Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is excited. And when Sanders - longtime maverick populist - is in that frame of mind, you know something right and smart is in the works.

In this case it's the Energy Savings Act of 2007, which the Senate is now debating. Sanders is so keen on this legislation because of the opportunity not only to address global warming and energy needs, but also to create millions of new jobs and make sure our workforce has the skills needed to fill them.

Yesterday afternoon, the Senate adopted the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Workforce Development Amendment sponsored by Sanders and recent cosponsor, Senator Hillary Clinton. The amendment allots $100 million to train workers in "green collar jobs" – jobs that involve the design, manufacture, installation, operation, and maintenance of clean, efficient energy technologies.

"Congress obviously needs to move aggressively to address the crisis of global warming," Sanders told me, "and there are signs that we are going to succeed in doing that. The good news is that as we move forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency industries – although there will be some job dislocation – we can create millions of new jobs."

The amendment calls for up to $40 million in grants awarded on a competitive basis for a national training partnerships program, $40 million towards state training partnership programs, and additional funding for "national and state industry-wide research, labor market information, and labor exchange programs" that would "help develop standards and curricula needed for effective training…."

These training programs – according to government, industry, labor and community activists – are desperately needed. As Sanders put it, "The problem is right now if a person wants to retrofit their home to make it more energy efficient – and there are studies that indicate an average homeowner can reduce energy costs by 40% by doing this – you would have a hard time finding trained workers to do that. If you wanted to install solar panels, you would have a hard time finding trained workers to do that. The same for a wind turbine, etc."

In a letter supporting the "Sanders-Clinton amendment," the National Association of Energy Service Companies, American Solar Energy Society, American Wind Energy Association, Renewable Fuels Association, and Solar Energy Industries Association – representing hundreds of companies in domestic biomass, wind, solar energy, geothermal power, fuel cells and more – wrote, "Across the country, our companies experience workforce shortages as one of the key barriers to growth." The letter cited a 2006 study by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) identifying "the shortage of training and skills as a leading non-technical barrier to renewable energy and energy efficiency growth."

These groups suggest that by 2025 alternative, clean energy technologies could provide electric power equal to half of the amount our nation currently uses. And by 2030, these industries could replace 30 to 40% of the amount of petroleum currently imported. In the process, "our industries could make a significant contribution to curbing global warming, enhancing our nation's energy security, and creating up to 5 million new jobs by 2025." But all of this assumes that "we… find enough qualified, trained people… By establishing a pilot program specifically geared toward the renewable energy and efficiency industries, the Sanders-Clinton Amendment would enable us to build the workforce our industries need to achieve their maximum potential."

While progress has been made in recent years in building coalitions to promote a clean energy economy – and no organization has done more on this front than the Apollo Alliance – there has still been too much foot-dragging by guardians of Old Energy such as Representative John Dingell. So it's important that environmentalists have supported this amendment as "signaling that America is, at last ready to replace the old debate of ‘jobs vs. the environment' by investing in ‘jobs for the environment.'" (The AFL-CIO is also a strong supporter of the bill and the Apollo Alliance credits it "as the primary lead on the Sanders-Clinton workforce bill.") Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists and others wrote that "investments in [the] training of building maintenance workers, superintendents, and engineers could improve the operations of sophisticated heating and cooling systems by as much as 10 percent, saving millions in energy costs each year in large public, industrial, or commercial buildings."

Apollo Alliance President Jeremy Ringo points out that the American Public Power Association estimates "half of current utility workers will retire within the next decade… [and] our nation is not training enough new workers to fill their places… Using the average costs of attending a community college, we estimate that [the Sanders-Clinton] funding would be sufficient to train between 20,000 and 30,000 workers per year. These numbers represent just a small fraction of the 3 million workers that would be needed… if the country launched an ambitious ten-year Apollo-like effort to build a new energy future. However, we believe it is prudent to begin with a pilot program on the scale proposed by Sen. Sanders to ensure we fully understand the kinds of training needed and future workforce trends before investing in a larger effort."

This amendment also targets important populations for training such as veterans, workers displaced by a new energy economy and globalization, individuals seeking a pathway out of poverty, formerly incarcerated, non-violent offenders, and workers in the energy field needing to update their skills.

