The Electric Future of America’s Prosperity

Nov02

The Electric Future of America’s Prosperity

Posted In: Energy, Alt Fuel, Cleantech, Energy, Conservation, Global Greening Issues, Deforestation, Energy, Energy & The Economy, Global Greening Issues, Global Greening Issues, Global Warming, Green Economics, Global Greening Issues, Green Urban Planning, Cleantech, Greentech, Energy, Policy, Energy, Solar

Translation

Ocean Circulation Conveyor Belt. The ocean pla...

Image via Wikipedia

We are going to come back to this point, time and time again, because despite some people’s continued statements that climate change is a hoax and that failing to create a non-petroleum future for America is a bad idea these statements hold about as much, um water, as a leaky sieve.

We are also going to do everything we can to show that it’s not just the “Professional Left” or treehuggers who are increasingly (and in fact, have for some time) calling for a national security energy plan (which centers around alternatives to petroleum and externally sourced energy) and giving very good reasons (with real numbers to back it up) for doing so.

This is one of the reasons, we believe, that California finally “succeeded” from the nation in its adoption of a state-wide cap and trade plan. The logic and the numbers are there, even if you don’t believe in “science.”

We’ve discussed the implications of the study in New England published earlier this year – i.e. states covered under what is referred to as “Reggie” or RGGI, the mandatory cap and trade system that’s run for about three years in the N.E. and its subsequent impact on the regional environment if not economy.

Today, we are going to quote some findings of a think tank in Washington, The Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a project of Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), released a report TWO YEARS AGO, calling for such a plan with a big thick report to go along with it giving concrete reasons why. To wit,

* By 2050, the typical U.S. household would have $4,046 more in annual income, an increase of nearly 2.1 percent.
* Over four decades, households would experience an aggregate increase of $13.9 trillion.
* When you add in lower energy costs, the average household would be able to enjoy $5,025 more every year by 2050.
* By 2050, annual oil imports would be lower by 6.6 million barrels; cumulatively, we will have imported nearly 60 billion fewer barrels of foreign oil by then.
* As a result, the U.S. trade balance would improve by about $275 billion by 2050.
* Because of the higher levels of income and GDP, net U.S. federal revenues would be a cumulative $1.46 trillion higher.
* By 2050, total employment would be 3 million jobs higher, including:
o 225,000 more jobs in manufacturing
o 514,000 more jobs in travel and tourism
o 108,000 more jobs in professional services
o 44,000 more jobs in agriculture
o Reduced dependence on imported oil will act as a $400 billion insurance policy for the U.S. economy.
o 1.8 million jobs would be saved.
o Difference in national disposable income would be $448 billion.

We think that is enough on the effects today, but we think it is only fitting to give you the identities of the people who came up with such a “radical plan.” You can form your own opinions on where they would tend to fall on the “political” spectrum. Note, for one, the large number of high ranking former military guys and some rather prominent CEOS. In other words the movers and shakers in the Executive Suites of corporate America.

* Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President and CEO, FedEx Corp. (Co-Chairman)
* General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), 28th Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (Co-Chairman)
* General John P. Abizaid, US Army (Ret.), former Combatant Commander, U.S. Central Command
* Edgar M. Bronfman, retired Chairman, The Seagram Company, Ltd.
* General Bryan “Doug” Brown, US Army (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command
* Admiral Vern Clark, USN (Ret.), former Chief of Naval Operations
* Adam M. Goldstein, President and CEO, Royal Caribbean International
* General John A. Gordon, USAF (Ret.), former Homeland Security Advisor to the President
* Maurice R. Greenberg, Chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.
* General John W. Handy, USAF (Ret.), former Commander of U.S. Transportation and Air Mobility Command
* Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.), former Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe
* Herbert D. Kelleher, Founder, Southwest Airlines Co.
* John F. Lehman, former Secretary of the U.S. Navy
* General Michael E. Ryan, USAF (Ret.), 16th Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force
* Eric S. Schwartz, former Co-CEO, Asset Management, Goldman Sachs
* Michael R. Splinter, President and CEO, Applied Materials, Inc.
* Jeffrey C. Sprecher, CEO, IntercontinentalExchange | ICE
* David P. Steiner, CEO, Waste Management, Inc.
* Michael T. Strianese, President, CEO and Director, L-3 Communications
* General Charles F. Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command
* Josh S. Weston, Honorary Chairman, Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

AND THIS WAS TWO YEARS AGO. Right about the time that “Cap and Trade” came to a screeching halt in D.C.

We understand the “necessity” of making sure, in the Republican primaries at least this year, the importance of “killing the EPA” (even when certain individuals who most demonize it also apply for funds from the agency), but this is exactly why those claims are so outlandish and irresponsible. If not worse.

Going green, through a variety of methods, including switching our dependence from petroleum to other sources is CRITICAL, non-partisan, makes sense, and there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

Sure, you can poke holes in the mistakes of those who are still trying to figure this out.

But dismissing the idea that global meltdown is happening because we’ve failed so far to face the issue on the federal level (on both an economic and environmental front) is just one sign of how off course this nation’s leaders are.

And claims that “there is no science behind global climate change,” or that it’s a “hoax” should be thoroughly debunked in the national debate, if not by the individual American.

The question is, why can’t we do it?