California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the biggest state-funded green jobs training program in the nation. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
California is putting together
a huge green jobs training program.
Lester Graham reports it will mean
thousands of workers trained for a
growing part of the economy:
Transcript
California is putting together
a huge green jobs training program.
Lester Graham reports it will mean
thousands of workers trained for a
growing part of the economy:
Last week, lost in the news of wildfires and state budget problems, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the biggest state-funded green jobs training program in the nation. California is leveraging federal stimulus dollars with state money and public-private partnership matching funds.
“This $75-million program will train more than 20,000 workers for clean and green jobs in the future.”
Green jobs – such as repairing hybrid and electric cars, installing solar panels and building wind turbines.
Governor Schwarzenegger says this Clean Energy Workforce Training Program is where economic growth starts.
“There are still people out there who think that protecting the environment will slow the economy down, but it’s quite the opposite here in California and all over the United States.”
Some business leaders say the green sector likely will be the only growth sector in this economy for a while.
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.
Environmental groups and labor unions say the climate change bill will create green jobs. Some businesses disagree. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:
Transcript
The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:
The details of the senate bill are still being worked out. The House version included a carbon cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gases and raise revenue for clean energy projects.
Environmental groups and labor unions are in favor of cap-and-trade. Jeff Rickert heads up the AFL-CIO’s Center for Green Jobs.
“The climate change bill is a potential stream of revenue to really make the green jobs, the clen-tech industry a reality.”
Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make energy more expensive.
“This legislation is a job killer.”
Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers.
“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 suggests the government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in clean technologies.
The two sides are taking their arguments to the public this month.
Until recently, there hasn’t been an order for a new nuclear plant in 30 years.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Some Senate Republicans want the climate
change bill to focus on building new nuclear
power plants. They’re calling for as many as
100 new plants in 20 years. But the industry
has been in decline for so many years now,
there’s concern there might not be enough
nuclear engineers to do the job. Julie Grant
reports:
Transcript
Some Senate Republicans want the climate
change bill to focus on building new nuclear
power plants. They’re calling for as many as
100 new plants in 20 years. But the industry
has been in decline for so many years now,
there’s concern there might not be enough
nuclear engineers to do the job. Julie Grant
reports:
There’s a lot of new interest in nuclear energy and technology these days. But there’s a problem.
The American Nuclear Society estimates they need 700 new nuclear engineers per year to keep up with growing the demand. It’s enough to give long-time nuclear supporters whip-lash. Until recently, things looked gloomy for the nuclear industry.
William Martin is chair of the nuclear engineering department at the University of Michigan. Ten years ago, he says no new plants were being designed or built. And he was having a tough time finding students.
“A student entering the field, what you could tell them was, ‘well, there’s a big focus on waste.’ That’s not hardly something that excites young students to enter the field.”
Martin remembers standing on the stage at graduation in the mid 1990s to call the names of his graduates. Other engineering departments had so many students, it took an hour to call them all. But Martin only had a few names to call.
“Our students trip across in about ten seconds.”
Lots of nuclear engineering programs didn’t make it through the down times. There are less than half the university programs today than there were 30 years ago.
Nuclear got a bad name starting in 1979 – with the meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. That was followed by the deadly nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine in the ‘80s.
By the early 1990s, President Clinton announced he would eliminate funding for nuclear power research and development.
Until recently, there hasn’t been an order for a new nuclear plant in 30 years.
Vaughn Gilbert is spokesman for Westinghouse Electric Company, which focuses on nuclear energy.
He says Westinghouse laid off a lot its engineers in the down years. A decade ago, those who were left were heading toward retirement. So, Gilbert says, the company started working with universities to train engineering students to run its aging nuclear plants.
“Simply because we knew we would need to attract new people to maintain the existing fleet and then also to work with our customers to decommission the plants as they came offline.”
Westinghouse and other nuclear companies started giving lots of money to maintain university programs.
And then, everyone started worrying about climate change – and looking for ways to make energy that wouldn’t create more greenhouse gases. Nuclear power has started making a comeback.
Gilbert says new plants are in the works again – and Westinghouse needs engineers. The company’s designs will be used in six new U.S. plants.
The timing is pretty good for 25 year old Nick Touran. He’s a PhD student in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan. He knows there’s a negative stigma to nuclear power – because he’s asked people about it.
“I just say, ‘so what do you think about nuclear power?’ Just to passersby on the street. And one person said, ‘I only think one thing – no, no, no, no, no.’”
But Touran says the negative stuff mostly comes from older people. When Three Mile Island melted-down, Touran wasn’t even born yet. He says most people his age are much more accepting of nuclear power.
“It’s the people who remember Three Mile Island and remember Chernobyl and remember World War II, who have all these very negative associations with nuclear weapons and Soviet reactors that were built incredibly wrong. And stuff like that.”
Touran says much of his generation just sees a power source that doesn’t create greenhouse gases.
Of course, there are greenhouse gases created in the process of manufacturing nuclear fuel rods. And then there’s that pesky problem of that spent nuclear waste. There’s still no permanent place to dump it.
Touran says he started studying nuclear power because he was amazed by it. But as the number of students in his department grows, he says more are choosing nuclear because it’s a smart career choice.
Employers are hoping to cut down on costs and commutes by switching to a four-day work week (Photo by Ed Edahl, courtesy of FEMA)
With gas well over four dollars a
gallon, more employers are offering the
four-day work week as a way to cut down on
commuting costs. Rebecca Williams reports
it can boost morale, but it might not always
save on gas:
Transcript
With gas well over four dollars a
gallon, more employers are offering the
four-day work week as a way to cut down on
commuting costs. Rebecca Williams reports
it can boost morale, but it might not always
save on gas:
If you want to skip out on a day of commuting you could fake a stomach
flu – or you could talk your boss into letting you work four 10 hour days,
and then take a nice long weekend, every single weekend.
But an eight hour day can seem long. Working 10 hours in a row, well,
let’s just say you might take a lot more YouTube breaks.
Denise Truesdell is a legal secretary. She’s been working four day weeks
on a trial period. She admits working 10 hours straight can be tough.
“By noon I feel like I could curl up and take a quick little nap but you just have to keep moving. I
have to run to the vending machine and get a little sweet just to keep my energy level up.”
But she says she loves having three day weekends, and that’s what keeps
her going.
“I think some employers are leery of the four day week because they don’t think productivity is
going to be there, people get tired easier. But I think it’s an incentive for people to maybe work a
little harder because they’ve got something to look forward to.”
Bosses like the 4 day week because they can sometimes save money by
closing the office one day a week, and they can make their employees a
little happier.
John Walsh oversees 94 custodians at Kent State University in Ohio.
He’s trying out the four day week for his workers.
“They’re not the highest paid on campus. With this summer coming up and the rise of gas I
brought it up and challenged my supervision to see if we could come up with a plan to make this
work.”
He won his supervisors over, so the schedule’s in full swing. He says it’s
actually easier to get projects done with 10 hour days. Things like
stripping and waxing a floor. And Walsh says his workers love cutting
back on their commutes.
“Well I’ve been in this position for eight years and I think this is the highest our morale has ever
been. Teamwork is the highest I’ve ever seen it.”
Walsh says they have to make sure there’s enough staff on duty to get
everything done – like making sure trash doesn’t pile up.
Quite a few companies and government offices are taking the four day
week seriously. Utah’s governor just made it mandatory for most state
employees. And at least eight other state governments are offering 4
day weeks or at least considering them.
They say they’re helping out employees who are feeling squeezed by gas
prices. And a lot of people say they save at least one tank of gas a
month.
But a short work week might not always be an energy saver. Frank
Stafford is an economist at the University of Michigan. He studies how
people use their time.
“So would you on your now newly awarded Friday off stay home and save gas? You might drive as
many miles on your day off as you did roundtrip. It’s pretty subtle. People are going to say well,
I’ve got a third day off, so why don’t I drive around and do some errands and enjoy myself?”
But Stafford says, still, there’s a clear trend happening. He thinks more
employers will offer flexible schedules as gas prices rise. And as those
gas prices stick around, they’re probably going to change our traditional
work weeks for good.
The creation of 'green-collar' jobs may help the Rust Belt's unemployment problems (Photo by Lester Graham)
The nation’s economy is in decline, and
the middle states that make up the Rust Belt have
been hit particularly hard with job losses. Some
Midwest states have turned to a new type of
manufacturing and the so-called green collar jobs
it creates. Marianne Holland reports:
Transcript
The nation’s economy is in decline, and
the middle states that make up the Rust Belt have
been hit particularly hard with job losses. Some
Midwest states have turned to a new type of
manufacturing and the so-called green collar jobs
it creates. Marianne Holland reports:
Nationwide, just over half the states have passed some sort of laws or incentives geared at
getting green manufacturing jobs. In the nation’s rust belt,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Ohio already have green policy in place.
Ron Pernick is a co-founder of CleanEdge. That’s a national green manufacturing research
organization. Pernick says those jobs, are in one of the major growth sectors in American
manufacturing. They’re growing at a rate of about 30% each year. In Iowa, property tax abatements are given to green manufacturing. In Illinois, the state has passed laws requiring utilities to get a portion of their energy from wind or solar power. Pernick says public policy translates to more jobs.
“If you think about creating new industry, you can’t export development. You’ve got to
hire local people to put in the wind turbines, to install the solar farms, to put solar on top
of rooftops. And those jobs can never be exported.”
But other states have been slow to change policy to embrace green manufacturing. In Michigan, green energy legislation has been tied up in
the State Senate. An in states like Indiana, there are no laws or business incentives even on the table to attract the green
manufacturing industry.
Indiana State Representative Ryan Dvorak blames the big power companies for lobbying against incentives to create green jobs.
“I’m not sure why they have so much sway in the state with the different legislators but
they don’t want to give up any ground basically. Obviously they make their money by
generating and selling electricity, so any loss in market share, they’re motivated to
stop that legislation.”
The power companies say they’re just looking out for their customers.
Angeline Protegere is a spokesperson for Duke Energy. Protegere says renewable energy is
moving forward without state regulations. She says Duke understands that some day
regulations will come. But she says that will be at a high risk.
“We constantly have to balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic
responsibilities to our customers because they pay for the cost of pollution control
through their bills.”
And the power companies’ lobbyists persuade legislators it’s in the best interests of the people to block incentives for green jobs. Representative Dvorak thinks his colleagues are being misled.
Jesse Kharbanda is with the Hoosier Environmental Council. He says in his state and others that ignore the green jobs opportunity, workers are being left behind.
“We’re obviously in this situation where Indiana has historically had a formidable
manufacturing base and that base has been continuously eroded because of globalization.
We’re not in any time going to fundamentally change Indiana’s economy and so we have
to deal with the labor force as it is. We have a good, technically minded labor base, but
the question is: what sectors are we creating in the state to employ that technical labor
base. And one of them ought to be the green technology sector.”
Kharbanda says it’s a state’s public policy, tax breaks, and other incentives that will attract the
most green collar jobs. Without those incentives, unemployed factory workers in Rust Belt
states will have to hope for some kind of recovery in manufacturing, or take lower paying, service sector jobs.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the biggest state-funded green jobs training program in the nation. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
