
