Van Jones, Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, wrote of the Sanders amendment – and a similar effort in the House by Representatives Hilda Solis, John Tierney and others – that Congress is finally "connect[ing] the dots on ways to solve two of the nation's biggest problems: failing American job security and global climate security…. [these] proposals are not only good for low-income workers. [They] will greatly aid green industries and businesses themselves."

"As we move forward to reduce greenhouse gasses and build a clean energy economy," Sanders said, "we need to prepare a well-trained workforce to help us do that. This amendment is one way to help achieve that."

The larger Energy Bill that emerges may well not live up to the hope, hype, and promise signaled by Democratic leadership, instead drowning in too many lobbyists' demands. But the Sanders-Clinton amendment is truly progressive, and in promoting green collar job training it could have a real and lasting impact. It's worth contacting your Representative today and urging support for a similar effort in the House Energy Bill today.

Comments (42)

1. Well, first...."Sanders - longtime maverick populist"??!??! "populist"? I think Sanders (once upon a time, before he was running for Senate) used ANOTHER term for his politics?....Hmmmm?...what was that?

   Second..."$100 million will create 5 million new jobs"? Well, if 20 bucks a head will create those new jobs, I'd be in favor of it....IF it does.

   Third...can't wait for HSUB or somebody who still thinks REPUBLICANS run the Congress, to try to explain how this is being held up by John Dingell...a Democrat! Heheh!

   Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 12:15pm

2. "Congress obviously needs to move aggressively to address the crisis of global warming,......although there will be some job dislocation – we can create millions of new jobs."

   "move aggressively"? "crisis of global warming"?

   How exactly has global warming, man-made or natural in whatever proportions, led to a "crisis" that no one can dispute? Such as hundreds of thousands killed by Malaria in Africa or in genocides in Darfur....

   It is precisely this type of hyped-up posturing that turns off open minded science-oriented people (like me) from believing politicians can play any meaningful role! Gov't funding, IF ANY, should stay in basic/fundamental research without immediately identifiable or economical commercial applications (see NASA's history).

   Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 12:29pm

3. Actually HAPP, the important question from this quote is-

   "The good news is that as we move forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency industries – although there will be some job dislocation – we can create millions of new jobs."

   Why do we never hear the BAD NEWS? How MANY jobs will be "dislocated"?

   Again, sounds like "'free' education" that Ms vanden Heuvel was on about before Paris Hilton. Why is it always the "spoonful of sugar" and the "medicine" gets buried in the 4th or 5th paragraph and never fully explained?

   Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 12:34pm

4. As Sanders put it, "The problem is right now if a person wants to retrofit their home to make it more energy efficient – and there are studies that indicate an average homeowner can reduce energy costs by 40% by doing this – you would have a hard time finding trained workers to do that. If you wanted to install solar panels, you would have a hard time finding trained workers to do that. The same for a wind turbine, etc."

   A homeowner would be hard pressed to find high-skill workers to improve the energy efficiency of a house? You mean, like to lower/raise the thermostat, re-caulk around windows and doors, to regularly change air filters, to replace light bulbs w/lower wattage, flourescent or them new fangled spirals, to plant shade trees along south exposures, turn off TVs when not watching, not waste shower/tub hot water by actually `waiting' rather than run half the tank empty,.......

   On solar panels, does Sanders know that the lack of robust demand is due to no small part, the systems don't justify itself financially even with energy credits/handouts? That the actual efficiency of the panels depend on latitude (earth), whims of local weather and subdivision NIMBYs....

   Smells like the potential seeding of another huge corporate welfare program that the Left never cease to howl about!

   Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 12:46pm

5. ...although there will be some job dislocation...

   Posted by MASK 06/13/2007 @ 12:34pm

   I thought of attacking that....glad you covered it! There is so much in this KVH piece for market believers like me (and a good chunk of you) to take apart......so much junk science & junk minds.....so little time!

   Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 12:49pm

6. "The amendment calls for up to $40 million in grants awarded on a competitive basis for a national training partnerships program, $40 million towards state training partnership programs, and additional funding for "national and state industry-wide research, labor market information, and labor exchange programs" that would "help develop standards and curricula needed for effective training…."

