The $30 billion jobs opportunity

In an election year, you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a political ad, photo op, or campaigning politician. In a country still reeling in many ways from the economic collapse of six years ago, the largest talking point still centers around job growth. Regardless of one's opinion on how many jobs we really need as we develop more and more efficient ways to maintain our quality of life, the current state of affairs in Illinois comes down to 433,000 people who want and need to work who cannot find a job. With approximately 150,000 to 200,000 job openings in Illinois going unfulfilled, we would need to create about 250,000 new jobs in order to obtain full employment. With manufacturing making a slow recovery, and nowhere near fast enough to create that kind of growth, where can we turn for good paying, productive jobs?

Clean energy and energy efficiency.

Currently, Illinois' residential and small business consumers spend over $30 billion a year for energy. Almost all of that capital leaves the state, with only a small portion getting recycled back into the Illinois economy. If we can find a way to tap into that capital already being spent, and turn that into job growth, we can both improve our employment situation and create a cleaner, healthier future. In addition, that $30 billion, at current rates of escalation, can be $35-40 billion within only a year or two, so economically, it behooves us to move quickly.

The key to the job growth comes from the need for almost all energy efficiency and clean energy work to use local labor. The fixing up of homes and small commercial buildings, installation of solar panels, and construction of wind turbines uses, almost exclusively, local labor. Dirty energy industries, including nuclear, employ somewhere between 5 and 8 people for every $1 million spent. Clean energy and energy efficiency employ about 16 to 17 in good, median income-scale jobs. That means that our $30 billion each year could fund as many as 495,000 jobs in Illinois. Even if we only took half of our current energy expenditures and switched them to clean energy or energy efficiency, we would more than eliminate our current unemployment. In addition, we would build a stronger, more resilient economy less susceptible to shocks from energy price increases.

It will take much work in our financial sector to develop the mechanisms to make this change happen, but it can happen within months, not years. We have the capacity to train workers through our robust community college network. We have the knowhow through years of programs managed by local consultants and non-profits. All it takes is for the financial system to let small building owners tap into the same tools to which institutions and large customers already have access. Tools like on-bill financing, property-assessed clean energy, and community energy cooperatives provide the mechanism that can turn $30 billion a year in energy expenditures into a $500 billion construction program.

It will also take political will...to bring big energy companies and utilities to the table when any program like this is in the interest of the consumer but not large energy companies. It will be interesting to see if either candidate for Governor has the insight or will to make something like this happen.

Friday Five: September 26, 2014

As over half a million people made their voices heard last Sunday, it is disheartening to know that it likely will have a minimal impact on the politics...and it desperately needs to have a significant impact on the politics. 
Why the (awesome) climate march won't change American politics
"The march slogan was, “to change everything, we need everyone,” which is telling, because it won’t change everything, because it didn’t include everyone. Specifically, it won’t change American politics because it didn’t include conservatives."

The politics are so difficult, not only for the demographic reasons noted above, but also because of how much those in control of the market stand to lose...enough to make it worth it to them to threaten the lives of everyone on the planet.
The new Abolitionism
"The last time in American history that some powerful set of interests relinquished its claim on $10 trillion of wealth was in 1865—and then only after four years and more than 600,000 lives lost in the bloodiest, most horrific war we’ve ever fought."

Even those who distribute the energy have much to lose, and without a political solution, they will continue to fight the expansion of renewable energy at a time when we desperately need their support.
Berkeley Lab report quantifies the financial impacts of customer-sited photovoltaics on electric utilities
"A core purpose of the study was to evaluate measures that could be pursued by utilities and regulators to reduce the financial impacts of distributed PV. The report considered a large number of such measures, including changes to utility rate design and ratemaking processes, mechanisms that allow utilities to recoup revenues lost due to distributed PV or to earn profits on distributed PV, and a variety of other strategies."

Because no matter what conventional industry may say, the substitution of one fossil fuel for another fossil fuel does not improve our chances of survival.
Natural gas is not a good climate solution, even without methane leakage
"The only case in which more abundant natural gas would take a bite out of emissions, according to our modeling, was with a renewable energy mandate. We looked at a case in which utilities were required to get a certain percentage of their electricity from renewables, rising year after year to reach 50 percent by 2050. In that case, the competition between natural gas and renewables would be minimized — so natural gas would compete primarily with coal, making cumulative emissions about 13 percent lower."

You know what does improve our chances of survival? Every one of these people...not only through their teaching, but also through their doing.
Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators (PIAEE) winners
"The Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators recognizes outstanding kindergarten through grade 12 teachers who employ innovative approaches to environmental education and use the environment as a context for learning for their students. Up to two teachers from each of EPA's 10 regions, from different states, will be selected to receive this award. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers this award to nationally honor, support and encourage educators who incorporate environmental education in their classrooms & teaching methods."

Happy Friday!

Adrees Latif/REUTERS

#TBT: Corporations are not people, but they might be drug lords

I live in Chicago, and we have come under national scrutiny for the high homicide rates that have continued in some of the areas of our city. Having lived here all my life, I know the city is much safer than it has ever been, but I also see that some areas continue to struggle with gang violence related largely to the trafficking of illegal drugs. In the same vein, we hear of the troubles in the Mexican border towns where drug cartels move their products. In both these cases, and other similar situations, we have people trying to live their daily lives under the specter of risk posed by the presences of businesses operating outside the law.

And then I read Tim Dickinson's brilliantly written but troubling account of the history behind Koch Industries and how they grew their wealth and turned it into a powerful platform from which to create more wealth and protect their interests. From everything within the article, it became abundantly clear that the only difference between the actions of the various businesses related to Koch Industries and the actions of the street gangs and cartels of the drug business....

Is that gang members go to jail or get killed when they kill people...the Kochs just get richer.

[NTSB] Photo of explosion that killed two teens in Texas in
 1996. The explosion was the result of a poorly maintained
pipeline

Reading the details of the piece - much of it garnered from the Koch's own words, details of court cases against them, whistle-blower reports, and as much information about a private company as can be garnered from FOIA requests to governments with which they deal - it becomes abundantly clear that the Kochs consider human life to have a finite value that gets figured into the equation of how to run their business. Unlike, say a person, who would lose their freedom, property, and any hope of continuing on in a normal existence, if the business practices of the Koch's cause someone to die (which they have) or shorten the lives of another (which they have) or cause irreparable harm to a community (which they have) it is simply a part of doing business. A person's life is only worth what they are likely to get in a lawsuit against the company. The value of a community is only worth what they might have to pay in fines for clean up. This kind of capital-centered capitalism follows the same thinking of the Capone operation and today's gangs.

Yet, we as a society celebrate people like the Kochs and (rightly) seek to imprison the drug gangs. We place this value on business "excellence" but only to the point where someone might end up holding a gun to our face. If our truck gets blown up because a pipeline leaked, that's an accident, even if the "accident" came from the deliberate negligence of a business leader. Because the decision that lead to the death was a business one, that somehow makes it ok in our book.

It is not ok.

We need to have much less tolerance than we do for people's lives being subject to their value on a balance sheet. At the turn of the 20th century, it was conservatives who understood that unbridled capitalism will devalue human life, the environment that supports that life, and the social structures that join us as people...all the things that give us high quality of life. It is no coincidence that once we understood that and put safeguards in place, we enjoyed the greatest growth in lifespan, quality of life, and social equity yet experienced in human civilization.

And then we blew it.

Today, and really since the 1970s, we have allowed morally bankrupt capitalists to tell us what society values. We have allowed them to control more of our economic capital, given them the keys to own our political system, and placed our lives in their hands by the choices we have made. We have - on the whole - accepted the line that business is always good and regulation always bad. Our political system has decided that money is speech, and those with more money get to say more, and that by virtue of their attainment of wealth, they have earned that privilege. We have been wrong, and we need to stop treating people like the Kochs as valued men of high achievement, and call them what they really are...

Criminals.

The outrage against violence in my city should be equal to the outrage we cast on men like the Kochs. Anyone who trades human life for their own gain should end up in prison and not on the cover of business magazines. Until we start holding the people within corporations to the standards we ask of people in general, we will never reach the just, equitable, and peaceful society that our Constitution holds as our nation's aspiration.

Those who operate both legally and morally in our country's economy should - and often do, at least as far as I see - have disdain for the actions of people like the Kochs. Regulation, when properly applied as it is most of the time, provides a transparent description of the marketplace that we the people regard as equitable and of value to us as a country. Requiring those who pipe flammable products across the country to maintain their infrastructure at the highest level of safety is not an onerous and superfluous requirement...it recognizes that selling something while killing people is wrong. Requiring that those who speculate in a commodities market have the capital on hand to back their gamble is not totalitarian domination, it is common sense that every casino in the country follows. Asking our business leaders to comport themselves with the same moral approach that we ask of every single member of our society is not an anti-business philosophy...

It is a pro-people philosophy.

We need our capitalism to be more person-centered and less profit-centered. The modern manner of executing capitalism has not found a manner for the system to value people, so we turn to regulation. With the market completely manipulatable by business, the consumer can usually only demand change in drastic circumstances...and even then only if an independent media draws attention to the matter, and government calls those responsible to the carpet, and almost always only after many people  have been killed. It is up to us whether or not this is acceptable. If you do not find it acceptable, then make noise...with what you purchase, with how you vote, with where you spend your time...in every conceivable way, make some noise.

Kudos to Tim Dickinson and Rolling Stone for putting the truth in print. I only wish I could shake the feeling that a large portion of our population will not read the piece and see it for how it gives a glimpse into the consequences of unbridled, morally corrupt capitalism, but will celebrate the Kochs for what they have done.

Many steps and many voices

Yesterday's People's Climate March in New York City succeeded in at least part of what it set out to do. Early estimates have the turnout at 310,000 people (and it could climb to 400,000 after final analysis) in NYC alone...not counting the dozens of sympathy marches taking place everywhere from England and Australia to Oklahoma City. Those who challenged the event to relevancy had their challenge met and exceeded. At least some of those who might have some say in the outcome...Bill de Blasio, Ban Ki-moon...attended, giving even more hope to those that attended.

AP/Jason DeCrow

Only time will tell if it made even the slightest bit of a difference.

In 1963, approximately 250,000 marched on Washington to demand  peaceful and political solution to the civil rights atrocities that institutionalized people of color as second class citizens in this country...the land of freedom and equality. Half a century later, despite achieving short-term political solutions, the dreams given voice that day still have yet to fully materialize. The voices of those opposed to ceding any economic or political power still have control, albeit much more subversively than they did fifty years ago.

In time, however, those voices will - quite literally - die out. It's hollow solace for those who still have to work twice as hard to achieve half as much, but their children will live to see an equal country.

On the issue of fossil fuels, the pollution it causes, and the impact on human life, we do not have that kind of time, and we face a similar, less subtle foe. A search of the hashtag #climatemarch yesterday in the hours that followed the event found both hopeful messages of those who attended or wished they did as well as a healthy mix of trolls* providing counter point to the issue of climate protection. Although we can casually brush off that kind of rhetoric as uncivilized, uneducated, or even irrelevant, one crucial point remains.

The opposition to acting on climate is real, well-funded, and poignant.

Among the schoolyard name calling and pictures of Nicholas Cage, one can find some valid criticism of the climate movement that we need to address if not directly, then at least obliquely. First and foremost, we need to get better at focusing on the issue at hand and not the hyperbolic predictions. Talking about the dangers of sea-level rise, then having to admit they will happen over a hundred years into the future blunts the argument. People believe in the innovative spirit, and trust that that spirit will solve a problem that long into the future. Our aims must focus on much more immediate threats.

Second, tying onto that thought, we need to exercise caution about how far we reach. The science surrounding drought and extreme storms has only just begun to investigate the role that greenhouse gas emissions play. To blame climate change for the California drought, Sandy, and the polar vortex makes for great headlines, but it smacks of the same pseudo-science that fills the counter arguments. Also, it sets up deniers to make similar claims when the US experiences one of the coldest winters on record. We have so many issues with immediate impact: The dangers of mining, the damage to countrysides and water resources, air pollution...we do not need to grasp opportunistically for every straw that comes our way.

Third, we need to get away from arguments that cost more. I personally know that morality tells us to prioritize the lives of people near fossil fuel extraction fields or thermal plants, or those who live in endangered island nations. But I also know that imposing morality on another creates confrontation not solutions. This gets especially true when every argument for solutions ends up recommending solutions that cost more than current options. We need to put our human ingenuity to work and create solutions that cost less. Economic analyses are starting to make the argument that a clean energy future will save us money...blunting any argument for including fossil fuels in any new energy plant. We need to focus on that future, and the dwindling availability of fossil fuels in a world with expanding population and increased development. (In fifty years - a time horizon that people can connect with since most of us expect to live that long, we could be almost out of fossil fuels. The reserves that industry themselves admit to being available, coupled with the current rate of increase in exploitable reserves, still does not match the rate of consumption we will experience over the next half-century.) That means increased prices and decreased quality of life unless we respond. That's a story that people can connect to as we have experienced several such shocks in the past decades.

Lastly, and yesterday's march rightly starts this discussion, we need to focus on the clean energy fight as one of innovation and equality. Amidst the recent public discussions of marriage equality, several conservative pundits noted that they heard a compelling argument on behalf of those seeking the right to marry, and no counter argument to the idea of free choice. We need to have the same focus in the fight on climate. Emissions of any sort provide an opportunity to make sure that prices for sources of energy include all costs associated with each source. If we frame the argument in terms of our communal desire for freedom and a fair market, clean energy wins each time. The more we focus on common themes, the larger a tent we create and the greater our chance of success.

In many ways, the climate march was the art of the possible. The economics favor systems that use less energy, and at every juncture over the past decade, when faced with a challenge to reduce energy use while preserving quality of life, we have succeeded (eg. cutting refrigerator energy use by more than half, increasing fuel efficiency in cars, improving the energy efficiency of buildings). We no longer need to act like a fringe movement nipping at the heels of industry. The growing industries are on our side, and all we need to do is remain consistent and the economics will continue to favor the cause of pollution reduction. If we keep clouding the issue with ideas that do not resonate, and even worse give fuel to opposition, we threaten all the hard work. The next steps forward need to be ones of community...solutions that work for all.

That even includes the trolls.


*trolling is an internet term for those who seek to create discord by playing devil's advocate and saying whatever they can to get a rise out of people.

Friday Five: September 19, 2014

This next week will be a telling one for the movement to stem the effects of climate change. Ahead of an international meeting in New York next week, environmental organizers have gone all in by collaborating with previously un-tapped partners to try and pull off the larges climate march in history. If they succeed, it could be a watershed moment for the movement, if they fail, it could spell the end. Or, it could just be another Sunday in NYC.
How to define success for the People's Climate March
"Organizers of the march have set themselves a high bar—two high bars, actually. First, they’ve proclaimed that this will be the biggest climate change demonstration yet. That means organizers have to turn out no fewer than 100,000 people—the estimated size of the Copenhagen march—or be judged a failure; a lower turnout would send the signal that the movement is waning rather than growing. Further, organizers have declared that the People’s Climate March will be “historic,” meaning it will be looked back on as a key moment in the climate struggle. This definition in turn requires that the March lead to more and better things down the road—that it be not merely one day of protest."

The numbers have been coming in, and it looks like somewhere between saving us 10% and costing us 5% is the range of net impact of addressing climate change on the economy. If you believe that eliminating fossil fuel emissions will do absolutely nothing, then it's a 5% add. If you believe that clean energy will eliminate most energy bills, improve human health, and increase property values, then it saves 10%. My best guess is probably not a 10% savings, but a measurable one.
Fixing climate change may add no costs, report says
"While the commission found that the requisite steps may make economic sense, that does not mean they will be politically easy, the report says. For instance, the group will recommend that countries eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels, which cost about $600 billion a year but are vigorously defended by vested interests.
It will urge nations to take a fresh look at the potential of renewable energy, whose costs are plummeting, and also recommend the adoption of initiatives to halt destruction of forests, use land more efficiently and limit wasteful urban sprawl, among many other steps."

As a bit of forewarning, the article does not deliver on the headline (which is rarely the author's fault), but it does raise particularly interesting issues relative to the conversation around almost every environmental issue...or for that matter, every economic issue. It paints an image of people on all sides who claim factual impartiality, but only from their decidedly isolated point of view.
How to talk about climate change so people will listen
"In the best of times, this problem—given its apocalyptic stakes, bewildering scale, and vast potential cost—would be difficult to resolve. But we are not in the best of times. We are in a time of legislative paralysis. In an important step, the Obama administration announced in June its decision to cut power-plant emissions 30 percent by 2030. Otherwise, this country has seen strikingly little political action on climate change, despite three decades of increasingly high-pitched chatter by scientists, activists, economists, pundits, and legislators."

Meanwhile, on a particularly practical front, consumer and environmental advocates in Illinois have teamed up to call for transparency on carbon emissions. Instead of pounding the table for widespread action, they ask just to know what is happening at each of Illinois' electric utilities.
CUB, EDF push for comprehensive smart grid metric on carbon emissions
"The greenhouse gas petition, filed by CUB and EDF Wednesday, is related to major power-grid upgrades, collectively called the "smart grid," that were approved by the Illinois General Assembly in 2011 and are now being launched by Commonwealth Edison and Ameren Illinois. The improvements, including new digital electric meters, have the potential to make Illinois' electricity system cleaner and less costly."

And while we stage protests, denigrate scientists, and do so from the comfort of our 99.999% reliably electrified homes, people in non-electrified parts of the world are showing us the truth about solar economics...solar is cheaper.
There's a place in the world that is fighting poverty with solar panels.
"He laughed. It’s much simpler than that, he said. 'I just wanted electricity.'"

Happy Friday!

Tim McDonnell/Climate Desk

What do we do when there are no villains?

I was lucky enough last night to see a new play written by a friend of mine (which I highly recommend you check out). One of the thoughts that stuck with me is how differently we respond to situations when we perceive someone as a villain. This has a particularly poignant application to the discourse over improving our quality of life in a sustainable future.

When discussing our use of resources and the resulting impact on the environment, the most common theme from those advocating a sustainable energy future centers around the evil corporations...especially those directly involved in fossil fuel extraction. Admittedly, the Koch brothers in particular make it easy to cast them as the devil, but in casting the net in such a fashion, we automatically give individuals - people - in these organizations no role in solutions or in the future.

On the other hand, business leaders create a picture in their mind about the environmental advocate as an uncompromising rabble rouser intent only on creating a communist state in which corporate leaders are put into the stocks for public humiliation. There are some who merit this designation, such as the former coworker who would stalk people in the bathroom and shame them for overusing water, but 99% of the environmental community loves a high quality of life and a freedom to pursue ones passions...they just want it with less damage to life.

The thought argument then goes, what happens if we stop treating the other as a villain? How would the opportunity change if we had some sort of "truth and reconciliation" associated with our interaction with the environment?

We have already seen how some of that might play out. As the cost of renewable energy has dropped significantly, we see both business and regulatory agencies choosing new renewables over expanding fossil fuels. Although initially a failed effort, we saw an attempt from BP a decade ago to move "beyond petroleum". With the vast financial resources at their disposal, today's fossil fuel giants have the best capacity to move the needle toward renewables faster than we can accomplish without them.

For environmentalists, seeing how these large, evil corporations also employ tens of thousands of people who need the security of that paycheck to have any sort of quality of life, we should look for opportunities to engage with those businesses instead of ostracizing them. We have seen large energy companies and utilities work successfully with organizations like NRDC and in Chicago, ELPC. We have also seen people realize that we share in the blame for the existence and strength of these industries, and try to rectify that through divesting in those companies that will not change. It is all too easy to place all the blame on another, but when we too have to change, we often find a better way to solve the problem.

Removing villainy from the equation would not solve the problem overnight, but it will do so faster than digging in for a long fight. While I advocate for working together, I do not advocate compromising on facts. Remaining beholden to fossil fuels will cost us more than a renewably-powered future, it will harm more lives, and it will jeopardize our existence. We have to come to terms on that truth part of the equation as well as agreeing to work together.

If we can, together, accept the truth and agree to work together, history has shown there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

Flashes: September 17, 2014....Labels, labels, labels

First there was:

A label showing you could trust product quality.

Then came:

A label showing you could trust a business to be honest.

Then 80 years later, thanks to the EPA, we got:

A label showing that the product you bought used less energy than previous.

And just a few years ago, 

A label that shows a product you bought uses less water than previous.

And after all this time, we finally have one that addresses whether a cleaning product is safe for use around humans....and you get to help pick this label.

A label that indicates the product you bought will not harm you or your family.

Enjoy the journey!