Blog

By David Sirota
Political journalist, best-selling author and syndicated newspaper columnist

Among the standard epithets often leveled at green energy is the one about subsidies. As the conservative myth goes, green energy is allegedly not “cost competitive” with dirty energy sources like coal or natural gas. This, we are led to believe, makes green energy just another wasteful taxpayer-supported boondoggle for dominant special interests. In this version of the story, big, bad all-powerful solar, wind and insulation companies are supposedly getting government handouts to unfairly oppress the earnest mom-and-pop oil and gas industry.

As laughable as it is to portray oil, gas and coal companies — some of the wealthiest corporations in the world — as underdogs, the narrative’s Machiavellian brilliance should be obvious. For both the global fossil fuel industry and a conservative political movement underwritten by oil barons like the Koch brothers, the mythology self-servingly casts environmentally friendly alternatives as inherently ill-suited to free market economics. In the process, it convinces millions of consumers and entrepreneurs that even if they want to go green, they can’t do so in any sort of economically viable way, meaning they should just keep guzzling as much fossil fuel as ever.

But in an up-is-down political arena where being a millionaire is “struggling” and where pure unadulterated fabrication is now the norm, a recent spate of headlines are starting to show us that the true energy story is exactly the opposite of the mythology.

(more…)

Philip Radford Executive Director, Greenpeace

A long time ago, in a land far, far away, Greenpeace sent Mattel a letter. Our researchers had discovered Barbie’s not so magical secret: her packaging is linked to the destruction of Indonesia’s rainforests.

For some reason, it took America’s biggest toy company two months to send any kind of substantial reply. Perhaps they were busy perfecting Ken’s summer wardrobe.

When it eventually arrived at our San Francisco office we tore it open with interest.

“As the leading innovator in the toy industry,” the letter opens breathlessly, “Mattel approaches business with a forward-looking commitment to the world in which we live and play.”

Good so far. Everybody likes a forward-looking commitment. So, what about their packaging?

“For other printed materials, we generally work with paper suppliers and the printers that can make recommendations on latest FSC‐approved paper stocks that meet the needs of our specific project.”

Mike Hall

By Mike Hall
AFL-CIO Senior Writer

Last week,  the Obama administration outlined the actions it will take to address the United Steelworkers’ (USW) Section 301 trade case over China’s predatory and protectionist practices and policies in the clean energy technology sector.

The USW’s petition says China’s government has used hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, performance requirements, preferential practices and other illegal trade activities to dominate the renewable energy market. USW President Leo Gerard says the White House action comes as an early note of holiday cheer for

those workers in the alternative and renewable energy sector who work hard, play by the rules and simply want a chance to compete. The administration has shown its commitment to enforcing the rules of trade by making it clear to the Chinese government that they will pursue U.S. interests.

The U.S. trade deficit with China in clean energy products more than doubled in the past two years alone and will cost more than 8,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed trade data through August 2010 and found that the trade deficit with China soared at a time when the overall U.S. trade deficit and the U.S. clean energy deficit with other countries both fell sharply. (more…)

Bill Scher

By Bill Scher
Executive editor of LiberalOasis.com

As you can see in today’s Progressive Breakfast, interpretations of the President’s speech ranged widely. Carbon cap is dead. Or alive. Serious push for other clean energy standards and investments. Or desire to take anything they can get. Pragmatic. Or cop-out.

The fact that the speech can be interpreted so many different ways is part of the problem. There was no clear rallying cry for the public to use to press the Senate into action.

And environmental issues are especially vulnerable to counterproductive in-fighting over which super-special idea is the only true silver bullet solution. Not having a clear focal point makes exercising grassroots pressure much harder.

But what was clear is that the President does want to pass some sort of energy reform this year. And if we want to make it as strong as possible, throwing up our hands over the mixed messages from White House doesn’t accomplish anything.

It would not be wise to allow the Senate to work its will without grassroots pressure.

The President understandably gave a nod to GOP Sen. Lugar’s energy-efficiency proposals in his speech, because he’s the only Republican with any kind of compromise proposal on the table, a few Senate Republicans will be needed to get to 60 votes, and 60 votes will be needed.

But letting Lugar dictate the final terms would be terrible. His energy-efficiency proposal appears good, but according to The New Republic’s Brad Plumer, Lugar’s overall effort to cut carbon emissions is undermined by other loopholes regarding renewable energy standards and coal plants. Plumer argues the Lugar bill could actually lead to less renewable energy production than if we did nothing.

Thankfully, the President did not cite Lugar by name or embrace his entire bill, so Lugar does not yet hold all the cards. But without strong grassroots pressure, 60 votes will coalesce around the least amount of reform possible, precisely where Lugar stands today.

But where should grassroots pressure go? Carbon cap? Renewable energy standards? R&D investment? Energy-efficiency?

All are important. But as far as what to tell your Senator when you pick up the phone or write a letter, at this stage, it doesn’t matter.

All that matters for now is that Obama’s speech is followed by a strong grassroots response for bold action on clean energy. If we can make it known inside the Senate that the public is demanding real change on energy, we will start the legislative process on a positive note.

Sure, there will be weak proposals and sneaky loopholes to stamp out down the line. Worry about that later.

***

Bill Scher is the author of Wait! Don’t Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America.  He is the online campaign manager at Campaign for America’s Future, a regular contributor to Bloggingheads.tv and a fellow at the Commonweal Institute.

***

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

What if I start a wind-driven electrical generator factory in the USA?

What if I import wind-driven electrical generators from China and then hire a couple of U.S. citizens in my factory to remove the Chinese nameplates and attach new nameplates with my factory name, address, serial number, and “Made in the USA”? Then that product will be “Made in the USA.”

I will make political contributions to a sufficient number of congressmen to have a law passed to require that “American made products” be installed on all of the federally-funded “Green Energy” projects, then I will be able to sell these wind-driven electrical generators at any price that I desire. U.S. unemployment statistics will be unchanged.

If the government objects, I will have the wind-driven electrical generators delivered to my factory without nameplates. Then they will be parts for final assembly in the USA by Americans when U.S. citizens add nameplate to the Chinese wind-driven electrical generators.

I will pay the Chinese with U.S. dollars for these wind-driven electrical generators, and the Chinese will then buy more U.S. factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, breweries, refineries, forests and other privately-owned assets located in the USA that were created by previous US generations.

Gerald R. Spencer, P.E., President
Spencer Engineers, Inc.
Houston, Texas

***

To submit a blog to Free Speech Zone, e-mail it to bstack@usw.org. Keep it to 250 words or fewer. You MUST include your full name, hometown, and state. You may attach a photograph of yourself. Please include a phone number. This WILL NOT be published. Posting any given blog is within the discretion of the USW.  No blog using foul language (this is a family site), false information (we don’t want to get sued), or unnecessary personal attacks (again, we don’t want to get sued) will be used. Wait a reasonable period of time, then blog again! This is a Free Speech Zone. 

 By Stewart Acuff
Chief of Staff of the Utility Workers Union of America

A front page story in the Jan. 2 issue of the Washington Post gives a damning report on George Bush’s economic policy and what happened to our country during the last decade, the decade of the aughts.

Put succinctly, the decade was a disaster for America’s working families.

• Zero job growth in the last decade when every previous for 60 years had job growth of at least 20 percent.
• Not stagnant but declining income for working and middle class families.
• And declining net worth or family wealth–despite substantial growth in productivity.

You have to hope that Lawrence Summers and the economic team at the White House are reading the Post.

You cannot grow the economy from the top. You must have broadly shared prosperity.

As the Post put it: “Capital was funneled to build mini-mansions in the Sun Belt, many which now sit empty, rather than toward industrial machines or other business investment that might generate economic output and jobs for years to come.”

The prescription for a policy of broadly shared prosperity is clear:

• Pass the Employee Free Choice Act to allow workers to freely form unions and bargain for a fair and greater share of the wealth they create and the productivity they generate.
• Reform health care. Take the system from the grip of insurance companies, create a large public plan to make sure everyone is covered and to compete with the insurance companies–and do not tax the benefits of working families. Force every employer to provide health care for their workers.
• Invest now, immediately in sustainable energy–wind farms, solar farms and small scale solar energy generation. Make sure all elements of new energy generation are produced here with wages that can sustain middle class lifestyles. No more impoverishing our own people. That means wind turbines built here, not in China, erected here by union operations. Power lines and a new electricity grid erected by members of the Utility Workers Union.
• Create a real industrial policy and investment incentives and re-think trade policy to re-create an American manufacturing base so we get back to creating wealth instead of borrowing it.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

When the leaders of the G-20 nations arrive in Pittsburgh later this month, I want them to know I am fomenting revolution. Industrial revolution. Specifically, a 21st-century burgeoning of green manufacturing in the United States.

Americans going green – manufacturing windmills and solar cells – would benefit the whole world’s economy and environment. Restoring manufacturing would rebuild the U.S. economy. And a strong United States is essential because countries in the old world, such as Germany, and those in the developing world, such as China, depend on Americans to buy their exports.

For years, during every G-20 meeting, workers took to the streets to protest free trade, and they’ll resurface along Pittsburgh’s Liberty Avenue on Sept. 24 and 25 as American workers demand fair trade. But at each successive gathering of the G-20, the United States has produced fewer and fewer goods to exchange.

Over the past decade, 40,000 manufacturing facilities across the United States have closed. Since the recession began in December 2007, 2 million U.S. manufacturing workers lost their jobs, making their unemployment rate 12.4 percent. Those who found new jobs got lower pay, according to studies by the Economic Policy Institute.

This is a topsy turvy world for those who recall the nation’s flourishing factories during the 1950s and 1960s. Just after World War II, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan generated demand for U.S. exports. The United States ran a trade surplus that amounted to about 1 percent of gross domestic product. 

In the 1970s, however, that flipped. Now, each year the United States imports hundreds of millions of dollars more in commodities – mostly manufactured goods – than it exports. As a result, the United States has accumulated a trade deficit over that period of more than $7 trillion.

This is all just fine with countries like China, Japan and Germany that base their economies on building goods for export. Their factories are humming; their citizens are working and saving. By contrast, U.S. factories are closing; our citizens are borrowing on credit cards and against the value of their homes to buy imported products. And the U.S. government is indebting itself to China to cover its trade shortfall. It’s an unsustainable debt cycle. 

A sign of its fragility appeared this spring in the form of a slashed annual trade deficit. For 2006, before the recession, the deficit was $800 billion, representing roughly 6 percent of GDP. This year, if the rate remains as it was in the first quarter during the depths of the Great Recession, it will be $400 billion. 

That collapse occurred because high U.S. unemployment begat low consumer spending, which begat low import demand. Americans locking their wallets touched countries worldwide. Factories closed across China. Japan’s economy contracted more rapidly than it had since the 1970s. Germany ran up a $24 billion budget deficit in the first half of this year, contrasting sharply with the $7 billion surplus it netted for the same period last year. 

An industrial revolution in the United States is the solution. There are two key components. One is that the U.S. must manufacture commodities of international value to export to reduce its trade deficit. The second is that factories must provide good jobs for workers whose paychecks enable them to support their communities and to buy both domestic and imported goods.

To spur an industrial revolution – and to save the American economy – the U.S. government must begin observing free trade the same way the rest of the world does. Here’s a good example: Both the United States and China want to export renewable energy products. China is doubling down on its investment – even if it violates free trade agreements to do so. 

Its largest solar-panel manufacturer, Suntech Power Holdings, told The New York Times recently that it was selling its panels in the United States for less than the cost of materials, assembly and shipping. They can do that because Chinese companies receive massive government support, including low-interest loans, cheap electricity, free land and grants for research and development.

Although China appears to be illegally dumping its panels on the U.S. market, it’s not going to stop. So there’s no point in the United States playing patsy and allowing more American industrial bankruptcies. 

The United States needs a coordinated industrial policy like every other major First-World country to direct development. Focusing on green-energy development is the way to go – to create jobs, clean the environment and reduce reliance on imported oil. President Barack Obama’s administration recently expressed interest in establishing a national manufacturing policy. A leading candidate to head the effort is a former Lazard Ltd. investment banker and former United Steelworkers financial expert named Ron Bloom. This could produce a blossoming of new American plants, which could, in turn, nurture all G-20 nations.