   KVH, who do you think you're kidding. Once those greedy NFPs get their hands on that money, you'll see not one dime spent on "training" a small pilot group. I wonder who's going to hold those groups accountable when nothing is produced and the money runs out?

   This reminds me of a joke I heard:

   A woman married three times walked into a bridal shop one day and told the sales clerk that she was looking for a wedding gown for her fourth wedding. "Of course, madam," replied the sales clerk, "exactly what type and color dress are you looking for?"

   The bride to be said: "A long frilly white dress with a veil."

   The sales clerk hesitated a bit, then said, "Please don't take this the wrong way, but gowns of that nature are considered more appropriate for brides who are being married the first time - for those who are a bit more innocent, if you know what I mean? Perhaps ivory or sky blue would be nice?"

   "Well," replied the customer, a little peeved at the clerk's directness, "I can assure you that a white gown would be quite appropriate. Believe it or not, despite all my marriages, I remain as innocent as a first-time bride. You see, my first husband was so excited about our wedding, he died as we were checking into our hotel. My second husband and I got into such a terrible fight in the limo on our way to our honeymoon that we had that wedding annulled immediately and never spoke to each other again."

   "What about your third husband?" asked the sales clerk.

   "That one was a Democrat," said the woman, "and every night for four years, he just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be, but nothing ever happened."

   Posted by ACook at 06/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

7. Posted by ACOOK 06/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

   Now, wait a minute, ACOOK. I'm willing to give Senator Sanders' idea a chance. 5 million new jobs at $20 a piece is a pretty good deal....a REALLY good deal....a FANTASTICALLY good deal, one might say.

   But I'm not holding my breath...and trying to reduce my CO2 emissions...heheh.

   Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 1:59pm

8. Posted by HAPPY 06/13/2007 @ 12:46pm

   If you look at the summary, it is clear the legislation is geared for training veterans, people that have lost their jobs due to changes in the the energy sector or due to environmental protections, people on welfare, non-violent offenders, etc. In other words, people that need jobs.

   Eligible industries are energy-efficient building, construction, and retrofits industry; the renewable electric power industry; the energy efficient and advanced drive train vehicle industry; the bio-fuels industry; and the deconstruction and materials use industries. In other words, it's not junk science nor is it something that can be achieved with air filters and caulk guns.

   People eligible for grants? States and non-profit partnerships. In other words, not corporate welfare.

   I'm not sure the benefits will be worth the costs. I think that is a good point. But I do know it is a better investment than spending the same amount of money in Iraq, missile defense systems, updating the U.S. nuclear arsenal with tactical nuclear weapons, Blackwater, or the $1,190,000,000 authorized for full funding of 20 F-22A fighter jets.

   Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 1:59pm

9. Another unconstitutional theft of taxpayer dollars. Is there any limit to the extent that liberals will go to steal from the American taxpayer?

   Posted by antiliberal at 06/13/2007 @ 2:08pm

10. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/13/2007 @ 1:59pm

    SR,

    I don't doubt many/most Gov't programs start w/good intentions by `good' Liberals. the problems I have, and it is many, is too few Liberals ever call their `pet project' failures and instead, they `fund' it even more. Education is the classic well-intentioned monstrosity!

    Energy meddling by the Feds ranks high on my `Rankle List', not just Oil & Gas. I fervently backed nuclear power, in part because of my engineering background and the South Texas Nuclear Plant was generating gobs of jobs here in Houston (late 70s'), and what happened to that non-carbon emitting industry? This was even before greenhouse gas became an obsession/religion!

    The Gov't absolutley SUCKS when it comes to what is the most optimal! Why? Politics, short term focus and the pandering that goes with it! As distasteful as it is to Leftists, I'll bank of the `pursuit of profit' motive decide!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 2:31pm

11. I'll bank of the `pursuit of profit' motive decide!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/13/2007 @ 2:31pm

    Anybody wants me to rephrase this? Good!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 2:33pm

12. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/13/2007 @ 2:08pm

    I point you to the Defense portion of the U.S. debt. You can thank Ronald Reagan and George Bush for large chunks of that - but apparently trillions for war isn't theft but $100 million for jobs is theft.

    Your logic is so flawed that not only do you come across as ill-informed, you make relatively reasonable people like Happy and Mask look nutty by association.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 2:45pm

13. Another unconstitutional theft of taxpayer dollars. Is there any limit to the extent that liberals will go to steal from the American taxpayer?

    Try looking at all those defense contractor handouts and oil company subsidies for the billions in wasted tax dollars, Mr. Anti-Liberal.

    $40m seems like an inordinately low amount to make this work, no doubt because of the 3/4 trillion we are wasting in Iraq!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/13/2007 @ 2:46pm

14. For SRJenkins and Metteyya,

    Contrary to your posting, defense spending is one of the few constitutional expenditures that Congress is authorized to spend our tax dollars on.

    As to oil company subsidies, I don't want any corporation getting tax subsidies. Of course I also want to see the 16th amendment repealed which was always considered an unconstitutional theft.

    http://patriotpetitions.us/noincometax/

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

15. Posted by HAPPY 06/13/2007 @ 2:31pm

    Education is another area where I tend to agree with conservatives. I think public school education is primarily about socialization into obedience. I think more diversity in this space is a good thing.

    But I also recognize that more diversity has consequences. If you want an informed population necessary for a democracy to function, then people need universal access to fundamental educational opportunities. You cannot have diversity without providing for the problems diversity presents for universal access. Translation: more money and better organization.

    Nuclear power? I think the issues around how to deal with waste and safety are non-trivial.

    I don't think "leftists" should be making decisions for anyone anymore than I believe capitalists in pursuit of profit should be making those decisions. Better decisions happen when decisions are made democratically and locally to the extent that it is possible.

    Decision making in this way may not be "optimal" (not sure profit motives are optimal either given the inefficiencies of competition) but they tend to be right more of the time and more fair.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 2:57pm

16. Contrary to your posting, defense spending is one of the few constitutional expenditures that Congress is authorized to spend our tax dollars on.

    But they are also "authorized" to check and see if the defense contractor's pet project is really "necessary" for our defense!

    The missle shield that Cheney is pushing, for example, is a pet project of Boeing and Lockheed, and has no chance of stopping a cruise missle that flies below radar or a terrorist with a nuke in the back of his truck! It is a complete fraud!

    But maybe you really don't understand that the defense lobby is simply out of control and is able to push billions of dollars of "unnecessary" projects on the US taxpayer because Congress needs their money to run for office!

    Political corruption pays, I guess.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/13/2007 @ 3:13pm

17. Nuclear power? I think the issues around how to deal with waste and safety are non-trivial.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/13/2007 @ 2:57pm

    You are getting me started on `nukelar'....

    Ever heard of the WIPP project? Just southeast of Carlsbad, NM! I have been there! It took decades (after it was physically ready) before it began (in 1999) receiving nuclear wastes due to enviro-nuts! At Yucca Mt., I believe something very similar......The enviro-nuts stopped nuclear waste depositories and then, in circular arguments, claim there is no safe place to store the wastes! I tell you what, I don't much use the word `hate' (except in jest), but my distastes for enviro-nuts come pretty close to that 4-letter word!

    Safety is, of course, an important factor. I tell you what, w/out any research, I'll bet my capital gains (no offset against losses) this year, that more people have died from coal-mining, oil/gas-related activities (explosions, rebel killings) than those died from uranium mining & nuclear plant related activities....for just the amount of BTUs used for electricity generation....I'll even let you ignore whatever greenhouse gases may have caused in terms of respiratory deaths!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 3:23pm

18. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

    I'll point out the obvious. An amendment of the Constitution is pretty much as "Constitutional" as anything gets. You may argue that it is not what the founder's intended - but you don't get to argue it's unconstitional.

    I'll also point you to Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

    The problem comes from the General Welfare, regulating commerce, and so forth indicates a much larger universe that in fact allows for legislation like Bernie's.

    But strangely, I'm also with you on some of this. It is a fact that we wouldn't be in Iraq or spending trillions on new weapons without a national income tax. Some of the problems in our country are directly related to large sums of money being available for whatever purpose lawmakers can think of - maybe some defined limits are exactly what is needed here.

    Let's start with defining defense as defense of our own borders and limits on support of armies of less than two years, and see how that impacts the bottom line. Because doesn't the Constitution also state that as well?

