top NASA climate expert who twice briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming plans to criticize the administration's approach to the issue in a lecture at the University of Iowa tonight and say that a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperaturesThe expert, Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, expects to say that the Bush administration has ignored growing evidence that sea levels could rise significantly unless prompt action is taken to reduce heat-trapping emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes.
Many academic scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have been criticizing the administration over its handling of climate change and other complex scientific issues. But Dr. Hansen, first in an interview with The New York Times a week ago and again in his planned lecture today, is the only leading scientist to speak out so publicly while still in the employ of the government.
In the talk, Dr. Hansen, who describes himself as "moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road" and registered in Pennsylvania as an independent, plans to say that he will vote for Senator John Kerry, while also criticizing some of Mr. Kerry's positions, particularly his pledge to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada.
He will acknowledge that one of the accolades he has received for his work on climate change is a $250,000 Heinz Award, given in 2001 by a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, Mr. Kerry's wife. The awards are given to people who advance causes promoted by Senator John Heinz, the Pennsylvania Republican who was Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband.
But in an interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen said he was confident that the award had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."
In a draft of the talk, a copy of which Dr. Hansen provided to The Times yesterday, he wrote that President Bush's climate policy, which puts off consideration of binding cuts in such emissions until 2012, was likely to be too little too late.
Actions to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions "are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security," Dr. Hansen wrote. "Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."
In the speech, Dr. Hansen also says that last year, after he gave a presentation on the dangers of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate shifts to Sean O'Keefe, the NASA administrator, "the administrator interrupted me; he told me that I should not talk about dangerous anthropogenic interference, because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."
After conferring with Mr. O'Keefe, Glenn Mahone, the administrator's spokesman, said Mr. O'Keefe had a completely different recollection of the meeting. "To say the least, Sean is certain that he did not admonish or even suggest that there be a throttling back of research efforts" by Dr. Hansen or his team, Mr. Mahone said.
Dr. Franco Einaudi, director of the NASA Earth Sciences Directorate at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Dr. Hansen's supervisor, said he was at the meeting between Dr. Hansen and Mr. O'Keefe. Dr. Einaudi confirmed that Mr. O'Keefe had interrupted the presentation to say that these were "delicate issues" and there was a lot of uncertainty about them. But, he added: "Whether it is obvious to take that as an order or not is a question of judgment. Personally, I did not take it as an order."
Dr. John H. Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, said he was not privy to any exchanges between Dr. Hansen and the administrator of NASA. But he denied that the White House was playing down the risks posed by climate change.
"President Bush has long recognized the serious implications of climate change, the role of human activity, and our responsibility to reduce emissions,'' Dr. Marburger said in an e-mailed statement. "He has put forward a series of policy initiatives including a commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy.''
In the interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings.
Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign. He said he decided to speak out after months of deliberation because he was convinced the country needed to change course on climate policy.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Oxfam Details Economic Impact of Warming
Cities like New Delhi in India could see as much as a 30 percent drop in worker productivity because rising temperatures will make it impossible for people to work at the same rate on hot summer days without serious health impacts, Oxfam, the international aid group, warned on Monday.
Oxfam laid out warnings about the effects of climate change on poorer regions of the world as global leaders prepare to meet at the G8 summit later this week. Oxfam said it was seeking to rally leaders to agree to help developing nations adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. Those effects, groups like Oxfam say, are likely to happen even if a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is reached later this year.
In a report, Suffering the Science - Climate Change, People and Poverty, Oxfam used information gathered from the insurance industry to warn that “mega fires” and storms are on the rise, and it noted that people in poor parts of the world have no access to insurance.
In addition, Oxfam highlighted how trade patterns are likely shift as climate change takes hold, with many richer parts of the world receiving a boost while many poor regions become even more disadvantaged.
The group, which has posted related images and stories here, said American agricultural profits were set to rise by $1.3 billion annually because of climate change, while sub-Saharan Africa would lose $2 billion annually as the viability of one of the region’s staple crops, maize, declined.
Keeping the rise in global temperature to two degrees above pre-industrial levels (a level the United States may agree to at the G8 meeting later this week) was “economically acceptable” for rich countries, said Oxfam — though such a rise in temperature would still mean “a devastating future for 660 million people,” the group warned.
Oxfam laid out warnings about the effects of climate change on poorer regions of the world as global leaders prepare to meet at the G8 summit later this week. Oxfam said it was seeking to rally leaders to agree to help developing nations adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. Those effects, groups like Oxfam say, are likely to happen even if a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is reached later this year.
In a report, Suffering the Science - Climate Change, People and Poverty, Oxfam used information gathered from the insurance industry to warn that “mega fires” and storms are on the rise, and it noted that people in poor parts of the world have no access to insurance.
In addition, Oxfam highlighted how trade patterns are likely shift as climate change takes hold, with many richer parts of the world receiving a boost while many poor regions become even more disadvantaged.
The group, which has posted related images and stories here, said American agricultural profits were set to rise by $1.3 billion annually because of climate change, while sub-Saharan Africa would lose $2 billion annually as the viability of one of the region’s staple crops, maize, declined.
Keeping the rise in global temperature to two degrees above pre-industrial levels (a level the United States may agree to at the G8 meeting later this week) was “economically acceptable” for rich countries, said Oxfam — though such a rise in temperature would still mean “a devastating future for 660 million people,” the group warned.
USDA organic label comes under fire
Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from products carrying the federal organic label. Today those same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90% of organic baby formula.The government's about-face came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped companies secure a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal for their products.
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Relaxed federal standards -- and a surge in consumer demand -- have helped the organics market become a $23-billion-a-year business, the fastest-growing segment of the food industry. Half of the nation's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who oftentimes pay more for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in environmentally friendly ways.
That has fueled debate over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of organic or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to certify more products as organic.In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers hired by farmers and food producers to inspect products and determine whether they can use the label.Some consumer groups and members of Congress worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself."It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. But by then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg Co. owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola Co. owns 40% of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production.Under the original organics law, 5% of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.
The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Relaxed federal standards -- and a surge in consumer demand -- have helped the organics market become a $23-billion-a-year business, the fastest-growing segment of the food industry. Half of the nation's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who oftentimes pay more for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in environmentally friendly ways.
That has fueled debate over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of organic or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to certify more products as organic.In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers hired by farmers and food producers to inspect products and determine whether they can use the label.Some consumer groups and members of Congress worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself."It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. But by then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg Co. owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola Co. owns 40% of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production.Under the original organics law, 5% of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.
The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional
California solar-power subsidy program approaches its limit
Lis Sines of Hermosa Beach loves watching her electric meter run backward.When that happens, she knows that the 20 solar panels on her roof are producing more power than she needs to run her 3,800-square-foot home. The excess electricity flows to the electric company's grid, and she gets its full retail value credited to her utility bill.
Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.
The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly. Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%. All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership. Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels."We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week. The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested. The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities. "By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said. The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all. "Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar. Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week. Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill. One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off."I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said. Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."
Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.
The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly. Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%. All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership. Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels."We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week. The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested. The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities. "By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said. The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all. "Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar. Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week. Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill. One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off."I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said. Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."
Eni Receives Environment Order For Norway Goliat Field
Eni's SpA (E) Norwegian arm has received a notification from the country's Petroleum Safety Authority, or Ptil, relating to collection of environmental data in the area around the Goliat oil-field, which is currently under development.
Goliat field in Norway's Barents Sea is located in an area with poor weather and oceanographic forecasting, Ptil said. "There is a need to improve the quality of the basic data used for weather forecasting in the area," it added.
It has unique meteorological phenomena where some low pressure fronts are created in the air between the ice-covered sea and warmer open sea, "which can create winds which can be compared to cyclones in warmer climates", Ptil said.
Ptil's concerns are centered on the poor observation network in the area, which could create challenges in relation to planning and execution operations of the Goliat project, it said. Eni doesn't currently include collection and real-time reporting of the relevant data in its plan for development and operation of Goliat, Ptil noted, also giving recommendations for improvement.
Eni was not immediately available to comment on the notification.
Goliat is expected to start producing oil and some gas in 2013.
Goliat field in Norway's Barents Sea is located in an area with poor weather and oceanographic forecasting, Ptil said. "There is a need to improve the quality of the basic data used for weather forecasting in the area," it added.
It has unique meteorological phenomena where some low pressure fronts are created in the air between the ice-covered sea and warmer open sea, "which can create winds which can be compared to cyclones in warmer climates", Ptil said.
Ptil's concerns are centered on the poor observation network in the area, which could create challenges in relation to planning and execution operations of the Goliat project, it said. Eni doesn't currently include collection and real-time reporting of the relevant data in its plan for development and operation of Goliat, Ptil noted, also giving recommendations for improvement.
Eni was not immediately available to comment on the notification.
Goliat is expected to start producing oil and some gas in 2013.
German Environment Minister Wants Old Nuclear Plants to Close
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel wants to amend the country’s nuclear energy phase-out, speeding up closure of old plants after an automatic shutdown at Vattenfall AB’s Kruemmel reactor near Hamburg on July 4.
Gabriel said the remaining operational lifespan of older reactors could be transferred to newer plants in an amendment, extending their life. Speaking on German ARD television today, Gabriel also called for the creation of a federal overseer to close gaps caused by state monitoring of the industry.
“We must pull these older nuclear plants from the grid. That means tightening up the legislation we have,” said Gabriel, a Social Democrat. Gabriel’s SPD in coalition with the Green Party passed legislation in 2002 that will phase out nuclear power by about 2021. Some 17 plants are still in operation.
The SPD’s current coalition partners, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, seek an extension of nuclear power beyond 2021. Vattenfall said in an e-mailed statement that the plant east of Hamburg automatically shut down at noon the same day, following a disruption in a transformer
Gabriel said the remaining operational lifespan of older reactors could be transferred to newer plants in an amendment, extending their life. Speaking on German ARD television today, Gabriel also called for the creation of a federal overseer to close gaps caused by state monitoring of the industry.
“We must pull these older nuclear plants from the grid. That means tightening up the legislation we have,” said Gabriel, a Social Democrat. Gabriel’s SPD in coalition with the Green Party passed legislation in 2002 that will phase out nuclear power by about 2021. Some 17 plants are still in operation.
The SPD’s current coalition partners, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, seek an extension of nuclear power beyond 2021. Vattenfall said in an e-mailed statement that the plant east of Hamburg automatically shut down at noon the same day, following a disruption in a transformer
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Stimulus Package and Green Jobs
If it’s a U.S. industry that has the potential to be cleaner and greener, chances are the Obama administration has already set aside some stimulus money for it. In February 2009, the new president signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. Besides creating jobs, the bill promises to spur American companies to greener heights through investments totaling over $75 billion. According to Environment America, a federation of state-based environmental advocacy groups, the stimulus package includes $32.8 billion for clean energy projects, $26.86 billion for energy efficiency initiatives and $18.95 billion for green transportation. Some of the key green features of the bill include accelerating the deployment of “smart grid” technology (systems of routing power in ways that optimize energy-efficiency), providing energy efficiency funds for schools, offering support for governors and mayors to beef up energy efficiency in private homes and public buildings, and establishing a new loan guarantee program to help renewable energy producers survive in down economic times. With the private capital and credit so tight due to the recession, this influx of federal support is vital to help the still fledgling green energy and transportation sectors stay afloat. And most economists agree that it makes good sense to steer away from finite foreign oil toward homegrown renewable energy. Obama has promised the creation of some 500,000 jobs in the nation’s burgeoning clean energy sector alone. “The central facts here are irrefutable: Spending the same amount of money on building a clean energy economy will create three times more jobs within the U.S. than would spending on our existing fossil fuel infrastructure,” writes University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin in The Nation. “The transformation to a clean energy economy can therefore serve as a major long-term engine of job creation.” Wind turbine engineers, insulation installers, recycling sorters and photovoltaic cell salespeople—along with the businesspersons behind them—can all look forward to bright and potentially lucrative futures. This view is shared by the Solar Energy Industries Association, which predicts that the stimulus will help create some 119,000 jobs in the American solar sector alone before the end of 2010. Employers from solar cell manufacturers to green building materials retailers to wind farm maintenance firms to recycling haulers to energy auditors will likewise be looking to swell their ranks of employees with relevant skills. The federal government itself is also in on the recovery effort beyond doling out the money. According to the official Recovery Act website, the General Services Administration’s Public Building Service will invest $5.55 billion in federal building projects, “including $4.5 billion to transform federal facilities into exemplary high-performance green buildings, $750 million to renovate and construct new federal offices and courthouses, and $300 million to construct and renovate border stations.” About $1 billion worth of projects will be undertaken—a boon for everyone in the building industry, including construction workers, electricians, plumbers, air conditioning mechanics, carpenters, architects and engineers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)