The Nelson-Collins War On Green Jobs
The Nelson-Collins War On Green Jobs
Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are leading a bipartisan effort in the Senate to strip hundreds of billions of dollars from the economic recovery plan, which makes strong, job-creating investments in the public welfare, from health care to clean energy. Because of Republican threats to filibuster the bill, votes of senators like them are key to passage. But the Nelson-Collins gang’s proposed cuts disproportionately harm women, children, and their future. The Wonk Room has already detailed their plan to cut support for education and health care. Nelson and Collins also looking to eliminate tens of billions of dollars in programs that would invest in a green economy:
They’re also proposing cutting $750 million from NASA’s exploration budget. These proposed cuts come on top of the Senate’s plan to cut half the funding for the Green Jobs Act from the House-approved package. Nor have Nelson and Collins proposed to cut the $4.6 billion in support for advanced coal plant research or $50 billion in nuclear loan guarantees. Support for coal and nuclear programs would have extremely low job-creation potential and would disproportionately help industries which contribute millions of dollars to Congress.
- increasing funding for green-collar job training and other key workforce training programs;
- increased investments in ready-to-go transit projects and rail upgrades;
- the Feingold amendment, allowing utilities to access funds for large-scale energy efficiency projects in private buildings;
- the Udall amendment, co-sponsored by Kerry, Whitehouse and Bingaman, to increase funding for State Energy Programs;
- construction and renovation projects that prioritize energy efficiency; and
- loan guarantees for retooling factories and retraining workers to "Make it in America."
25 Responses to “The Nelson-Collins War On Green Jobs”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
OOOHHHH those stupid f%cks. I’m boiling mad right now at this idiocy. Nothing is more important to the future economy than immediate investment in Alternative Energy infrastructure. I hope that this change is fought hard by other Senators, or by Dems in the House.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pmThis is supposed to be a stimulus plan, not a straight out investment/spending bill. They should definitely do everything they’ve listed, but right now this bill needs to be focused only on job creation that hits this year and next at the latest.
Why can’t they put the other items into a separate spending bill? They will probably get even more $ for them then since the majority agrees that we need to develop so much for our future.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:35 pmThanks guys! Whatever you do, you need to stop Senate Democrats from compromising! If they make a deal, this crap sandwich will get passed! And that’s the last thing any of us wants.
We are all brothers, and we can work together to make sure Obama’s presidency starts off with an enormous black eye!
February 6th, 2009 at 5:41 pmEnergy Development is incredibly important as Stimulus. Not only is it stimulus, but it pays itself off in the end, unlike many of the other components of the Bill.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:01 pmOne of the problems people seem to be overlooking here with Obama’s approach is that when you continue to say, “The economy is tanking. Things are going to only get worse”, people say, well in that case, i’m just not going to spend anything, which also makes it worse.
As for this bill, I have my doubts as to whether its going to work. At some point we do have to ask ourselves how much debt we can afford. At some point, just the interest on the debt is going to get to the point where we cant afford to spend anything on actual government programs. Either that or each of us will have to fork over a great deal more of our incomes, which will lead to its own issues, as people will not have any money to spend. I think its perfectly reasonable for senators to say, hey, lets take a deep look at this and not fire from the hip.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:35 pmWow – people posting conservative comments as ignorant and hateful as the people they voted for. Why does this continue to surprise me?
February 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pmI think it’s a great idea to cut billions of dollars if the main goal is to ‘invest in a green economy’. The stimulus should be used for specific projects with specific, short term goals. A green economy should focus on renewable sources of energy as its top priority (versus carbon emissions).
Failing renewables, the next logical thing is to invest in bettering proven sources of energy to make them more efficient and less expensive.
Hence… (n)or have Nelson and Collins proposed to cut the $4.6 billion in support for advanced coal plant research or $50 billion in nuclear loan guarantees… makes perfect sense to me. Advanced coal plant research will help make the environment cleaner, keep homes powered, and provide the juice at more affordable rates.
If coal is so abundant in the US, and most of our electricity comes from coal powered plants, we should definitly spend the money to ensure its long term sustainability (to the environment).
But then again, I see the most ’stimulating’ dollar as one spent with a specific purpose. If the purpose is generally ‘to create jobs’ or ‘invest in a green economy,’ we may as well pay people to follow other people around and waggle a fan at them, rather than run the air conditioner. Does it really help the economy? No. Does it make jobs and provide for a better environment? Yes!
Support for coal and nuclear programs would have extremely low job-creation potential…
And again, ask yourself what the goal of the stimulus is supposed to be. Job creation? Pay people to dig holes and then fill them in. Better economy? Place the funding where it’s proven to help, or will help an already prolific energy source become better.
…and would disproportionately help industries which contribute millions of dollars to Congress.
I thought we were supposed to become more bipartisan and focus on results. Apparently helping industries that contribute money to Congress is bad now? Alright, then perfect stimulus right there. Outright ban lobbying, and all those Washington lobbyists and their large salaries will be out of work, and that money can better ’stimulate’ the economy elsewhere.
I like this idea. Let’s keep rolling with it. Ah! Let’s cut private fundraising for politicians so money people would spend to change other people’s opinions gets spent somewhere that actually impacts job creation!
Which candidate opted out of public financing first, again?
February 6th, 2009 at 6:40 pmNfilheim
I like the way you think.
February 6th, 2009 at 7:45 pmNfilheim: You do recognize that “The stimulus should be used for specific projects with specific, short term goals” and having it fund “Advanced coal plant research” is contradictory, right?
The coal plant research projects employ very few people per dollar and will spend out over a ten-year timespan. Carbon capture and sequestration is years, possibly decades away from being “proven.” It may be a worthwhile investment of federal money (and if tied to an emissions performance standard, would be) but they’re considerably less stimulative than the renewable energy loan guarantee program.
The real reason the coal money is staying in has nothing to do with ideology — it’s pretty much straight pork barrel politics.
I appreciate the optimism of commenters who believe we only need “short term” stimulus. Unfortunately, we spent the last eight years destroying our economy, financial system, and infrastructure. It’s going to be a while before we dig ourselves out.
George Packer’s piece in the New Yorker on the Florida housing crash, “The Ponzi State,” is a good reminder of what we’re up against.
It’s important to recognize that the Senate didn’t significantly change the size of the recovery plan, for all their talk of “trimming fat” and “bloated” Christmas trees — they just skewed it more towards corporations and the wealthy.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:39 amNfilheim: Lobbying is a first amendment right.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am“Susan Collins (D-ME)” should be “Susan Collins (R-ME)”
Although Nelson is, in fact, a Dem.
Ed. — Thanks.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:54 amprofessor j, cheers.
Brad, I was not actually being serious about banning lobbying. It was just a rhetorical flourish about putting money into something that will yield ’stimulating’ results.
The point I was trying to make is that green investment which you concede is “possibly decades away from being ‘proven’” does not provide any short term benefits. Surely, it is a spending program so the money will be going towards something, and may in fact lead to breakthroughs down the road, but the problem I see lies in the amount of money being spent. Green energy is a luxury investment, and should not be a priority right now. Perhaps a few years down the road when the economy is restored and we have money to play with.
And I would be happy to say that I also see advanced coal plant research as a luxury investment, but, one that will yield quicker results, and sooner lead to more energy independence, and therefore, be one worth pursuing.
Using your cited figures, that goes from at minimum 25 billions of dollars (from ten(s) of billions in green investment and 4.6 billion in coal research) to 5 billion in spending, an effective ‘discount’ of 20 billion dollars that we do not need to pay interest and find cash for. And this would still provide a green result, namely, ‘cleaner’ coal, albeit a more short term fix than a long one. If this price tag for a green result is not appealing, then I would be in favor of jettisoning it as well for something with more short term stimulus!
For instance infrastructure spending on city rails, bridge and road repairs, extending and modernizing rail lines (and logically, extending the parking lots of said rail stations so more people can park and use them) and also reclamation projects. Either for wilderness, forests, and parks, or run down and dilapidated neighborhoods. This would have the added benefit of increasing house value, neighborhood value, and possibly helping chip away at a declining housing market.
But back to topic, I recognize the merit in your idea of killing two birds with one stone; in green investment and more stimulating spending. I would just prefer it not contribute to higher interest payments, and a larger price tag for the current stimulus.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pmAdvanced coal plant research will not “yield quicker results.” Carbon capture and sequestration is years, possibly decades from implementation.
The renewable loan guarantees pared down by the Senate are not for R&D but for commercial projects — i.e. the kind of immediate return you profess to support.
On the question of “reclamation projects” to increase “neighborhood value”: 73 Senators (including every Republican and 33 Democrats) voted on Friday to block stimulus funds from going to thousands of shovel-ready projects that would create jobs immediately, make communities safer, and improve neighborhood value: “”None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway beautification project.” “
February 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pmWoops. This is why I need to do some more research before posting. Apparently carbon capture and sequestration is a major part of advanced coal plant research, and in that case, you are right, it will not yield quicker results. Cut it out!
But per loan guarantees, from the DOE website, the program “aims to facilitate early commercial use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy related projects” with the “goal of reducing our reliance on imported sources of energy by diversifying our nation’s energy mix, increasing energy efficiency and improving the environment.”
I like the idea to move 4.6 billion for coal research into the loan guarantee program and help get some of these commercial projects funded so we can better ascertain their long term benefits.
Thank you for pointing it out, and I accordingly adjust my stance.
However, per the quoted items above in the chart, they could still be cut as luxury spending. Alternative fuel cars for the department of defense? They are called bikes. And if they must drive something, there are used cars available that get over 25 mpg that they can slap a decal on. No need for a brand new, shiny car.
But that is *only* $100 million. It also makes sense to cut $200 million in NIST funding and allow private companies to develop smart card technologies if they are that necessary. Heck, it would be a business incentive for current credit card companies to develop, anyway, if it increases security and makes identity theft more preventable.
There is more that can be cut, too, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop there.
And per “reclamation projects,” and Senators voting against them, it is a travesty. I am not sure if you are for or against, but I stand by both my representatives that voted ‘Nay’ on Friday.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pmWant a plan that could employ 100,000s within three months AND cut energy usage?
Have the federal government finance energy audits of homes, businesses, schools etc. Then subsidize private contractors to “weatherize” the structures.
The weatherization isn’t rocket science and would require little training for most contractors and workers. The audits could jumpstart a business which we need desperately to promote energy conservation.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:13 pmAre you folks,who are so in love with “green”, the same ones who cried foul when ethanol plants started using up all the corn? We are not going to get away from fossil fuels for a long,long, time. Nuclear energy is something we should be pushing for. Forget the carbon crap. That is all a dream about nothing. You think cap in trade will cause a stimulus for the economy?
February 7th, 2009 at 11:56 pmOr are you the same folks who parade for wind energy, but not in my backyard?
The California Conservation Corps has been doing green jobs for over thirty years and while the rest of the country is embracing and investing, California is trying to eliminate them…See story from NY Times…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08corps.html
February 8th, 2009 at 2:25 amgrassfarmer – ethanol is a dirty, inefficient, but renewable source of energy. I, personally, think it’s silly to invest in ethanol. Furthermore, who are the people who don’t want wind in their backyards? Wind turbines pay to lease the land from the farmers on whose land they build.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pmAlso – clean coal is a silly myth. It will never exist. Coal companies will continue to invest 95% of their budgets for clean coal technology on marketing the fact that they have money set aside for clean coal. The other 5% will go to lobby congress to give them sweet tax breaks for polluting.
Smart energy policy now!!!
February 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pmI am so mad I could spit nails. The Repugnican obstructionists are going to kill us yet. If we have 60 votes for OBAMA’s bill then let’s get it over with and get this passed before the Repugnicans take us all to the cleaners. THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL OF OUR MONEY AND NOW THEY WANT TO PREVENT US FROM HAVING ANY LIVILIHOOD OR WAY OF LIVING FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE! I am getting angrier by the minute. I really have to stop reading about all their ‘kvetching’. THEY LOST! THEIR ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE BANKRUPT! The sheeple will always believe what they have to say, because they do not have the ability to think beyond STUPID TRADITION! This is a new world folks. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL OR CLEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY WHEN ARE YOU REPUGNICANS GOING TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. Actually, I don’t think the republicans are stupid, THEY ARE JUST MEAN AND NARCISSCISTIC! THEIR WORLD IS MORALLY BANKRUPT AND PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO THEM!
February 9th, 2009 at 2:53 pmThe American people have once again been suckered into believing that a President can make a difference in this country. Since Congress will never ever pass a bill on term limits for themselves its about time the public implements its own term limits. It would be nice if someone started a campaign that educated the public on who is really in control of this country. That we should not reelect anyone in the House or the Senate that has been in office for more than 5 years and continue this cycle until Congress gets the picture that we are fed up and we want real change in Washington.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pmU.S. breaks hundreds of cold and 63 new snowfall records! – October 30, 2008
U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold temperature records! (NOAA data for ‘lowest minimum temperature’ for October 29, 2008) Excerpt: Total Number of Records for October 29, 2008 – (out of 5,420 stations with at least 30 years of data) – New: 83 + Tied: 32 = Total: 115 – U.S. Records – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Climatic Data Center
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=10&day=29&year=2008&submitted=Get+Records
U.S. breaks or ties 168 cold temperature records! (NOAA data for ‘lowest maximum temperature’ for October 29, 2008 Excerpt: Total Number of Records for October 29, 2008 – (out of 5,364 stations with at least 30 years of data) – New: 120 + Tied: 48 = Total: 168
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=lomx&month=10&day=29&year=2008&submitted=Get+Records
U.S. sees 63 new snowfall records! (NOAA data for record snowfall for October 29, 2008)
Excerpt: Total Number of Records for October 29, 2008 – (out of 11,161 stations with at least 30 years of data) = New: 63 + Tied: 0 = Total: 63
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=snow&month=10&day=29&year=2008&submitted=Get+Records
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/artic_icecap_is_melting_even_in_winter_.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/the_methane_time_bomb_.html
February 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pmRecent papers at SPPI
Wind Energy will be an early test of Obama’s White House Staff
Written by Glenn R. Schleede
President-elect Obama has said that he would promote “wind farms” as one way to create more jobs. This idea is consistent with popular wisdom about wind energy and, therefore, sounded good while Mr. Obama was in the Senate and during his presidential campaign.
The problem for Mr. Obama now is that this popular wisdom is wrong. Contrary to reports issued by various wind energy advocates, “wind farms” provide few energy, environmental, or economic benefits and create very few jobs – far fewer than could be achieved if the money was used for other investments. Also, wind energy has adverse impacts that advocates like to ignore.
=============
A Glimpse Inside the Global Warming Controversy
Written by William DiPuccio
“Do you believe in Global Warming?” I have often been asked this question by people with little or no scientific background. It seems like a simple question that demands a “yes” or “no” answer. But in reality it is a complex question that cannot be reduced to an unqualified “yea” or “nay”. The intent of this paper is not to resolve this question by rallying evidence for or against Global Warming (as if that can be done in a few pages!), but rather to lay bare the complexity of the climate change issue. Those who come to appreciate this fact will likely agree that simple answers are not only bad education, but can lead to bad policies.
==================
Polar Bears, Climate Change, and Human Dignity
Written by Douglas Clark, Martina Tyrrell, Martha Dowsley, A. Lee Foote, Milton Freeman and Susan G. Clark
Polar bears are recognized worldwide as living symbols of the Arctic, and have recently become prominent symbols in international campaigns to combat global climate change. On May 14, 2008 a slightly different symbolic association was presented to the world. Against a backdrop of American flags and large photos of polar bears, the US Secretary of the Interior announced his government’s decision to list polar bears worldwide as a threatened species due to declining Arctic sea ice. Explicit in the same announcement was the current US administration’s clear determination to prevent this listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) from being used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) or obstruct energy developments deemed vital to US interests.
=====================
Romm’s Fairy Tales – Where Cold is Warm
Written by Joseph D’Aleo, AMS Fellow, CCM
In another fable on Climate Progress, chief alarmist blogger Joseph Romm claims “The climate story of the decade is that the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14C warmer than the 1980s (see datasets here). Global warming is accelerating, as predicted.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:58 pmwindy Says:
——————————————————————————–
grassfarmer – ethanol is a dirty, inefficient, but renewable source of energy. I, personally, think it’s silly to invest in ethanol. Furthermore, who are the people who don’t want wind in their backyards? Wind turbines pay to lease the land from the farmers on whose land they build.
Ted Kennedy. He has been fighting against wind energy off the coast of his Hyanis home. You can’t even see them from his house or the beach they are so far out.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pmBased on the activity and innovation shown at http://www.greencollareconomy.com, the last place we should be cutting investment is in the green economy. Let’s make sure we invest in something that is going to lead to a new, long-term economic engine, and sustainability is it.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm