Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Danger of Green Stimulus
Barack Obama's final appointments in December indicate a strong commitment to action on climate change. Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Carol Browner as Energy & Climate Czar, John Holdren as Assistant for Science and Technology -- just to name a few recent selections -- are all proponents of vigorous action to cut U.S. global warming pollution and take leadership on a new international climate treaty. And Hilda Solis, Obama's new Labor Secretary, is a champion of "green jobs."
All is well on the climate front, it seems. Except that it's not.
Carbon cap and trade regulation remains the top federal policy priority for the majority of environmental groups. But in June, cap and trade legislation failed in the Senate, and sixteen Democratic Senators from coal and manufacturing-heavy states voiced their opposition to high carbon pricing. The policy faces even greater obstacles in today's economic climate, since it would increase the energy bills of the American public.
Despite Obama's appointments, climate advocates are thus left to worry: is Obama really prepared to expend his political capital championing a policy that will increase U.S. energy prices in the midst of a recession?
Not likely. Until recently Obama voiced support for carbon regulation, declaring at a governors' climate conference in mid-November that his climate agenda "will start with a federal cap and trade system." But since then, as the recession has deepened, he has said little to nothing about cap and trade. His apparent change of heart may reflect a larger global trend, with European nations increasingly voicing opposition to their Emissions Trading Scheme and Canadians rejecting the Liberal Party's proposed carbon tax in their October election.
Does Obama have an alternative climate strategy? So far, he appears to be wrapping his climate policy into a "green stimulus" plan, focusing on public investments to create "green jobs" in the construction of energy efficient infrastructure. He has even mentioned some investment to build renewable power plants. But the large majority of the stimulus seems set to go toward short-term investments that will quickly create jobs -- retrofitting buildings and constructing traditional infrastructure projects like highways and bridges.
Replacing sustained climate legislation with a short-term "green stimulus" program to create green jobs and perform energy efficiency retrofits is a dangerous possibility. Increased energy efficiency can only satisfy a portion of the necessary reductions in global warming emissions, and it will not help develop and deploy the low-carbon energy technologies that are essential to transform U.S. and global energy systems. Yet with green jobs now positioned as "the solution" to both the economy and the climate, Obama has cover to take the politically expedient route of short-term green stimulus while ignoring serious climate policy.
Avoiding this outcome demands a shift from green jobs to a broader focus on green technology. The single greatest obstacle to creating a "green energy economy" is the high cost of low-carbon energy technology. Technologies like solar photovoltaics, plug-in hybrids, and advanced geothermal are all more expensive than their conventional market competitors.
A serious alternative to cap and trade would therefore focus on making clean energy cheap, prioritizing major, sustained public investments to drive down the price of green technologies as quickly as possible. This would require federal investments on the scale of $500 billion over the next decade to support and accelerate each stage of the energy innovation pipeline: research, development, demonstration, and deployment.
Obama has made it increasingly clear that public investment is his preferred climate policy mechanism. What Obama has not made clear is whether or not he will embrace the type and scale of investments necessary to seriously confront the climate challenge.
If cap and trade is a no-go in today's economic climate, Obama must redouble his commitment to public investment in clean energy, investing at least $500 billion in green technology over the next ten years. And while cap and trade may still be the preferred policy mechanism of most environmental groups, new political circumstances demand new tactics. Public investments in green technology are clearly more viable, and climate advocates should embrace them, while remaining vigilant that Obama's climate agenda does not stop with efficiency and green jobs.
The prosperity and security of the United States in the 21st century will depend largely on the course of action set by the nation's new leadership. The scale of our climate challenge is great, and so is the scale of public investment needed to overcome it. The Obama administration and 111th Congress must seize the moment not only to stimulate short-term economic recovery and job creation, but also the long-term technology innovation and deployment that will make clean energy cheap and secure our nation's energy and climate future.
- Posted in
26 Comments so far
Show All"The prosperity and security of the United States in the 21st century will depend largely on the course of action set by the nation's new leadership"? How does one define prosperity and security and why would they still be considered important as historically defined? Prosperity as historically defined has created the global warming problem in the first place. Security as historically enjoyed in the U.S. has created greater insecurity accross the globe. Hightened insecurity in the U.S. might make the people and the government think twice before acting in a way that threatens the security of populations in other countrys. Prosperity should be redifined to incorporate principles of sustainablility and to promote the attainment of a higher quality of life through reduction in standard of living to one that has minimum adverse impact on the environment. Some expectations will need be lowered if not altogether denied for the common good. Only in this manner can the new prosperity that insures zero to slightly negative year over year GDP growth be achieved. And without that no real progress can be made because without zero to slightly negative year over year GDP growth we can't begin to approach the zero to slightly negative population growth necessary to a meaningful lowering of carbon emissions.
Instead of another "stimulus" package, why not overturn the 71 year ban on Cannabis and allow it to be put to industrial use and there's 26000 of them and they all replace fossil fuels and more. That alone will cap the carbon issue. Otherwise, carbon credit shit is nothing more than venture capitalism !
How about making Cannabils nationally legal for industrial and medical purposes? I would suggest the U.S. adopt a version of the "California Compassionate Use Act" that not only covers physical but mental ailments. As someone who suffers from mental illness, and recently lived in California, I found medical marijuana to be MORE effective than pharmaceuticals such as Zoloft. I wonder how much $ the pharm. industry supports Anti-medical marijuana initiatives? Here are other reasons to support industrial and medical marijuana:
1. It supports persons who want to live independently of large, pharm. interests b/c you can grow your own.
2. It supports grass-roots efforts to have local farming economies and it can (and should) be grown organically.
3. Biologists/ecologists might be able to use marijuana as part of a constructed wetlands environment, which could help remove/reduce pollutants, reduce energy use (energy used in convential sewage treatment), and produce a valuable product.
In short, lets replace pill-pushing jobs with hemp- and medical marijuana jobs.
I love that idea as well. As more soldiers who do make it through these bloody wars return and as more people in this country go through more mental hell thanks to rising unemployment and foreclosures, we're gonna need it. And since Cannabis can be grown just about anywhere on the planet regardless of the climate, transportation costs can be cut down to near zip.
Okay hippies, here are couple of problems with your "dopetopia",
What about the children? Legalize dope and you're giving kids the message that doing drugs is okay. That's the wrong message for adults, especially the government and police, to give to children.
Think of all the new addicts you will create. People who have never tried dope might give it a try. The last thing America needs is more drug users.
The dope that potheads smoke today is at least 50 times more potent the dope around 50 years ago. In the UK, police are dealing with an epidemic of "skunk" users. The behavior of "skunk" users is more extreme than normal potheads, they are more prone to anti-social behavior and crime, as was reported by both the BBC and Independent.
Legalizing dope in the US would turn the country into an international haven for narco-criminals.
But most of all, new research indicates that smoking dope can actually CAUSE schizophrenia or psychosis.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001475.html
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20070726/pot-now-psychotic-later
So, no, sorry. But pot isn't safe. It isn't cool and it isn't harmless.
Yes, green stimulus can indeed be a danger.
And folks, wake up, maybe you're too stoned to notice, but the 60's and 70's are over.
Now! Run! Fast! The Dopeheads are coming! Fear them! They kill children indiscriminately! Jail and torture them! Remove their Rights! Give more money to the police and military!
Yawn. Unfortunately Joe, people can read these days and immediately recognize your meme. Many countries have legalized personal possession and are still countries with lower crime rates and greater GDP/capita than the US.
Everyone except a few holdouts such as yourself know from experience that prohibition does not work. That nicotine and alcohol are one of the biggest businesses around. And that all your talking points have been debunked by peer-reviewed research conducted in enlightened countries.
Legalizing pot may increase the number of occasional social users, and no more. Just about everyone who would become regular users should pot be legalized are already regular users. You will hate to hear this, but not everyone wants to smoke pot, even on a very irregular basis.
Legalize and tax the stuff. Spend the revenue on the Department of Peace (of the non-Orwellian kind).
WTF, thanks. The people who want hemp banned are not for the ban because of pot. They are the vested corporate interests who are afraid of competition. Well, oil is peaking and wood ain't coming cheap and cotton's gonna have to go organic at this rate. The pot frame has been used as another culture war trick to distract the public and frame them into believing that hemp is pot when it's not so. joehope's probably way too drunk and stuffed with tobacco by now.
Gee joehope. Even your buddy Barry supports the idea of Cannabis. And you still wanna believe all that "reefer madness" bullshit? If you had even bothered to do your homework, you would have found out that hemp is not dope. Furthermore, did you know that the Constitution was written in hemp paper and not on tree based? Alchol, tobacco, Mcdonald's "Happy" meals, Viagra, aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, etc ... cause brain damage and even other serious health hazards but they're still "legal" all the while hemp does not. If America hadn't banned hemp, we wouldn't be begging Saudi Arabia for oil or getting stuck in Iraq for oil either because we the people would be allowed to grow our own fuel for a REAL CHANGE. Even Barry knows that so go tell him your "reefer madness" bullshit. To say that legalizing hemp would turn the country into an international haven for narco-criminals is just like saying that without gun control this country would be a haven for gun shooting criminals. Illegalizng hemp is just as retarded as imposing gun control. Even some of the conservative Republicans are against this War on Drugs and probably wouldn't mind even the idea of legalizing hemp. If you still believe that hemp is somehow bad for your health, go talk to Ron Paul. He'll disprove that myth and he's a well known doctor you cannot deny. Plus, he's a rare Republican who's actually consistent but makes sense on some issues if not all.
JWVerez wrote, "Even your buddy Barry supports the idea of Cannabis"
Listen, I have no idea what you mean by "supports the idea of Cannabis". I don't know what kind of hallucinations you might be having. But Obama doesn't support the legalization of dope. Or in other words, "Barry supports the idea of keeping Cannabis illegal".
Obama is a constitutional scholar and supports ending federal raids on "medical" marijuana clinics because he supports states rights. Obama by no means supports the legalizing of pot. He feels that the drug laws and penalties need to be reformed. I have no problem with that.
I don't want a person to go to jail for 20 years for non-violent possession of pot. I do want them to be forced to get treatment, therapy, perform community service, and be placed under parole. But save the harsh penalties for dealers, repeat offenders, stoned drivers, or anyone caught stoned in the presence of children. Providing pot to children should carry an automatic penalty of twenty years.
While running for Senate in 2004, Obama told a group of Northwestern University students, "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws. But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."
However, Obama joined other Democratic candidates during an Oct. 30 2008 debate is indicating that he opposed marijuana decriminalization.
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2008/report-sees-shift-in-obama.html
Also, need I remind you that Biden, Clinton, and Emanuel strongly support the war on drugs.
"(T)he answer from Camp Obama was -- as it has been for years -- a flat one-liner: "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."
"Rumors about Obama's choice for drug czar have lingered on Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad. "He's been a standard anti-drug warrior for the whole time he's been in Congress," says St. Pierre. Another possibility is Atlanta police chief Richard Pennington, who raises fears in the legalization community of more of the same law-enforcement model. Another prospect stirring the bong waters is Dr. Don Vereen, the chief drug policy thinker on the transition team. "He's really a believer in prohibition and he can excite an audience," says Rosenbaum, who says a friend on the transition team refused to hint at final contenders for the drug czar pick."
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-marijuana-legalization-122308
About hemp, I have no problem with hemp. I know you can't smoke it. But I seriously doubt anyone in the Pro-hemp movement really cares about hemp. They just see it like they see so-called "medical" marijuana. It's just a gateway to legalization for them. At least let's be honest. You are pleading to legalize the use of pot as a DRUG.
I noticed you didn't bother to refute my peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC evidence that proves that smoking dope can cause schizophrenia and psychosis. But you can't refute it because it is a fact! If we were discussing global warming, you would point out that it and been proven by science (and you'd be right). But since this is a different argument, and since science proves just how dangerous pot is, because it doesn't suit your purposes, now you want to disregard science.
How can I argue with a fantasist who ignores science?
Aside from the issue of legalization, it almost sounds like you are fine with people smoking pot. I don't want to insinuate anything, but is that the case? It's one thing for college kids to think that's acceptable behavior. They are young and immature. But it is downright pathetic for an adult to smoke pot. Don't they have better things to do than waste their lives?
Ah yes, THAT NZ study. The one that was funded by two pharmaceutical companies. Care to guess what mental illness both of these companies sell medication for?
This study looked at 2 chemicals found in marijuana; THC and CBD. When isolated, CBD was found, in this study and others, to be just as effective in *treating* schizophrenia as prescription anti-psychotics.
This study conveniently found that the other chemical when isolated caused short-term symptoms that were similar to schizophrenia. However no such findings were found when the THC and CBD were consumed together, as one would when one consumes marijuana.
Alas, well-meaning people such as yourself are fed the out-of-context and mis-quoted findings.
To indicate the dangers of reading lay-interpretations of science papers, there is a much-quoted study linking marijuana with heart attacks. Conservative bloggers love to refer to this paper, unfortunately, without ever having read the paper.
Looking at the data, this study found that amongst 360+ long-term heavy marijuana users, 3 subjects suffered heart attacks. 1% hardly makes for a compelling link. Further study revealed that these 3 subjects were also heavy cocaine users, and had taken cocaine less than 1 hour prior to the infarct. Further reading also showed that 2 of the 3 subjects had the infarct either during sex, or 15 mins after having sex. Conservative bloggers find it convenient to ignore this data.
I'll state it again. No peer-reviewed, scientific study has found much wrong with marijuana usage.
Having said all of that, marijuana is a drug that should be approached and used cautiously and carefully by people who are educated in it's effects. And as with any drug, this is especially true for those people who are pre-disposed to mental illness.
I have never argued against the myriad of truely useful by-products of hemp.
Ever.
What I have issue with is the techno-fetishist dream of a one for one replacement of petroleum and its by-products. Hemp, and other alternative fuels, alone or incombination, simply do not have the convenient , portable energy density of oil.
That is a fact.
Also, we would have to find replacements for everything that oil is the raw feed stock for, from fertiliser and pesticides to CD's. you say hemp has 25000 uses. Good. wonderful.
Petroleum has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of uses and by-products. Oil touches every single facet of our lives in the modern world, from the food we eat, to the homes we live in, to the very jobs we do in order to purchase the consumer goods made from oil. Oil is involved in everything from aspirin to ashphalt.
Anyone who is in denial of that fact is in serious need of help.
Walk in peace.
There are quite a few energy experts who believe that improvements in energy efficiency are the single most important strategic tool in the environmental toolbox. Conservation generates the most energy savings per dollar spent and probably the most jobs. Also, it is an already existing part of industry, utilizes existing technology and does not necessarily require big, new technological breakthroughs or vast amounts of R & D money from the Feds and the State. If that's where Obama puts the money he may get the most impact per dollar spent.
It's true of course, that carbon-heavy industries, especially coal, are just going to have to be shut down. But how? Short of a large, tireless and militant popular movement vs. carbon polluters, especially coal, I can't imagine Obama trying to impose a carbon tax or cap and trade. He'll have to cut loose the coal state Dems, which he has shown no inclination to do.
The benefits of cap and trade itself are in doubt. Basically some people reduce pollution and others buy a license to pollute. The absolute carbon output is supposed to be reduced but how easy would it be to track reductions accurately in the short-term. To work this would involve the creation of a world-wide "carbon police force". Who would be in charge? To whom would they answer? How many would be required? How soon could they get trained and mobilized?
Is there time for all that? Not according to James Hansen. He says coal has to shut down completely and permanently by 2030. He's probably right about that. He's been right often enough before. But is there even a prayer that it will happen that way?
One more thing about conservation: in the coming era of irreversible climate change and fossil fuel shortages, we will be deploying conservation techniques no matter what else happens. Because of the immense problems generated by our self-created catastrophe, we will need to use whatever is left wisely.
Conservation will become more mandatory no doubt and even if the renewables such as solar, wind, hemp, tidal, etc ... get a say.
League of Conservation Voters
http://www.lcv.org/
Not yet inaugurated, Obama's apologists are already making excuses for inaction.
This is change?
joehope:
Your posts are so full of half-truths and outright lies,it's difficult to know where to begin.
Pot is not addictive.I can speak from personal experience.Thirty years ago I smoked more than anyone I partied with.Decided to stop after about a year-the next day I had two small pleasant twinges,that was it.
There's an unholy alliance of groups refusing to legalize marijuana.Big Pharma,holy rollers,organized crime,and "law and order politicians.Joehope,I'm guessing your'e in an additional small group of curmudgeons.
The Grateful Dead are having a reunion tour this year of 19 dates.Maybe Obama's staff will pass the word that smokers should be left alone-who knows what might follow? Oh,of course joehope,Armageddon.
I doubt that joehope even tries to think. I used to smoke pot back in the earlier 1980s and it sure helped me recover my mentality from my days serving in that bloody Vietnam War. The drug tests for employment in this country are a sick joke. I had a neighbor of mine tell me an experience on it and he said that a heavy tobacoo smoker or even a heavy drinker would get an easy pass on that test even if they smoked or got drunk really badly the night before taking the test. However, if one smoked marijuana 2 months earlier, the THC residue would be used against you. Alcohol and tobacco cause people to do dangerous things but certainly not marijuana and yet the so-called "drug test" allows a raging alcoholic employment while the one smoking even a little marijuana which is non-harmless is stuck in unemployment. joehope lies about calling himself a progressive even while he's none of it.
"Pot is not addictive."
The pot of thirty years ago, maybe. I doubt it. But new research proves that "skunk" (high THC street marijuana) is highly addictive and often laced with PCP or other drugs. The level of addiction has been compared to ecstasy or cocaine use. The use of marijuana has also been proven to cause psychosis and schizophrenia.
These are not half truths. They are the cold, hard, facts.
The simple truth is that drugs are bad. You don't need them. I think that because drug use is so pervasive in our culture, it makes people get desensitized to the ugliness of drug use.
Hi Joe. I'd like to see those links that "proves" MJ causes psychosis and schizophrenia (and see my comments below debunking this myth).
I do agree with you though that drug use (of all kinds) is pervasive in our culture. MJ's effects on our society (in terms of the drain on our health system and lost productivity) is minimal compared with other legal drugs. There are bigger targets than MJ.
Hey CD folk, don't be so hard on Joe. He is one of the more intelligent and well-read of our friendly conservative trolls. I find this makes for a more challenging, and satisfying discussion.
Notice how this thread turned from a discussion on green economic solutions into an arguement on how drugs are bad...?
This seems to be a common theme for JoeDope...
Based on many other articles and discussions...
Notice how often Joehope posts on each thread...?
Notice how his posts tend to lead to frustration by folks seeking to enlighten him on various issues?
Hopefully Joe will stick around long enough until all of the pieces fall into place...
And he has an epiphany...
Realizing how his either/or ideology is flawed and seeks a higher synthesis...
Good luck with that Joe... I hope you go through that growth process soon...
GoldenMean,
Let me get this straight...
You are criticizing me for going off-topic - by going off-topic yourself.
Nanoo
I sure have noticed Joehope and his frequent comments. Sure was nice yesterday as he had none I noticed. My wishfull thinking was maybe he was banned or decided to take a hike. Sadly I see he's back today.
First of all, for joe hope and his interlocutors: I really doubt hemp has the potential to solve all the world's problems; one of those who claimed it could is what got joe posting here in the first place. But speaking as one who has and still occasionally does smoke pot--yes, today's supposedly deadly pot--and whose friends smoke lots of pot--and who worked in a mental health facility recently--joe's claims are, flatly, false. Some schizophrenics can be pushed over the edge by pot and should not touch it, that's true. But pot CAUSING schizophrenia? Not true. Big danger to youth? Only the danger that SOME youth who get too enamored of pot focus too much on getting stoned and lose ambition. I believe a key reason we keep getting these studies claiming problems for pot--which are then much exaggerated by headline writers--is that it's necessary for pot to stay illegal in order for it stay so profitable. In other words, the top drug warriors are the big drug kingpins. Not the ones who take risks and get busted--the ones at the top who don't have to worry about that. So, along with those who are connected to industries threatened by hemp, or by pot, and those who find it convenient to use pot to harrass and inspect and jail members of certain groups, this is a key motive.
Joe Hope clearly has a problem of some sort, and I urge him to get help with his own problem, at his nearest mental health facility--most have some some of funding for free care if you have no funds--and stop ranting about how everyone else needs his medicine.
And now for the much more important topic of this piece. I want to say, first, that money spent on green jobs in conservation, retrofitting houses and the like is all good, the lowest hanging fruit. But Obama CANNOT wait for better political times, for a financial resurgence that may NEVER come, to do what must be done yesterday to put the brakes on climate change. The threat is enormous, according to the scientists who know the most about it. But cap-and-trade? Let's make the Republicans happy and just toss that one overboard. It has not worked well with Kyoto, it's unnecessarily complicated to administer, it opens the way for the wealthy polluters to game the system--we'd be much better off with a simpler carbon tax. As for the objection that we can't impose a tax in hard times, well that's why we rebate 100% of the tax to families, on an equal per-capita basis. What you pay out in energy costs, you get back in reduced income tax or social security if you don't pay income tax. Only while the money coming into the household is fixed, and equal, the tax money out is partly in your control--if you get a small, efficient car (it doesn't have to be a hybrid. My 1995, 222,000 mile Ford Aspire gets 43 MPG), and reduce miles driven, or use public transportation if available, if you change all your lightbulbs to CFLs or LEDs and turn them off when not in use, get rid of unnecessary appliances, heat with wood if possible, get your house or apartment as well weather-stripped and insulated as you can, etc., then you come out ahead.
Another approach is so-called command-and-control, or regulatory changes to reduce GHG emissions--like, no new coal plants unless they sequester CO2. Increased efficiency standards for appliances and cars. But, because electric engines are many times more efficient than gasoline engines, Obama should also invest in a rapid conversion of our fleet to electric rather than fuel-based. He also needs to invest in improved railroads to reduce truck use, and some bullet trains for high-use corridors.
Or we could say, no we can't do any of this because it will cost money, and we can't cut the bloated military budget because it has a powerful constituency, we just have to go on with business as usual. In that case, we could save money by closing down schools and other services for children, because we will be deciding that no generation after ours matters.
There's a difference between hemp and marijuana. Hemp contains virtually no trace of THC while marijuana does. That's what the terrorist DEA don't want you to find out. joehope should do his homework first before posting misinformation.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota