Filed under: Media
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/20/blase
On 20th Anniversary of Killings of 6 Jesuit Priests by U.S.-Backed Salvadoran Forces, Thousands to Protest “School of the Assassins” at Ft. Benning
Filed under: enviromental issues
The Coal Industry’s $47 Million PR Spending Spree
by Kate Sheppard
The coal industry’s major lobby group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, shelled out a stunning $47 million last year on lobbying, advertising and “grassroots outreach” efforts to fight climate legislation and tout the benefits of “clean coal.” Its efforts to actually develop clean coal technology, however, were a lot less impressive.
ACCCE’s most recent IRS filing, obtained by Greenwire (sub. req’d), lists the contributions to the coalition by the nation’s biggest coal companies. Arch Coal Inc., Consol Energy Inc., and Peabody Energy Corp. each chipped in $5 million; Foundation Coal Corp. gave $3 million, Southern Co. $2.1 million, and American Electric Power Co. Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. (which has since left the group) gave $2 million. ACCCE is among the biggest spenders when it comes to influencing the debate on climate and energy.
But for all their expensive efforts to sell the public on the wonders of clean coal, ACCCE isn’t working quite as hard to make the technology a reality. The coalition’s members have committed the comparatively paltry sum of $3.6 billion to research the technology between 2003 and 2017, according to an April report from the Center for American Progress. That’s just $257 million on average each year to develop the technology to capture and sequester carbon. To put that in perspective, ACCCE’s members made a combined total of $297 billion in profits between 2003 and 2008-meaning, as the report notes, that they’re spending less than two cents on clean coal research for every $1 of profit.
In fact, the climate legislation that ACCCE fought-and fought dirty-to defeat in the House would devote far more money toward developing clean coal than the companies have. (Its “grassroots” efforts hit the news after one of its subcontractors, Bonner and Associates forged letters to Congress opposing a climate bill.) If the Waxman-Markey legislation becomes law, it would hand the coal industry $60 billion for so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development through 2025. The House measure provides an additional $1 billion each year for demonstration and deployment of this technology, to be funded by a fee on consumers. Plus, early adopters of CCS would get bonus carbon credits for every ton of carbon dioxide sequestered by electric utilities.
Yet just days after Waxman-Markey passed the House, a number of ACCCE’s biggest funders were complaining to the Senate in public hearings that the bill doesn’t give enough money to the coal industry. They also griped that carbon capture and storage technology is more than a decade away from viability, so it would be unreasonable to demand big emissions cuts from the sector anytime soon. “I don’t think CCS will be widely deployed until 2020 or after,” Chris Hobson, senior vice president of research and environmental affairs at Southern Company, told senators in July. You’d never guess that from the coalition’s website though, which still proudly proclaims: “The technology isn’t 20 years away-some of it is here today.”
© 2009 Mother Jones
Kate Sheppard is s a staff reporter for Mother Jones. She covers energy and environmental politics from Washington, D.C. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. Her work has also been featured in the WashingtonPost.com, The Guardian, The Center for Public Integrity, The Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch.
Filed under: Climate Change Issues
An Inconvenient Solution
Al Gore’s “Our Choice”
by Bill McKibben
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was one of the high points not only of the environmental movement but also of the documentary tradition in America. He figured out how to use a new medium, PowerPoint, to take the unavoidably wonkish story of global warming and make it scary, credible and manageable. It was, perhaps, as important as anything he could have done as president, and he deserved not only the Oscar but also the Nobel.
As almost everyone noted at the time, however, there was one problem with the film: the section on what to actually do about the biggest problem we’ve ever faced was remarkably short, both in duration and on plausible ideas. If the world is coming to an end, changing your light bulb doesn’t seem like the obvious response. Or rather, it seems highly obvious but highly insufficient–a gesture, not a solution.
Gore heard those criticisms and spent the next few years convening a series of more than thirty “Solutions Summits” in Nashville and elsewhere, where he picked the brains of virtually everyone who ever thought professionally about climate and energy. He’s taken all those data and all those ideas, and with the help of a capable team of researchers he’s turned them into a book, Our Choice, an ambitious and entirely successful attempt to lay out all that we know about mainstream answers to global warming. (When I say “virtually everyone,” I mean it; the acknowledgments take up four pages of agate type and include even me.) He’s got chapters on solar electricity, on wind energy, on biofuels, on nuclear power and even on more recondite topics: geothermal energy, carbon sequestration.
Occasionally, truth be told, the book verges on the nerdy. There are diagrams on topics like “how a turbine works” that could have come from an old-fashioned encyclopedia. Gore has a weakness for statistics: did you know that between 1984 and 1991 nine early concentrated solar thermal power plants were built in the Mojave Desert with a total of 2 million square meters of mirrors? Some of the vast book is taken up with what amounts to more PowerPoint slides–beautiful but stock images of farmers or roaring hurricanes. (If you like gorgeous windmill porn, this is your book.)
Taken as a whole, however, this is the most comprehensive and well-informed survey anyone has ever done of what we need to do to get off fossil fuel. Gore is judicious and reasoned at every turn, and gets most of the calls exactly right. Building more traditional nuclear power plants will be too expensive to provide much help. Ditto carbon sequestration: it’s a good idea to try and take the exhaust from coal-fired power plants and store it underground in old oil wells, but the costs so far seem prohibitive. In fact, to many of these dilemmas Gore applies a wise test: “Put a high price on carbon. When the reality of the need to sharply reduce CO2 emissions is integrated into all market calculations–including the decisions by utilities and their investors–market forces will drive us quickly toward the answers we need.”
Gore, I think, has reasonably answered not only the one apt criticism of An Inconvenient Truth but also the good-faith (as opposed to talk-radio) objections of anyone wondering if the world really could exist without fossil fuels. The answer is, not easily, but it’s well within the realm of technical possibility. If we followed his advice, we’d make it. What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to really do it.
And if there’s one weakness this time around, it’s that Gore could have devoted a little space to figuring out how we should build that political will. If we’re going to impose a price on carbon at the Copenhagen conference, or pass a strong renewables target in Congress, or do any of the dozen or so other things the situation desperately demands, reasoned argument among experts alone will not carry the day. In fact, it won’t come close. We’ve known, more or less, what to do for more than a decade, but any progress has been stymied, especially in this country, by the well-funded deniers propped up by the coal and oil industries, and by the pliant and gullible media that continue to give them play. Simply adding a few thousand more tons of scientific reports to the environmental side of the scale won’t tip the debate, not when Exxon can afford to buy the necessary coterie of Congress members. The only thing that will suffice is to build a movement strong enough in some other currency (bodies in the street, votes in the ballot box) to provide serious counterpressure.
Of course, it is not Gore’s job to provide this pressure (and, in any event, his Alliance for Climate Protection has been a useful attempt to build some). The guy’s not responsible for coming up with absolutely every answer to every part of this problem–and the good news, in the past few months, is that many others are stepping into this realm. I’ve been watching climate policy closely for twenty years, and only now does the planet’s immune system seem to be kicking in: civil society has finally recognized global warming for the overarching threat it is, and has begun to go to work.
The parts I’ve gotten to watch most closely have been the international efforts. In the past eighteen months, my fellow activists and I have built 350.org, the first real global grassroots climate change campaign, which peaked on October 24 with a global day of action. That day featured thousands upon thousands of events in more than 150 countries–it may have been the most geographically widespread day of political action the planet has ever seen. (And it was almost certainly the only one devoted to a point of scientific fact: 350 parts per million carbon dioxide is what scientists now tell us is the most the earth’s atmosphere can safely hold, at least if we want a planet “similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”) It was, truth be told, quite amazing fun to watch the campaign come together–young people around the world, clergy, scientists all dreaming up powerful ways to take those three digits, arguably the most important number in the world, and make them the most well-known.
There were underwater cabinet meetings (in the Maldives, led by President Mohamed Nasheed, whose nation may not exist in a hundred years) and climbers on the melting slopes of the world’s highest peaks. There were thousands of churches ringing their bells 350 times and giant actions in major cities where people formed 3s and 5s and 0s with their bodies, a kind of planet-scale Scrabble. It began in New Zealand and went around the world till sunset in Hawaii–and since it was tied not to a slogan but to a specific demand, it may help move the Copenhagen talks at least a little in the direction of the science. But this kind of movement will need to continue and grow. We’ll need civil disobedience, of the kind that blockaded Congress’s coal-fired power plant last spring; we’ll need symbolic witness, like 350.org; we’ll need old-fashioned lobbying.
We also learned a lot of lessons about organizing globally, something that wasn’t really possible even a few years ago. The power of the Internet is less in the gee-whiz stuff Gore describes (real-time pictures of the earth so that everyone can see its fragile beauty) but in the ability to use it, à la the Obama campaign in 2008, as a tool to enable events in the real world. At 350.org we’re running a website with fourteen languages and using wordless animated videos; our sense is that it’s possible for the idea of a “global movement” to be something more than pious rhetoric. On this toughest of all issues we were able to find millions of people on both sides of the rich-poor divide who understood that they have a great deal in common, beginning with the shared awareness that nowhere on the planet is safe once we’re north of 350 ppm. It’s moving–humbling, really–when someone sends you pictures from their rally in Cameroon or Burundi or Quito or Phnom Penh. Humbling because you know they did nothing to cause the problem but have come to realize that in a world newly wired together, they might be able to play some real role in solving it.
Gore ends his book with a lovely speech from the future, looking back on what was accomplished after “the turning point came in 2009″ with “the inauguration of a new president in the United States.” Former opponents, impressed with the president’s sincerity and moved by the questions of their children, began to link arms in the struggle for a clean-energy future, and soon the right incentives were unleashed, new technology began to pour off the line, even passenger rail surged again across the land. “Although leadership came from many countries, once the United States finally awakened to its responsibilities, it reestablished the moral authority the world had come to expect from the U.S. during the 40 years after World War II.”
That’s a very pleasant dream, especially for someone like Gore, who was a firsthand witness to the period of American leadership he describes. But as he knows as well as anyone, at the moment it’s nothing more than a dream. Making it real will depend on how hard we push the system. There’s no question it’s capable of responding, and no question that left to its own devices it won’t.
© 2009 The Nation
Bill McKibben is the author of many books, including his latest: Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future . McKibben is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, and cofounder of 350.org.
Filed under: Farm Issues
8 Steps Obama Could Take to Save Our Food System
by Robyn O’Brien
The landscape of health has changed. No longer are our families guaranteed a healthy livelihood, not in the face of the current rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s and allergies. In the words of Elizabeth Warren, Harvard University law professor who is head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, “We need a new model,” and we need a new food system. It’s our health on the line.
8 Steps Obama Could Take to Save Food:
1. Evenly distribute government moneys to all farmers. The current system allocates the lion share of our tax dollars (approximately $60 billion) to farmers growing crops whose seeds have been engineered to produce their own insecticides and tolerate increasing doses of weed killing herbicides. As a result, these crops, with a large chemical footprint, are cheaper to produce, while farmers growing organic produce are charged fees to prove that their crops are safe and then charged additional fees to label these crops as free of synthetic chemicals and “organic”. If organic farmers received an equal distribution of taxpayer funded handouts from the government, the cost of producing crops free from synthetic chemicals would be cheaper, making these crops more affordable to more people, in turn increasing demand for these products which would further drive down costs. If we were to reallocate our national budget and evenly distribute our tax dollars to all farmers, clean food would be affordable to everyone and not just those in certain zip codes.
2. Reinstitute the USDA pesticide reporting standard that was waived under the Bush administration. In 2008, the USDA waived pesticide reporting requirements (a procedure that has been in place since the early 1990s) so that farmers and consumers would know the level of chemicals being applied to food crops. Given a report just released that reveals a 383 million pound increase in the use of weed killing herbicides since the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops in 1996 and the potential impact that this glyphosate containing compound is having on both the environment and on our health, perhaps the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy assumed under the previous administration should be reversed.
3. Reinstate the pre-Bush administration dollar value that the EPA places on the life of every American. in May 2008, the Bush administration lowered the value placed on the life of every American by almost $1 million, benefiting corporations who use this figure in their cost benefit analyses, marking down our lives from $7.8 million to $6.9 million the same way a car dealer might markdown a “96 Camaro with bad brakes. The EPA figure is used to assess corporate liability when a company’s actions put a life at risk. While this figure benefits the corporations conducting the cost benefit analysis when assessing the health impact of their chemicals, the costs of these chemicals are being externalized onto the public in the form of health care costs.
4. Allow public debate over the nomination of pesticide lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. As addressed in a letter sent to Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee, Islam Siddiqui, nominated for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative, was formerly employed by CropLife America, whose firm challenged Michelle Obama’s organic garden, has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins, and blocked international attempts to help regulate pesticides that increasingly linked to chronic skin and respiratory problems, birth defects and cancer in our community. Given that a growing body of scientific evidence supports the theory that chemicals in our food are contributing to the rise in health problems, particularly in children, the appointment of an industry lobbyist to export our challenged food system to the rest of the world may be in the best interest of agrichemical corporations but consideration should also be given to the health implications that these novel chemicals, proteins and allergens may have.
5. Encourage climate change advocates like Al Gore to discuss Pesticide Use by Big Ag and its Chemical Footprint. While speaking openly about the petroleum industry’s impact on global warming, leading environmental advocates like Al Gore have been quiet about the chemical contribution that the recent introduction of crops genetically engineered with pesticidal toxins play on global warming despite scientific evidence from the Royal Society of Chemistry highlighting their impact. Since the Clinton Administration’s introduction of biotech crops designed and engineered to both withstand increasing doses of weed killing chemicals and produce their own insecticides, new reports based on USDA data, show a 383 million pound increase in the chemicals being applied to these crops since their introduction in 1996. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, “growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse” given that glyphosate, being applied in increasing doses to these crops, breaks down into nitrogen.
6. Update the Consumer Protection and Food Allergen Labeling Act to inform consumers of these newly engineered corn allergens. The recent engineering of novel food proteins and toxins into the US food supply has enhanced profitability for the food industry by allowing commodities like corn to produce their own insecticides. As a result, corn is now considered an insecticide and regulated by the EPA . For this same reason, this corn has been either banned or labeled in products in other developed countries because the new toxins and novel allergens that it contains have not yet been proven safe. Despite the lack of evidence, this corn is in the American food supply. The increase in the rate of food allergies as demonstrated in the December issue of Pediatrics and the growing number of people with this condition- whose bodies recognize food as “foreign” and launch inflammatory reaction in an effort to drive out these “foreign” food invaders, speaks to the need to update and amend the food allergen labeling act to label these newly engineered genetically enhanced proteins and allergens as governments around the world do.
7. Ask the SEC to join the Department of Justice in its investigation into trade practices in agrichemical industry. As the Department of Justice begins its investigation into the impact that Monsanto’s monopoly is having on farmers, their financial situation and the food supply, research out of the USDA highlights that the biotech industry is not delivering on what some are calling their “hype-to-reality ratio”. As farmers are charged premiums for seeds that have been engineered to produce greater yields, research out of the USDA, Kansas State University shows that these products are not delivering as promised, directly impacting the cost structures of farmers in a razor to razorblade scenario. As farmers purchase genetically modified seeds in the hopes that they will increase yields and drive down cost structure and their dependency on weed killers, studies now suggest that since the introduction of the “razor”, these biotech crops introduced 13 years ago, farmers are actually spending more on the “razorblade”, the herbicides and weed killers required to manage them, driving farmers debt to asset ratios to record levels. Given that Monsanto’s CFO, Treasurer, Controller are all leaving the company by year end, the Securities and Exchange Commission could interview these three exiting executives and learn more about the financial predicaments of Big Ag’s customers, the farmers, and the greater ramifications that this monopoly will have on food prices.
8. Appoint a Children’s Health Advisor to serve on the USDA’s National School Lunch Program. The landscape of children’s health has changed. No longer are the American children guaranteed a healthy childhood, not in the face of the current rates of obesity, diabetes and allergies. Perhaps it is time that we follow the lead of governments in other developed countries and create a Chief Advisor for Child and Youth Health whose responsibilities might include, but not be limited to, serving in an advisory capacity to the USDA on the National School Lunch Program. Under the USDA’s current budget for the National School Lunch Program of approximately $8.5 billion (in comparison the Pentagon’s 2009 budget $600 billion), less than a dollar is available per meal for the purchase of healthy food once overhead costs are taken out. Given that 1 in 3 American children now has allergies, ADHD, autism of asthma and according to an October 2008 study from the Centers for Disease Control, 1 in 3 Fourth graders is expected to be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood. As a result, dietary concerns are becoming increasingly prevalent for the estimated 30.9 million children and approximately 102,000 schools and child care institutions that participate in the National School Lunch Program. Given that increasing scientific evidence points to the roles that environmental insults like synthetic growth hormones in milk and trans fats in processed foods are having on our health, investing in a children’s health advisor may provide long term benefits to the future of our health care system .
It’s our food system on the line. And if our children are any indicator, our health and the economic burden that it presents are on the line, too.
© 2009 Civil Eats
Filed under: children's issues
UN Urges Global Action on Children
The UN children’s agency says one billion children around the world are still deprived of food, shelter, clean water and healthcare 20 years after the adoption of a treaty guaranteeing children’s rights.
Palestinian girls release balloons with messages attached, during an event organized by UNICEF to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Friday, Nov. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)Hundreds of millions more children are constantly threatened by violence, Unicef said in a report released on Thursday assessing the situation two decades after the UN adopted the Convention of the Rights of the Child on November 20 1989.
The treaty has since been ratified by all countries except the US and Somalia, and more than 70 countries have used the treaty to incorporate children’s rights into their national laws.
While saying Unicef had chalked up a “remarkable achievement” in recording a sharp decline in child deaths and getting an increasing number of children to attend primary school, Ann Veneman, the agency’s executive director, urged the world to do more.
As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, the convention stands at a pivotal moment,” she told a news conference launching the report at the UN headquarters in New York on Thursday.”Its relevance remains timeless. The challenge for the next 20 years is to build on the progress achieved, working together to reach those children who are still being denied their rights to survival, development, protection and participation.”
Veneman said it was unacceptable that more than 24,000 children under the age of five die every day from preventable causes such as pneumonia, malaria, measles and malnutrition.
About 200 million children are chronically malnourished, more than 140 million are forced to work, and millions of girls and boys of all ages are subjected to sexual violence, the report says.
Violence
It also estimates that up to 1.5 billion children experience violence annually.
Veneman said there was a new focus on safeguarding the young “from violence, abuse, discrimination and exploitation”, adding that children in Africa and Asia suffered the most.
“More than nine out of 10 children who are not attending school, who are malnourished, and who die before the age of five live in these two continents,” she said.
“Exploitation of children is not simply a breach of an international treaty,” she said.
“It’s pain. It’s suffering and confusion and damage. It’s hope lost and hope betrayed.”
Source: Agencies © 2009 Aljazeera.net/english
Filed under: Media
Pap and John Perkins Discuss “Hoodwinked”
Filed under: Media
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/19/as_wall_street_posts_record_profits
As Wall Street Posts Record Profits and US Hunger Rate Grows, Robert Scheer Asks: “Where Is the Community Organizer We Elected?”
Filed under: Media
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/19/shunning_dissidents_obama_leaves_china_without
Shunning Dissidents, Obama Leaves China Without Firm Pledges on Trade, Climate
Filed under: Afghanistan
‘Liberation Was Just a Big Lie’
Outspoken Afghan MP says Canadian mission is a big waste of time
by Olivia Ward
She sleeps in safe houses, with a rotating squad of bodyguards securing the doors. She goes out only in a billowing burqa. Even her wedding was held in secret.
Malalai Joya, who was in Toronto to promote her book, A Woman Among Warlords, says Canada and the United States should pull their troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. (Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star)Elected the youngest member of the Afghan parliament – and suspended for her outspoken criticism of the country’s top officials – Malalai Joya has been labelled the bravest woman in Afghanistan.
Small, soft-spoken and now 31, she has survived at least four assassination attempts and is angry at the oppressive life she is forced to lead, dodging enemies she has denounced as bloody-handed warlords and drug kingpins.
As Afghan President Hamid Karzai is inaugurated Thursday for another four years in office after a fiercely disputed election, she says his term is already tainted by the corruption, criminality and violence of those around him.
“(Prime Minister) Stephen Harper says this election was a success,” she said. “But Karzai has not only insulted, but betrayed the Afghan people.”
Karzai has vowed to launch anti-corruption investigations under pressure from Washington. But, Joya insists, Canada is wasting blood and treasure on keeping his government in power.
“Canada should pull its troops out now,” she said in Toronto on Wednesday, where she was promoting her book A Woman Among Warlords, co-written with Canadian peace activist Derrick O’Keefe.
And, she says, U.S. President Barack Obama, who is considering a surge in troop levels to battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban, should think again.
“The United States should go, too. As long as foreign troops are in the country we will be fighting two enemies instead of one.”
Yes, she says, there is a risk of civil war, as happened when the Soviet Union gave up the fight against U.S.-backed Afghan Islamists 20 years ago. But it would still be better than “night raids, torture and aerial bombardment” that killed hundreds of Afghan civilians while the Taliban made steady gains.
“Liberation was just a big lie.” Joya believes Afghans are now better prepared to battle the Taliban alone – if the warlords are disarmed, and the international community helps build a society that can push back against extremism.
It is a tall order, she admits. But “resistance has increased, and people are becoming more aware of democracy and human rights. They need humanitarian and educational support.”
But not, she adds, at the point of a gun.
Joya has firsthand experience with the Taliban, as well as the brutal warlords who forced her family into refugee camps after the exit of the Soviets in 1989.
As a teacher in the secret schools that educated girls – strictly banned by the Taliban – she walked around western Afghanistan at the end of the 1990s with books hidden beneath the enveloping burqa.
“Once we were stopped and searched but the burqa saved me,” she recalled in her book. “They ordered me to stretch out my arms but because they did not pat me down they never found the school books.”
But after the Taliban’s violent repression of women, Joya says, Karzai’s Afghanistan has done little to ease their plight.
Religious extremism is rife, and even a 25 per cent quota for women in parliament has produced few female politicians who are willing to fight for women’s rights.
That is what makes Joya an inspiration for those who greet her tearfully on her heavily guarded visits to clinics, community groups and an orphanage she supports.
It has also made her a target for radicals, as well as the warlord factions she denounces. Since she called for the prosecution of highly placed warlords and drug smugglers in a landmark 2003 meeting on the country’s constitution, the threats have not stopped.
When Joya returns to Afghanistan this month, she will resume her perilous career as a rallying point for the country’s downtrodden and disenchanted – and hope she will live to see genuine change.
“It will be a long struggle,” she wrote. “A river is made drop by drop … you can kill me, but you can never kill my spirit.”
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2009
The New (Green) Arms Race
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Hobbled by opposition from the carbon incumbents and their short-sighted allies on Capitol Hill the Obama administration acknowledged this week that it would not return from Copenhagen with any groundbreaking commitment to control green house gases. Meanwhile, Congress is backsliding on the administration’s wise commitment to impose a rational price on carbon. Behind the logjam, a treacherous U.S. Chamber of Commerce, always willing to put its obsequious scraping to Big Oil and King Coal ahead of its duty to our country, has battled every effort to accelerate America’s transition to a market-based de-carbonized economy.
The Chamber has continued to argue, idiotically, that energy efficiency and independence will somehow put America at a competitive disadvantage with the Chinese. Meanwhile, the Chinese have shrewdly and strategically positioned themselves to steal America’s once substantial lead in renewable power. China will soon make us as dependent on Chinese green technology for the next century as we have been on Saudi oil during the last.
Indeed, the Chinese are treating the energy technology competition if it were an arms race. China is spending as much or more on greentech as it does on its military, hundreds of billions of dollars annually on renewable energy and grid infrastructure improvements. Those investments, if not vigorously countered, will effectively erode America’s greentech industry leadership and secure China’s dominance. China’s economic stimulus package, targeted 38% of spending on greentech, as compared to a miserly 12% of the U.S. stimulus program. By 2013, greentech will account for 15 percent of the Chinese GDP. While the United States is projected to roughly triple its wind generation by 2020, China will increase its capacity twelvefold to a wind generating capability more than twice that of America’s. And, while the United States is projected to increase its installed solar generation a modest 33% by 2020, China’s solar generation is projected to increase 20,000%.
China’s investments in solar technology have so powerfully stimulated the growth of a Chinese solar market that Chinese solar panel manufacturers now far outnumber American ones, and they are achieving low-cost production much faster than their American counterparts. Chinese companies are now flooding the American market with cheap Chinese solar panels and devastating the American manufacturing sector that was gearing up to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs for our own ailing economy. Hundreds of U.S. solar manufacturers now see their prospects as grim. BP Solar, Evergreen, and General Electric have already announced the closing of American-based solar panel factories and outsourcing, primarily to China. America’s leading solar manufacturer, Applied Materials, has opened the largest non-government solar energy research facility in the world in China. Of today’s ten leading solar panel manufacturers, only one is American. The largest solar panel installation in the United States is a 70,000 panel, 14.2 megawatt array on Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The array provides more than 25% of the base’s power needs, and saves the Pentagon a million dollars annually in energy costs, but the panels’ manufacturer was China’s Suntech Power Holdings. Even in the thin film solar market, among the last redoubts of American dominance Chinese businesses are squeezing profit.
Last year, America achieved a milestone, building more wind power generation than all new oil and coal generation combined. We have led the world in wind installations for several years, and the wind industry already accounts for more American jobs than coal mining. At one point the U.S. enjoyed global domination of wind turbine manufacturing with great prospects for job creation. Yet today, of the five leading wind turbine manufacturers, only one is American. While Congress dawdles, China is clobbering us. Shenyang Power Group recently inked a deal to be the exclusive supplier of turbines to the largest wind project in the United States, a 36,000 acre, 600 megawatt development in west Texas. The project will create 2,800 new jobs — 2,400 in China, but only 400 in the United States. As Lu Jinxiang, chief executive of Shenyang’s controlling shareholder noted, “This is just the beginning … [the United States] is an ideal target.” China is likewise poised to take away our lead in batteries and electric cars, and has already pulled far ahead of America in automobile fuel efficiency.
Capitol Hill Republicans will soon recognize that the arms race of the 21st century is already in progress with a totalitarian nation that they not long ago called “Red China.” But America will not win with more warheads and better rockets. We can only prevail with robust investment in and support of U.S.-based greentech innovation.
© 2009 Huffington Post
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. He is the author of Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy.