Groups are arguing over whether the climate change bill in the Senate will create jobs or kill them. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:
Transcript
America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:
The U.S. House has already passed a version of the bill. It includes a carrot and stick plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on them. It will mean fossil fuels will become a little more expensive to use. Revenue from the program will be invested in clean energy and energy efficiency projects.
President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, says using that money America can reinvent itself and, in the process, create jobs.
“The technological innovations needed to combat climate change, to reverse it, to mitigate it, can spawn one of the most promising areas of economic growth in the 21st century.”
Environmental groups believe that. And labor unions believe it. And some progressive businesses are counting on it. They’ve been joining forces in groups such as the Apollo Alliance, and then there’s the United Steel Workers Union and the Sierra Club’s Blue/Green Alliance.
Leo Gerard is the President of the United Steelworkers.
“We need a climate change bill that is focused on creating jobs and cleaning up the climate. With a lot of conservation, a lot of investments in the newest technologies, what we’ll end up doing is taking a huge amount of carbon out of the atmosphere and creating a lot of good jobs.”
Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make coal, gas and oil more expensive.
“This legislation is a job killer.”
Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers. He says the government should not penalize businesses that rely on cheaper fossil fuels.
“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”
Business says drop cap-and-trade. And just use the carrot. The government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in technologies such as nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration for coal-burning industries.
So the two sides are rallying the troops.
The unions and environmental groups are urging their members to push for cap-and-trade for the sake of the planet and for the promise of green jobs.
Business groups are launching TV ad campaigns against it. Oil companies are using a front group called Energy Citizens to hold public rallies oppsing cap-and-trade. They raise the spector of high gasoline prices and higher electricity bills and throw in the threat of losing as many as 2.4 million jobs.
Ed Montgomery is President Obama’s Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers. He says a clean energy policy is not going to hurt the US, it’ll save it.
“Something’s gone wrong. Our manufacturing sector isn’t able, and hasn’t been able to compete and continue to create new and effective jobs. And what a clean energy policy opens up for us is a whole avenue forward. It’s a way to create both new jobs, to open up new avenues of competitiveness, the competitiveness that uses the strengths of our workers – who know how to make product.”
But first, the debate will devolve into shouting matches about whether global warming is real and, if it is, whether cap-and-trade will do anything to slow it. There will be distortions on both sides about the end of the economic good of the country, and the climatic end of the world as we know it.
And because of all the complexities, the arguments will leave a thoroughly confused public about whether we should use government policy to shift from reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels to banking more on renewable energy.
For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.
