Jobs & Economy
Climate at the G20: Obama to press cuts in fossil fuel subsidies
Published September 24, 2009 @ 09:10AM PT
After three days of an all-climate schedule in New York City, featuring Tuesday's all-day United Nations Climate Summit, I'm now in Pittsburgh to cover the meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) major economies. My thanks to Grist and G20Voice for helping me to be here.
Given that the heads of state chewed over global warming at the United Nations Climate Summit on Tuesday, where will climate figure into tomorrow's G20 agenda of meetings?
According to reports, it's on the list of confab issues -- "Fresh from the UN general assembly in New York, heads of government and a vast diplomatic entourage will descend on Pittsburgh today to kick off two days of talks on economic stability, financial regulation, climate change and bankers' bonuses," reports the Guardian.
President Obama is expected to put a stunner of a demand on the G20 table, as my Grist colleague Dave Roberts notes: that nations stop subsidising fossil fuels, which could cut 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Since fossil energy subsidies dwarf those going to renewables, such a move would also likely transform energy prices, better reflecting the true costs of dirty energy while making clean more competitive.
There's also the not-small matter of how much aid wealthy nations will provide to poorer nations to help them mitigate and adapt to climate disruptions -- buzzworded as "climate financing." "Wealthy nations promised in 2001 to provide the 49 least developed countries $2 billion for immediate climate change adaptation, but they only funded about a 10th of that," reports Solve Climate. "Since then, the UNFCCC has estimated the cost of global adaptation to be between $40 billion and $170 billion a year through 2030, and more recent studies now suggest the costs will be far higher — with the price growing each year the world delays action on climate change."
An Open Letter From Van Jones: 'What you can do'
Published September 17, 2009 @ 06:03PM PT
Van Jones e-mailed this message to friends and supporters on Tuesday, Sept. 15. It's his first public comment since resigning from the White House on Sept. 6:
Dear Friends:
My family and I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support that we have received over the past week or so. I resigned from the White House on Sept. 6, and I have remained silent since then—in keeping with my promise not to be a distraction during a key moment in the Obama Presidency.
Over the past several days, however, many people have been asking how they can help and what they can do.
The main thing is this: please do everything you can to support both President Obama and the green jobs movement. Winning real change is ultimately the best response to these kinds of smear campaigns.
I ask everyone to:
NY Senate's Bipartisan Vote Jump-starts $5B Green Jobs/Bldg Plan
Published September 15, 2009 @ 06:23PM PT
Start spreading the news: A newly-passed law in New York State will use the proceeds from auctions of carbon emissions credits to fund a massive statewide weatherization-and-green-jobs-creation program.
And a Republican state senator bucked the party line to help pass the bill.
Last Friday, the State Senate passed Green Job/Green New York Act. The legislation will channel $112 million in proceeds from auctioning carbon emissions credits (at the market created via the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) into starting up a $5 billion energy-efficiency program -- which will lower energy costs for New York households, cut the state's greenhouse gas pollution levels, and create thousands of jobs.
Republican State Sen. Thomas Morahan co-sponsored the bill with Democratic colleague Darrel Aubertine. Morahan's support led to a resoundingly bipartisan vote to pass the bill.
WSJ: "Waxman-Markey's benefits far outweigh costs"
Published September 08, 2009 @ 02:14PM PT
A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.
“From almost any perspective and under almost any assumption, H.R. 2454 is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet,” concludes "The Other Side of the Coin", which was produced by the NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity.
How did the authors tote up the legislation's economic benefits?
As Keith Johnson of the WSJ's Environmental Capital blog writes today, the paper examines the "social cost of carbon:" what a ton of carbon is worth to our society when it isn't in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change's effects on the environment, the economy, public health, and national security.
Multiple federal agencies have accepted the estimate that a ton of carbon-not-emitted is worth about $19.
So using the bill's targets for how many tons of atmospheric carbon it will avert over the next forty years, the NYU Law analysts calculated that Waxman-Markey would be worth around $1.5 trillion on average.
Since bill's costs will add up to around $660 billion, that is a two-to-one return on the dollar. And this, according to the authors, is a conservative estimate, partly because it does not factor in many ancillary social benefits of cutting greenhouse gas pollution, such as "reduced ocean acidification, increased forest preservation, and reductions in local air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter."
Find Fame, Fortune by Blogging About Global Warming
Published September 08, 2009 @ 08:44AM PT
Maybe -- maybe not. But by blogging on global warming, wildlife and wilderness, the environment, or a host of other topics here at Change.org, you can reach scads of readers, some of them leaders in the world of non-profit social change, and contribute to covering some of the most important issues of our time.
Here are the highlights of the full job posting:
- Change.org is expanding our team of freelance bloggers to help broaden our coverage of the most important causes of our time.
- Each blogger will contribute to a daily blog covering news and offering commentary on a single social, political or environmental issue, convene leading nonprofits and activists working on the issue, and help people translate their passion into concrete action.
- Previous blogging experience is encouraged but not necessary; strong writing skills are required.
- To apply, send a brief introductory email and your resume (or a link to your Linkedin profile) as well as the issue(s) you like to write about to managing editor Judith Meskill, at blogs -- AT --change.org.
What Is a Green-Collar Job?
Published September 07, 2009 @ 04:19PM PT
"Green-collar jobs" have become a daily facet of the national conversation on energy policy, as well as economic revival. At the most fundamental, these are jobs that link rapid decarbonization of the nation's energy economy, with reviving the nation's eviscerated manufacturing base.
Here's how Apollo Alliance chair Phil Angelides defined green-collar jobs to Time Magazine last year:
It has to pay decent wages and benefits that can support a family. It has to be part of a real career path, with upward mobility. And it needs to reduce waste and pollution and benefit the environment.
The green jobs vision is creating some refreshing new advocacy partnerships, like the Blue Green Alliance, a joint effort of environmental groups and labor unions.
And it's not a particularly partisan issue -- or at least it wasn't a few years ago. The expansion of the green-collar jobs sector got its first major federal boost in 2007, with the passage of the Green Jobs Act, as Title X of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Van Jones' Departure: A costly error for the Obama administration?
Published September 06, 2009 @ 08:46AM PT
Van Jones, green jobs advisor to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned his Obama administration post early this morning.
"Jones found himself in conservatives' crosshairs after it was revealed that he signed a petition in support of 9/11 "truther" conspiracy theorists and called Republicans "assholes" in a video taped before he was tapped to head up the White House's green jobs program," reports Slate. "Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., [photo, left] was calling for a congressional inquiry into Jones' past," which included membership in activist groups that some, including Fox News fantasist Glenn Beck, have termed "radical."
The most immediate downside here is that one of the nation's most eloquent, effective advocates for improving the lives of millions of lower-wage workers, and righting long-endured social and economic injustices -- all via creating a low-carbon, more climate-neutral economy -- will no longer be at the service of the president.
That's a loss to the entire nation.
This debacle is unlikely to be the undoing of Van Jones, however. He is inspired at communicating and realizing his vision of an inclusively better future, and well-respected in the progressive political community.
If and as the truth emerges, I don't think it will be those 9/11 investigation endorsements that led the Obama administration to toss Jones overboard. Yes, he should have given those petitions a closer read. But remember how you were feeling about the attacks and the Iraq war in 2004? 'Nuff said.
It won't even be for calling Republicans assholes in public.
