Contact
Let’s make a down payment on clean energy leadership
Eric Griego
There’s more work to be done to ensure that the earth we leave behind to our children is better than the one we inherited.
Earth Day is an important occasion to remember the strong progress we have made to conserve our precious natural resources and protect our environment. But there’s more work to be done to ensure that the earth we leave behind to our children is better than the one we inherited.
So in addition to celebrating the progress thus far, I believe we should also think about where we need to be in the future, and what Congress needs to do.
By Earth Day 2014, Congress should make a down payment on making the United States the world leader in the new energy economy. How? By passing legislation to invest at least $150 billion directly into creating over 1.5 million clean energy jobs in the United States, and to cut our dependence on costly and dirty fossil fuels that are polluting our air, land and water.
By Earth Day 2014, Congress should pass a moratorium on building new coal power plants. Why? Because American consumers and businesses can save more money and employ more people by investing in clean renewable energy.
And by Earth Day 2014, the United States should commit to lead the world in combating the threat of global climate change by following science. How? By ratifying a treaty to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Dominating the 21st Century economy
Leading economists say the country that masters the development and export of clean renewable energy will dominate the 21st Century economy. After all, leading research estimates that renewable energy investments create 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending, while fossil fuel jobs create only 5.3 jobs per $1 million in spending. That’s why countries in Asia, Europe and South America are racing to transition away from dependency on costly and dirty fossil fuels.
We don’t have to lose this race – but we need more leaders in Congress who aren’t afraid to take on Big Oil and King Coal to fight for what our country needs.
America has ample land where wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other renewable energies can be produced affordably, and to create manufacturing and service jobs in the sector. New Mexico has already seen strong growth in these industries over the past decade.
To pay for this investment in our future, Congress should pass a tax on Wall Street speculation. According to prominent economists, a sales tax on Wall Street speculation of only 0.5 percent could raise up to $175 billion in revenue per year.
Raising revenue this way would be fair: After all, millions of Americans are out of work as a result of irresponsible speculation on Wall Street that led to the financial crisis and then the Great Recession. We have already bailed out Wall Street with billions of our tax dollars through TARP, and it’s time for Wall Street to step up to their responsibility to help people get back to work.
Congress must get it done. Our economy is recovering, but our carbon emissions are increasing along with it for the first time in two years. Scientists warn that pumping more carbon emissions into the atmosphere will only increase destructive weather patterns such as droughts and hurricanes and also harm our respiratory health. Clinging to fossil fuels is shortsighted, but investing in clean energy is a win-win for the environment, public health and jobs.
A clear choice
There is a clear choice for the environment in this race for Congress in New Mexico’s First District. I’m proud that my consistent record of championing clean energy, conservation and smart growth has earned me the endorsements by the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters and Conservation Voters New Mexico.
In the State Senate, I sponsored legislation to direct state investments to these renewable industries. I also sponsored and passed a renewable energy jobs training bill to prepare workers to transition to these industries, and led a fierce effort to successfully defeat rollbacks of state-only carbon cap and participation in the Western Climate Initiative.
And on the Albuquerque City Council, I passed the Renewable Energy Incentive Program, which attracted clean energy jobs into the city.
In Congress, I will join other progressive Democrats to also fight to end Big Oil tax breaks permanently, getting rid of them alongside Bush tax cuts for millionaires. I will also support legislation to increase renewable energy and vehicle fuel efficiency standards. And I will fight the Republican and Big Oil Democrats’ effort to gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
Finally, I will fight to protect our national parks and defend the Endangered Species Act from efforts to gut it by big developers and their allies in Congress.
Griego, a Democrat, is a candidate for the First Congressional District seat in the U.S. House.
11 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
MJM writes: “I see you want to join progressive democrats and fight big oil and big energy. So when all those jobs leave NM how do you think they will be replaced?”
The oil and gas are in NM. Just how would one leave NM and still recover that oil and gas. Same for the coal that fires the plants in the Four Corners. I’d love to hear how the threat of jobs leaving NM is possible when the oil, gas and coal is in NM.
Mr. Griego.
How do you wish to pay for the downpayment? Perhaps by adding to our bloated debt? Having a clean environment is a noble idea, and any politician worth their salt, regardless of political party would want this to happen. It has always amazed me that politicians like yourself suggest the imposition of new taxes and regulations on individuals. Then, as technology changes, we are stuck with these old outdated regulations (and the old outdated politicians who heaped them on us). You do not appear either old or outdated, but your ideas do. Here might be a better suggestion Mr. Griego. How about we put a sunset provision on many of our outdated pollution control regulations. Then, make some suggestions on how to meet goals for cleaner air. These rules too would sunset as technology improves, say in about 5 years.
I see you want to join progressive democrats and fight big oil and big energy. So when all those jobs leave NM how do you think they will be replaced? It sure wont be by the new green energy employers. They are looking more and more like the endangered species you also want to protect.
There are a number of reasonable, rational methods of solving the issue of our being dependent on foreign oil from hostile regimes. There isn’t one size that fits all the problems. Those who advocate against exploring the “green” energy possibilities are not arguing from a rational or reasonable position, rather they are arguing against a process on political grounds. We are a long way from exhausting the exploration of wind, solar, algae, geothermal, passive solar or other alternative methodologies. The investment in the research of alternative methodologies pales in comparison to the enormous amounts poured into nuclear and carbon based energy. Critical thinkers know that we have a long way to go before we declare alternative methods untenable. Political hacks can’t see past the short gains of attacking newer methodologies as somehow suspect or weird or unproven. Few but historians can recall the names of those who were certain that the new-fangled gas engines would destroy civilization and never work. Remember “Fulton’s Folly”? History is thick with critics of anything new or that did not support the status quo or who were so convinced of their personal knowledge of the future they couldn’t fathom a paradigm shift they didn’t first thing to espouse.
The candle industry was done in by kerosene not Edison’s bulb, just thought I’d shed some light on that.
Hard to convince the dreamers and the ignorant that it ain’t the technology that’s missing but the competitive position solar and wind have in the marketplace. Power companies incur extra costs to comply with clean energy mandates imposed by pols responding to the dreamers. They pass those costs on to the ratepayers, of course. But i have faith in our prez who tells us that algae is the answer.
Thomas Edison made the first public demonstration of his incandescent light bulb on December 31, 1879. Unfortunately if this was 1879 the same critics of green energy would be up in arms against Edison since he would hurt the candle industry.
Research in “clean energy” began at least 35 yr ago at both Los Alamos and Sandia. A new national lab was established about the same time at Golden, CO called Solar Energy Research Institute–SERI. It is now called the National Renewable Energy Laboratory–NREL. One would think, listening to these snake-oil salesmen like Griego and Solyndra, that all we need is more research and subsidies until wind and solar can compete in the marketplace. Any engineer who knows his butt from a light socket knows solar and wind can NEVER provide sufficient energy to fill all the US power needs. Supplement? yes. And yes, nuclear can provide the electrical needs but the worshipers at the shrine of the environment won’t allow it. Finally, it would be several more lifetimes, if ever, before the 230 million autos on US roads can operate on other than fossil fuel.
Excellent points Mr. Goodenow, I would agree with all of them with a few additions. First of all nuclear power has to be fully recognized as the best, most efficient, and most economical of all the “green” alternate energy sources immediately available to us. I know left wingers like Griego, who are bought and paid for by the enviro-lobby, totally reject it, but it is the only currently available technology that is economic, and that would reduce real air pollution (like NOx, SOx, O3, Hg, etc.) and reduce even the phony, overhyped and nonexistent catastrophic “dangers” of CO2 at the same time.
In addition, there is fresh and long overdue bipartisan clear thinking in DC, of all places, about subsidies for wind and solar. The Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and World Resources Institute are proposing a targeted and temporary support plan for subsidies to solar or any other alternate energy subsidies by us taxpayers. The subsidies will decline over time and technology improvements must occur along with cost improvements or they would be pulled. So no more Solyndras, Evergreen Solars, etc. This is the only way to make new technology happen and we get away from centuries old designs for solar, wind, etc. that are currently being put in place that are not anywhere close to being able to compete with fossil fuels wrt costs. Let’s hope the left wing special interests in DC don’t derail this from becoming law soon. And in that regard, Griego would not be one supporting a responsible, economic, and technologically focused approach to “green”, he loves the endless taxpayer subsidies with no responsibility to improve technology or become economic on their own, as do his funding sources.
Just more typical left wing rants and talking points from NM’s #1 left winger. Honestly, how could anyone take this guy seriously, you may as well just watch Rach and the other left wing talking heads on MSNBC or link into MoveOn or the Daily Kos, at least they are original and have some education in what they talk about.
And an excellent question Mr. Spear, but you do know “fair” to the left wing means to each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities. It also means no one should make or have more than anyone else, that isn’t “fair” is it, we should all be “equal”, another good left wing word. And the concept of “fair” to the left wing means whatever is fair in their opinion, no other input is needed, as they are the ultimate authorities for “fair”. And after all, the left wing know that the recent recession was solely caused by evil Wall Street speculators, nobody else could be responsible for it, could they?
There is a lot that I could say about this article, but I would like to ask a question instead.
What is the basis and proof of the following statement: “Raising revenue this way would be fair: After all, millions of Americans are out of work as a result of irresponsible speculation on Wall Street that led to the financial crisis and then the Great Recession.”
I agree with some of what you are saying, Senator Griego, including phasing out coal-powered electric power plants. I also strongly advocate clean energy. But I think that with a huge budget deficit we must prioritize, and new investments in education and job training should be our number one priority as we move toward a balanced budget as soon as possible.
The problem with Kyoto-style mandates is that they would take $25 trillion out of the global economy by the year 2100 but only bring down global temperatures by one degree. This is not good public policy.
The much better approach, in my view, is to create a lot more incentives for clean energy — to catalyze the market to innovate. There may be a role for federal R&D on bringing down the cost of solar until it reaches grid parity. We did this big-time in 2009 and 2010 but now all the tax incentives have run out and Congress is not renewing them.
If government itself invests $150 billion directly into energy companies and R&D, a lot of things will go wrong. Tax incentives with a little R&D to help solar become more affordable seems the best approach.
Ultimately, it is each state that will decide the future of electric power plants. Our next Congressman won’t impact this from Washington, in my view.
So we share the same goal — moving into America’s clean energy as fast as possible — and we agree government should phase out coal-powered plants. But I am a bit dubious about the rest of your big-government approach.
I’m also disappointed you didn’t mention hydropower. Senator Jeff Bingaman and Congressman Ben Ray Lujan are strong advocates of hydropower. Congressman Martin Heinrich is not. But 66% of renewable energy in this country is from hydropower, and I don’t see how anyone can say they are for renewable energy and be against hydropower.