NEWSGREEN JOBS

Some political traditions are hard to take issue with. A few examples might include the State of the Union Address (most of the time) or the presidential turkey pardoning. Of course there are many, many others that most of us would probably rather see scrapped. In the Maryland General Assembly one such highly dispensable tradition is the tendency to take at least two years to pass vital, transformative clean-energy legislation like Governor Martin O’Malley’s Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2011.

That bill, which would have initiated a process to construct a 400 – 600MW wind farm about ten miles off of the coast of Ocean City, stalled in the General Assembly late last week after months of productive debate and relentless pressure for passage from citizens across the state. Advocates for the bill had done their homework for those debates, and came armed with numerous studies on Maryland offshore wind energy and detailed answers for essentially any major question or concern legislators could raise. Still, that apparently just wasn’t thorough enough for some lawmakers who decided to shelve the measure for reconsideration next year, citing the need for “further study”.

It’s unclear what additional evidence legislators could need regarding the bill’s potential benefits to Maryland. After all advocates had supplied very convincing data to show that the bill would create thousands of manufacturing jobs for Maryland workers, cut global warming and other air pollution, and provide stable, reliable energy prices for over two decades. And as if that wasn’t sufficient, the bill included an escape clause which would have allowed state officials to throw out any proposals from wind developers that could not reasonably ensure such benefits to Marylanders.

One of the great ironies of the national clean energy debate is that the current lack of a robust green-jobs sector is now often used as an excuse to block policies needed to grow it.

It’s a little bit like complaining that we shouldn’t waste water on a dry garden because the seeds haven’t sprouted yet.

Nevertheless, green jobs skepticism is now en vogue among some politicians, as has become clear in the debate over the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2011. More than one member of the two General Assembly committees that may vote on the bill this week have expressed concerns that the thousands of promised offshore wind energy jobs could go to neighboring states, even as they suggested waiting and letting other states take the lead on developing the Mid-Atlantic offshore wind energy industry.

In other words, they're worried about entering the race for fear we might lose. How’s that for political leadership?

"Win-win." "Win-win-win." "Win-win-win-win?"

Politicians often find themselves jockeying over how many "wins" they can string together in one of Washington, D.C.'s most overused catchphrases. Ironically, right under their noses is a real and totally missed winning opportunity to create jobs.

This Thursday, March 17th, the Nonprofit Technology Network is hosting eCycleDC!, a one-of-a-kind electronics recycling event, as part of its national day of service. I'm really impressed with the thought behind the program.

Here's how it works:

On March 17th, any company, non-profit or government agency that wants to recycle its surplus computer equipment can, at no cost, bring it to the Community of Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) Homeless Shelter, just a few blocks from Capitol Hill (See the website for a list of acceptable donations and more details). 

Fear and money, as these past few years of recession have made abundantly clear, are two very powerful political forces especially when combined. And as we’re seeing right now in places like Wisconsin, powerful political and corporate players are hard at work exploiting fears over money to advance their political agendas. It’s the worst form of cynical political ploys – a stratagem that attacks vital public services in the name of public service, and that ultimately only serves private moneyed interests.

And it’s a stratagem that was on full display by critics and opponents of Governor Martin O’Malley’s Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act at the bill’s first hearing in the the state's General Assembly this past Thursday.

Undoubtedly stoked by somewhat misleading media reportage about the costs of the legislation for Maryland electric rate payers, certain members of the House Economic Matters Committee set the tone for the hearing by showering the Governor and his administration officials with questions about how the bill would affect their constituents’ pocketbooks.

Before there was busting unions, there was blocking high-speed rail.  This is how new Republican governors are trying to appease their conservative base. Governors Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) and John Kasich (R-Ohio) together rejected $1.2 billion in federal grants for high-speed rail at the beginning of their terms.

Now, Governor Rick Scott (R-Fla.) is attempting to follow suit on a much larger scale.  Two weeks ago, he rejected $2.4 billion to build America’s first true high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. There’s just one problem with his plan: Floridians want this train. Modern infrastructure stimulates local economies, and with the federal government footing the bill, to many residents, this project seems like just what the area needs.

High-speed rail was not always controversial.  It has become a partisan touchstone only recently.  So even in this political climate, it is no surprise to see a bipartisan pair of Florida state senators fighting back against Gov. Scott.

My experiences with truckers has been limited to commiserating with them in gas stations on endless Texas highways. Not last week. I attended the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference in Washington D.C. and got to know another side of the life of a trucker.

It's not easy. Alex Mejia, a father of two boys and a trucker in the Port of Los Angeles, told us, "I work 14 to 18 hours a day, but I still am not able to bring enough money to the house to pay my bills. Sometimes I have to choose between buying a filter for my truck and a gallon of milk. That's what it is."

He used to own his own truck, and worked as an independent contractor for a trucking company. Then, the trucking company decided that it wanted to make full-time employees of all their independent contractors, but the truckers would have to give up their own trucks and drive newer models. But then the trucking company switched them again—back to independent contractors. The problem with this? They are now forced to bear the costs of upkeep for newer trucks that don't even belong to them. These costs include registration, maintenance, fuel, insurance, tires, and costly pollution controls. It's not cheap—an average of $60,000 over seven years, which is the average life of a lease.

It has become pretty clear by now that the Republican party has become the "party of No." Can you think of anything the Republican party is actually for, other than tax cuts for the rich?

A few newly-elected Republicans even ran on an anti-high-speed-rail agenda this year. Seriously, what political leader opposes better transportation that creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, improves the economy, and aims to keep the U.S. from being the last country in the developed world without high-speed rail?

Governor-elects Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio carried their anti-rail torches to the finish line this election season, vowing to send over one billion dollars of federal stimulus funds back to Washington. Wisconsin had been awarded $810 million for a 110-mph line connecting Milwaukee and Madison, and Ohio had been awarded $400 million to build a Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland route.

“…a key part of our clean energy future."

When a government source in Ontario, Canada, recently uttered this quote, it wasn’t about solar energy. Nor was it about wind or geothermal power. It was about (drumroll, please) the extensive repair and construction of nuclear reactors.

Wait…what?

In Darlington, a city outside of Toronto, the Ontario government’s $26 billion bid to repair 10 old nuclear reactors and build two more has largely been pitched on the idea that nuclear is a nice, clean source of energy. But while many have jumped on this bandwagon (including, alarmingly, the Obama administration), there is ample evidence that nuclear is far from a successful recasting as the environment’s BFF.

Nothing bursts a tryptophan bubble like politics at the Thanksgiving table. But sometimes it's unavoidable, so why fight it?

With a simple smile and an offer of good will, a close-minded debate can turn into a constructive dialogue, whether that's Republican martyr theory, fuzzy coal economics, or climate change translation.

To get to that point, the Sierra Club has made you a handy Survival Guide. While their guide is good, it runs a little heavy-handed, so I'm going to call mine a Healthy Dialogue Recipe.  If followed correctly, it produces a delicious, completely organic interest in environmental activism.

It's as easy as a QUID-- Question, Underline, Inform, Direct.

It's likely that the conversation will start with a comment only distantly related to what people were talking about five seconds earlier. Something like, "Oh, yeah, Harry Potter was really good.  I love magic. I just wish we could use it to make renewable energy work." Or something like that; it could be much blunter.

When President Obama tapped Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be his new health secretary, state environmental advocates had mixed feelings. Yes, 'what an honor' was foremost; but also, 'well, shit.'

Sure enough, a week after he moved into the governor's office, Mark Parkinson struck a backroom deal with Sunflower Electric Power Corporation for a new 895 megawatt coal-fired power plant, a facility that Sibelius had famously taken a stand against and that Parkinson, as her lieutenant governor, has previously fought as well.

Citizens and environmentalists cried "foul," but that was Parkinson's prerogative. So the project is unnecessary and distracts from new energy development; so most of the pollution and little of the economic windfall would stay in Kansas; so it was the first project blocked for reasons of CO2 pollution; so what?  A governor is allowed to change his mind.