[Scpg] A New Green Deal

[scpg-admin at arashi.com]

> A New Green Deal
> 
> 
> The government helped launch the digital revolution
> by investing in technology -- so why not do the same
> to create an energy-efficient economy?
> 
> 
> by Mark Hertsgaard
> 
> 
> June 14, 2001
> 
> 
>        George W. Bush has handed his opponents a
> golden political opportunity with his  energy plan,
> and if they use it wisely they can block his
> anti-environmental agenda and perhaps even disable
> his presidency, much as Bill Clinton was undone
> during his first term by the health care issue. So
> far, environmentalists and Democrats have correctly
> pointed out that Bush's emphasis on drilling at any
> cost will increase pollution and reward his former
> colleagues in the oil business. But name-calling, no
> matter how accurate, will not be enough to win this
> fight. 
>       White House strategists are betting that
> Americans' immediate economic concerns about
> electricity blackouts and rising gas prices will
> trump any unease they feel about the environmental
> consequences of the administration's energy plan.
> Bush's opponents can triumph, therefore, only if
> they put economics at the heart of their message.
> They must take the offensive and offer Americans a
> clear, compelling answer to a genuine challenge
> facing the nation: how to keep the economy strong
> without trashing the planet. 
>       Toward that end, those who oppose Bush's plan
> should join in calling for a New Green Deal: a
> government-led, market-based plan that will solve
> the nation's energy problems while also yielding
> economic returns and addressing the most urgent
> environmental hazard of our time, global climate
> change. Such a deal would be green in both senses of
> the word: it would clean up the environment and make
> money for workers, businesses and communities. In
> essence, the New Green Deal would do for clean
> energy technologies what government and industry
> have already done so well for computer and internet
> technologies: help launch their commercial take-off.
>  
>       Under a New Green Deal, the government need
> not spend more money, only redirect current
> subsidies more intelligently. By championing energy
> efficiency and shifting government spending away
> from fossil and nuclear fuels to solar, wind and
> other renewable sources, the New Green Deal would
> foster the biggest jobs and business stimulus
> program of our time. Investments in energy
> efficiency yield two to ten times as many jobs per
> dollar invested as do investments in fossil fuels
> and nuclear power -- not a minor consideration
> during an economic downturn.  
>       The political advantages of a New Green Deal
> are nearly as great as its economic benefits. Since
> both business and labor stand to prosper from it, it
> should appeal across the political spectrum. Can
> anyone say the same for Bush's plan? Free-market
> rhetoric is all very well, but ultimately business
> leaders want results, and Bush's plan will do
> nothing to prevent electricity blackouts this summer
> in the economically crucial states of California and
> New York.  
>       The new oil fields, power plants, gas
> pipelines and other supply sources that Bush
> advocates will take years to get up and running,
> even if he succeeds in slashing environmental
> regulations. But it would take only weeks to
> implement meaningful efficiency reforms. The city of
> San Francisco, for example, recently gave away 2,000
> energy efficient light bulbs for free to anyone who
> turned in an old, inefficient bulb. The Pacific Gas
> & Electric company was asked to donate the bulbs,
> and citizens lined up around the block to
> participate.  
>       By handing out bulbs to each of its 300,000
> households, San Francisco could cut its residential
> power consumption by 4.5 percent. If the program
> were expanded to include, say, half of California's
> 38 million people, the state would save roughly $375
> million worth of electricity at wholesale prices.
> Whether those 19 million light bulbs are bought by
> PG&E or the state government, at an average of $10
> apiece they would cost roughly half the value of the
> power saved, making for a 100 percent return on
> investment. Apply the same policy to big industrial
> users -- subsidizing their replacement of
> old-fashioned lighting and electric motors with
> high-efficiency models -- and the savings could soon
> multiply enough to prevent blackouts in the Golden
> State.   
>       Vice President Dick Cheney still believes that
> energy efficiency is about doing without, when it's
> really about doing more with less. It's odd that he
> remains confused, because the advantages of better
> efficiency are becoming increasingly well-known in
> corporate circles. As Joseph J. Romm, an assistant
> secretary of energy in the Clinton administration,
> documents in his book Cool Companies, Xerox, Compaq,
> 3M, Toyota, Shell, and many other blue-chip firms
> have enjoyed returns of 25 percent and more from
> investments in better lighting and insulation,
> smarter motors and building design, even as they
> have cut their greenhouse gas emissions in half.  
>       If the private sector can employ energy
> efficiency to make handsome profits for
> shareholders, shouldn't the public sector be doing
> the same for its shareholders, the taxpayers? A New
> Green Deal would encourage environmental retrofits
> of schools, hospitals, government offices and other
> public buildings. Destination Conservation, an
> environmental group headquartered in Edmonton,
> Alberta, has helped organize such retrofits at some
> 3,000 schools across Canada, typically cutting
> energy bills by 20 to 30 percent. The money saved is
> then plowed back into the schools: to reduce class
> size by hiring more teachers, for example, or buying
> new computers. The economics of saving energy
> (rather than producing more of it) are so attractive
> that the retrofitter often guarantees lower utility
> bills for the school or pays the difference.  
>       Because government at all levels is
> responsible for approximately 17 percent of the
> United States' gross domestic product, changing its
> practices can not only save energy directly but
> drive market decisions that transform society as a
> whole. Last year, the federal government bought
> 189,000  new cars for official use. Under the New
> Green Deal, Washington would tell Detroit that from
> now on the cars have to be hybrid-electric or
> hydrogen fuel-cell cars. Detroit would doubtless
> scream and holler, but if Washington stood firm,
> Detroit would comply, and soon carmakers would be
> climbing the learning curve and offering the
> competitively priced green cars that consumers say
> they want.  
>       We know this model of government pump-priming
> works; it's the reason so many of us have personal
> computers on our desks today. America's computer
> companies began learning to produce today's
> affordable systems during the 1960s, while
> benefitting from long-term subsidies and guaranteed
> markets under contract to the Pentagon and NASA.
> Thirty years later, the US is still reaping the
> benefits: the digital revolution, despite its recent
> slowdown, has fueled one of the most extraordinary
> economic expansions in history.  
>       Investing in energy efficiency makes sense on
> pure profit grounds, but the project gains extra
> urgency from the looming threat of global climate
> change. Already, the world's glaciers are melting
> and catastrophic storms like Hurricane Mitch are
> becoming stronger and more frequent. One of the
> world's leading insurance and banking companies,
> Munich Re, has projected that climate change will
> impose $304 billion of additional direct costs on
> the global economy every year. The Bush
> administration's studied disregard for what is
> probably the most serious problem facing the human
> species is an act of appalling irresponsibility, but
> it opens the door to a potent counter-attack from
> opponents.  
>       The climate challenge also illustrates why the
> New Green Deal must eventually be expanded to other
> nations as well. Already, China is the world's
> largest consumer of coal and second-largest producer
> of greenhouse gases. But China would use 50 percent
> less coal if it installed the efficiency
> technologies now available on the world market.
> Under a globalized New Green Deal, governments in
> Europe, America and Japan could help China buy these
> technologies (rather than the coal-fired power
> plants we now subsidize through the World Bank),
> creating lots of jobs and profits for workers and
> companies back home.  
>       First things first, however. The United States
> is poised for a great debate this summer as the Bush
> administration labors to pass its energy plan on
> Capitol Hill. A New Green Deal is unlikely to be
> embraced by such confirmed oil men as Bush and
> Cheney, but opponents can derail the
> administration's plan by offering an economically
> and environmentally superior alternative and daring
> members of Congress to vote against it before facing
> their constituents in the 2002 elections.
> Notwithstanding the White House's claims about an
> energy crisis threatening our standard of living,
> Americans tell pollsters that protecting the
> environment 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.permaculture-guilds.org/pipermail/southern-california-permaculture/attachments/20010616/c5bd550a/attachment.html>