Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

A Green Bailout: We Need Help for People Who Want to Save the Planet

By Van Jones, Huffington Post. Posted October 6, 2008.


Don't give platinum parachutes to those who wrecked the economy; let's throw a green lifeline to the people who want to rebuild it.
Advertisement

Maybe the Wall Street bailout package is a good idea.

But the only thing I know for sure is this: even if we avert a total economic meltdown, we will still be in a recession. Millions of Americans still will be without jobs -- or in real fear of losing their job. Worse, we will still be dependent on dirty fuels like oil and coal, which are draining our monetary resources and cooking the planet.

The Earth and everyday people will still be suffering.

I wrote a new book to propose elegant solutions for our economic and environmental crises. The Green Collar Economy offers a green cure for the dilemmas we face and the financial messes we are in.

At this point, I am willing to concede that Wall Street and the big bankers need some propping up. But while we are at it, we should find a way to bail out the little people -- and the planet, too.

So how about a green bailout -- to help both? We already took an important step in that direction today. Perhaps the only thing in the whole bailout package that is inarguably good is the support for the U.S. clean energy sector.

After unconscionable delays, Congress finally gave a boost to our wind power industries and our solar power industries by extending the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Production Tax Credit. The price tag was about $9 billion, but the cost was entirely offset, mostly by changes that were made to oil and gas tax rules.

What does America get for that no-net-cost shuffling of the tax code? Plenty. The 8-year extension of ITC alone will create 440,000 jobs. And $230 billion of private investment would be created in the solar and other industries, according to a recent report by Navigant Consulting.

Green Bailout: Half The Money, Twice The Impact

That's a good start. Let's keep going. An all-out "green bailout" could give America TWICE the bang ... for half the bucks.

We just found $700 billion. Let's find another $350 billion. That's half the price tag of the Wall Street rescue -- which has no guarantee of success. But with $350 billion investment, we absolutely and positively could retrofit and repower America using clean, green energy -- and create millions of new jobs, in the process.

A new report just released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy and a significant improvement in energy efficiency.

Another report just released by the Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for American Progress shows that the U.S. can create two million jobs over two years by investing $100 billion in a green economic recovery plan. The report also shows that this investment would create four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, solar power, clean energy, green energy, van jones, green jobs, green for all

Van Jones is executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, California.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nuclear power is the greenest and the safest
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 6, 2008 11:31 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007

Page 13 gives life cycle CO2 per kilowatt hour:
Source of energy ............... CO2 per kilowatt hour
Wind turbines .............................. 58 grams
Nuclear ......................................... 30 grams ** The Winner
Coal ............................. 966 to 1306 grams depending on the coal
Solar ........................................... 100 to 280 grams
Hydro ............................................ 240 grams
Natural gas ............................... 439 to 688 grams, gas varies

Nuclear power is also the cheapest, at 30% less than coal, in spite
of the best efforts of the coal industry to drive up cost by
demanding absurdly high levels of safety.

Page 75: A coal fired power plant gives you 100 to 400 times as
much radiation as a nuclear power plant. Worldwide, an average
person gets 0.01 millirem/year from nuclear power plants, the same
as eating one banana.

Page 71: The natural background radiation in northeastern
Washington state is 1700 millirem/year.
The natural background radiation on the Zuni uplift is 500 to 700
millirem/year.
The natural background radiation in New Mexico is greater than the
calculated dose from the Three Mile Island meltdown, if you were
next to the reactor.
A chest x-ray gives you 10 millirem.

Page 98: There is a table of millirems per year from the
background in a list of inhabited places.
Chernobyl: 490 millirem/year
Guarapari, Brazil: 3700 millirem/year
Tamil Nadu, India: 5300 millirem/year
Ramsar, Iran: 8900 to 13200 millirem/year
Zero excess cancer deaths are recorded. All are natural except for
Chernobyl.

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Reference: "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.
Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra = mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

As you can see, nuclear is by far the safest source of electricity for
which I have statistics. Wind turbines can fall off of their towers
and crush you. Workers can fall off of the building while
installing solar panels. Money spent making nuclear safer would
save more lives if it were spent converting TO nuclear from any
other source. Wind and solar are by far the most expensive
options by 600 times or so, and both are intermittent. The lead
required to make batteries for wind and solar would remain
poisonous forever. Nuclear fuel is recyclable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recycling nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 6, 2008 11:38 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The
army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons
effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor.
Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/
x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreport
s/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I
never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dangers of wind turbines
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 6, 2008 11:47 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture.

I watched the 3 YouTube films, "Voices of Tug Hill", and
it's appalling. Greed has no boundaries, no conscience, no
morals, no standards"

No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neither wind nor solar nor geothermal are available locally everywhere.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 6, 2008 11:55 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOwhere are wind or solar available all the time. Reference:
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by
Gwyneth Cravens, 2007. Finally a truthful book about nuclear
power.
Page 211: "In 2005, the production cost of electricity from nuclear
power on average cost 1.72cents per kilowatt-hour; from coal-fired
plants 2.21; from natural gas 7.5, and from oil 8.09. American
nuclear power reactors operated that year around the clock at about
90 percent capacity, whereas coal-fired plants operated at about 73
percent, hydroelectric plants at 29 percent, natural gas from 16 to
38 percent, wind at 27 percent, solar at 19 percent, and geothermal
at 75 percent." The costs per kilowatt hour for solar and wind are
600 or more times the cost for coal, and that is in sunny and windy
places, respectively.
I agree that we need to stop burning fossil fuels. It is literally a
matter of life and breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar and wind power are NOT green.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 7, 2008 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by
Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear
power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 249: "The manufacture of photovoltaic panels requires highly
toxic heavy metals, gasses, and solvents that are carcinogenic. ........
If a residential fire burns a solar panel, people would be at risk for
exposure to toxic vapors and smoke, ... . If modules are dumped
into municipal landfills, then heavy metals such as arsenic and lead
can leach into the soil and water table. Hundreds of thousands of
years from now, some of those substances will still not have
decayed: their life spans are essentially eternal."

Page 250: "Solar farms big enough to supply 1,000 megawatts per
year [sic] or more would cover over fifty square miles and produce
a quantity of toxic waste that would be significant."
"For the 70 to 80 percent of the time when nature isn't cooperating
[with your solar power scheme], you need the grid or a fossil-fuel
generator."
"The largest systems of unsubsidized solar energy in a sunny place
range from 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, in other words, solar
is the costliest alternative energy of all."

Page 251: Solar power requires cutting down trees to keep the
trees from shading your solar panels.
"Wind tends to fail during heat waves. ... Wind power turned out
to be highly unreliable, with capacity plunging from its usual 33
percent to 4 percent during the time of peak demand."

Page 257: World CO2 emissions from electricity generation come
to 9,500 million metric tons a year. Using a small footprint,
hundreds of nuclear plants in more than thirty countries cut carbon
emissions by 600 million metric tons every year."

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Page 290: There is a mistake: She says that the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is the only nuclear waste repository in
operation. France has one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Building green prosperity
Posted by: JPHickey on Oct 8, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rather than seeking to restore the golden era of capitalism between the end of WW2 and the '60s,it's about time we made a paradigm shift away from the ecomony of sheer mass productivity.

According to economic historians, after the golden years, though the neocons cooked up various schemes to keep "growth" growing, for the most part nothing really worked.

Finally, we've been caught up in the boarderline sociopathic period of essentially nonproductive obscure financial instruments. Now this binge of greed has come to its predictable climax and end in the massive meltdown.

The paradigm shift away from endlessly growing manufacturing productivity to a scaled-down, earth friendly way of living is essentially what the "hippies" had been calling for since the late '60s.

This is definitely the time to rebuild from the ground up, modeling on a smaller, earth-frendly footprint. I am also calling for the emphasis to shift from greed and competition to engender the values of positive human potential such as self-expression and a collaborative spirit.

Nuclear is expensive, capital-intensive, and it takes a long time to be built and into operation. It is essentially another form of socialism that will never be able to operate as a true, income generating business.

Nuclear is dangerous and it is absolutely centralized. Perhaps if small, community based nuclear power stations were developed and built the cost of extensive and expensive grid rebuilding could be reduced or eliminated.

Even if that became feasible, considering the strong property-rights orientation of so many Americans, a NIMBE reaction and rebellion would probably nip these proposals in the bud.

On the other and, we already need a green WPA here in Arizona as the numbers of the "invisible poor" are growing by leaps and bounds!

We could be working on developing and building green energy generation, but we could be working on overall energy conservation as well. There is a lot of populist potential that can be tapped into this meaningful work -- building a viable green future.

Not only that, but we can be developing community organic gardens, taking care to include composting programs, and in a sense following the example set by Cuba after Russia cut their energy supply off years ago.

Green prosperity is based on the understanding that developing greater harmony with nature and our fellowmen/women is truly a form of higher human living.

It's high time we left behind the outmoded ways of sociopathic greed that the neocons have been foisted off onto us, a great, green future lies ahead -- if we take that path now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Green jobs is not the answer
Posted by: jcalhoun on Oct 8, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservation is. Living differently is. Even if we replace all the power used today with green power, even if we give every unemployed person a job building solar panels an caulking windows, what do the businesses make that are supposedly going to now have "green" buildings? Where do we get the commodities, soil, fertilizer, water, chemicals, to produce all the items we see on our store shelves today? So what if China is using 100% renewable power - to manufacture what, billions of tons of plastic junk? This Halloween/Christmas, walk down the aisles of any three major retailers and look at what's sitting there. How does Van Jones or anyone else propose we continue this lifestyle of consuming crap?

Renewal energy is not going to save the planet all by itself. We are already on a path to lose the water needed for crops to feed the planet. Teaching someone to install solar panels, even thousands of someones, is not enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consulting Engineer
Posted by: bruderly on Oct 9, 2008 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The popular and political debate over ways to satisfy American energy needs overlooks one very important fact. Under our current system, electricity generated from nuclear, wind or solar sources cannot be used to power vehicles. While greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are a serious problem the manufacture of electricity is NOT the critical threat to our national or economic security at this moment. That honor belongs to our near total dependence on petroleum-derived motor fuels.

Advocates of nuclear, solar and wind need to start seriously thinking about how to use these energy sources to produce non-petroleum motor fuels that are also cleaner, more efficient and safer than petroleum derived fuels. At the moment practical and economic alternative motor fuel choices are limited to ethanol, biodiesel, compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas with electric fuels offering a short-haul capability. None of these fuels offer the perfect solution. So rather than continue to preach nuclear or renewable solar or wind panacea solutions that are limited to solving the low-priority problem of manufacturing electricity, why not shift the public debate to start people thinking about how to make motor fuels from sustainable energy sources, especially these unlimited sources of low-carbon electricity?

At the moment compressed natural gas is the best low-carbon alternative motor fuel available to the general public. Conversion of vehicles to natural gas is a proven technology; no technology breakthroughs are required. The widespread use of compressed natural gas motor fuels opens a commerical pathway for the distributed production and use of electrolytic hydrogen (from water) by blending hydrogen with compressed natural gas, just as ethanol is blended with gasoline. It is a fact that hydrogen is the only viable alternative motor fuel that can be made from nuclear, wind or solar energy sources. When blended in small quantities with natural gas, the cost is competitive with $4 gasoline. This blended fuel can be burned in neqarly all existing types of internal combustion engines with little or no engine modification required.

Hydrogen and electricity are the only zero-carbon energy carriers, or motor fuels available. These fuels are clean, safe, efficient and eliminate ALL forms of pollutino and can be produced from any primary energy source, renewable or otherwise. Electric and compressed gas fuels use proven technology but require vehicles to be redesigned to accommodate larger fuel storage volumes. Electric and compressed gas fuel storage systems are slightly heavier than gasoline fuel storage systems. Electric and compressed gas also requires deployment of new fuel infrastructure. But both fuels are commercially viable today in many sectors of our transportation economy.

Yet the public debate over energy fails to focus on real solutions to our most pressing energy problem -- how to break our addiction to oil -- and soars into diatribes and innuendo based on half-truths and spin. Biofuels offer a partial solution, but are not a silver bullet. What we need are many solutions; silver buckshot, if you will.

Why is there no popular discussion of how to facilitate widespread use of real energy solutions that solve our most pressing problem -- the immediate large-scale deployment of low-carbon natural gas motor fuels and zero-carbon hydrogen and electric alternative fuels?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]