    "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" - Iraq is almost 3 times overdue from this strict Constitutional perspective.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 3:26pm

19. Posted by HAPPY 06/13/2007 @ 3:23pm

    I am not interested in arguing about nuclear power. I think there are good arguments on both sides. I think there is a sizable issue of risk that needs to be factored in evaluating it versus alternatives. I don't know enough to assess the risks either way, other than to say the obvious that they exist.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 3:35pm

20. For pete's sake, does the empirical evidence of government enthusiasm to unleash idle technical labor have any impact on Bernie Sanders or "progressives"? Does Bernie remember the great "High-Tech Promised Land" the Al Gore/Bill Clinton and Congressional funded (at $6 billion a year) project to new technologies generating hundreds of thousands of high-wage, high-skill American jobs for the downsized and other idle labor? Most of these programs have been big on promises but short on results. Not only have they failed to produce many jobs, but the programs suffer from duplication, inflated management costs and exaggerated claims of success and unstoppable annuity of discretionary funding. This type of "financing" goes way back and everytime is met with "this time it will be different" rhetoric. There was the "Energy-Related Inventions Program" of the Energy Department. Since 1975, the government has spent $76 million on energy-saving technologies. A total of 129 technologies have been commercialized. After twenty years of funding, all the companies involved employed 668 people. Or the Energy Department's popular Cooperative Research and Development Agreements. Taxpayers have spent $800 million over four years on them. The department says 46 companies have been created. That works out to more than $17 million to create each one. Sound like a wise investment? I'm all for funding community colleges, but I'd ask Bernie to limit his enthusiasm to just that, stay out of the way otherwise.

    Posted by hughm8 at 06/13/2007 @ 3:39pm

21. I think there is a sizable issue of risk that needs to be factored in evaluating it versus alternatives.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/13/2007 @ 3:35pm

    Just to wrap up the nuke talk, France (a `noun' in the Recovery Room) is tops in generating electricity from nuclear energy and there is NO reason that America couldn't have been her equal in every way on nuclear power! American technology (Westinghouse) allowed to benefit mostly others!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 3:56pm

22. Posted by SRJENKINS 06/13/2007 @ 3:35pm

    Yeah, sorry, SRJ...but go with HAPP on this. Oddly, the French, who we must imitate on everything from foreign policy to social welfare programs, are left OFF the list when it comes to energy policy. They get 78% of their electricity from nuclear power....

    and therefore employ legendary French snottiness in lecturing us about global warming with impugnity.

    Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 4:02pm

23. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" - Iraq is almost 3 times overdue from this strict Constitutional perspective.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/13/2007 @ 3:26pm

    That is precisely why we have an Iraq funding bill each year in compliance with the Constitution.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/13/2007 @ 4:32pm

24. Also SRJ,

    That is one of the drawbacks in releasing government contracts. Since no contract can be for more than 2 years, there is built in additional pricing to compensate if a company loses to a competitor in the next bid and must shut down until the next contract award.

    That is a small price to pay for what I see as a prudent constitutional mandate.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/13/2007 @ 4:34pm

25. Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia

    Wednesday, June 13, 2007

    By Sherry Karabin

    There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide -- the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

    According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million "missing" girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come....

    The imbalances are also giving rise to a commercial sex trade; the 2005 report states that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80 percent are women and girls, most of whom are exploited....

    ------------------------------------------------

    Quick, someone ask Sen. Sanders, if global warming is a "crises", what about the "60 million girls missing in Asia"! Forget about malarial deaths in Africa or Darfur....literally, those amounts are peanuts! OMG! The sky is falling!

    (Disclosure: I own GE stocks and its Medical Devices division makes some of the ultrasounds used for premeditated bad things)

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 4:35pm

26. They get 78% of their electricity from nuclear power....

    I think most of the Co2 emissions are from vehicles. A much smarter solution would be to force Detroit to break its dependence on the gas motor and innovate like Tesla Motors [teslamotors.com]

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/13/2007 @ 4:49pm

27. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/13/2007 @ 4:34pm

    Interesting. Curious, how do you propose to fund the federal government, government debt and the military without an income tax? My understanding is that the 16th Amendment passed precisely because there was a concern about government solvency.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 5:13pm

28. Since no contract can be for more than 2 years,...

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/13/2007 @ 4:34pm

    Green Acre (if you don't mind),

    That "2 years" is not true, at least in my own past dealings with the General Services Admin. Real Estate development/investment was my post-MBA career and we had numerous leases w/Gov't agencies that ran much longer....I personally structured a 140,000 SF lease for 20 years. I suppose one can argue on some obscure technical ground, a "lease" for property is not a "contract" but in the real world, it most certainly is!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 5:15pm

29. For folks seriously wanting to be educated, from CNN.com, some of money players include GE and Microsoft:

    Big Solar's day in the sun

    This is not the same old pipe dream. The economics -- and the technology -- of turning light into electricity have changed.

    By Todd Woody, Business 2.0 Magazine assistant managing editor

    June 5 2007: 8:50 AM EDT

    (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- Clouds hang low over the New Mexico desert, deep inside a military reservation a dozen miles south of Albuquerque. A breeze stirs the air; tumbleweeds roll by. Then the sun shines through and a low whirring sound breaks the silence.

    Six mirrored solar dishes that look like giant flowers with 15-foot stamens come to life. They pivot in unison, slowly tilting to face the sun rising over the jagged peaks of the Manzano ranges. A total of 468 mirrors -- 78 on each flower --capture the sun's rays and concentrate them into beams of light intense enough to melt lead.

    At each flower's focal point, suspended on metal struts, is a Stirling engine -- a heavy, piston-driven heat engine whose design dates from the Steam Age but is now coming into its own, thanks to the grim calculus of rising oil prices, global warming, and the threat of government-imposed carbon taxes. As the tips of the engines glow white-hot, 150 kilowatts of greenhouse gas-free electricity flows into a power grid.

    Welcome to the proving grounds of Sandia National Laboratories, a nine-acre field of dreams for solar entrepreneurs and a launching pad for the next era in energy technology: the age of Big Solar.

    This is not Jimmy Carter's energy crisis, when government subsidies ran ahead of market realities and launched a thousand solar projects that never saw the light of day. Their rusting hulks can still be seen scattered around the test fields: 1970s-vintage solar dishes, a 200-foot solar tower, parabolic mirrors surrounded by the detritus of bygone experiments.

    This is the real deal. This is industrial-strength solar energy, sold to public utilities in 20-year contracts measured in gigawatts. Stirling Energy Systems of Phoenix, whose giant flowers are gleaming in the New Mexico sun, has signed agreements to provide up to 900 megawatts of solar energy to San Diego Gas & Electric (Charts, Fortune 500) and another 850 megawatts to Southern California Edison (Charts, Fortune 500).

    That's nearly six times the utility-scale solar power being produced in the United States today.....

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 6:28pm

30. Posted by HAPPY 06/13/2007 @ 5:15pm

    The 2 year contract limitation applies only to military spending.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/13/2007 @ 6:41pm

31. Interesting. Curious, how do you propose to fund the federal government, government debt and the military without an income tax? My understanding is that the 16th Amendment passed precisely because there was a concern about government solvency.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/13/2007 @ 5:13pm

    Government solvency had nothing to do with it.

    http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1597

    Or read the very sorry and scary history paper of the FDR administration as they plotted how to steal the people's money

    FDR Tax plans [tinyurl.com]

    The progressive income tax allows politicians to protect friends, punish enemies, and to tax certain groups to give benefits to other groups. In the 1920s, Senator James Couzens of Michigan said, "Give me control of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and I will run the politics of the country." When President Nixon discussed who he wanted as commissioner of internal revenue, he said, "I want to be sure that he is … ruthless … that he will do what he is told, that every income-tax return I want to see, I see. That he will go after our enemies and not go after our friends. It's as simple as that."

    http://www.educationreport.org/article.aspx?ID=1706

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/13/2007 @ 6:56pm

32. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/13/2007 @ 6:56pm

    Can you explain how the 16th amendment got passed as a Constitutional Amendment and the role of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.?

    People obviously did not want to pay income tax. So, how did this get passed unless there was a compelling need such as solvency? If it is not solvency, what was the need?

    Also, how does the $5 trillion in U.S. debt get paid? How do you conduct your defense programs?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 9:00pm

33. Just one other comment. I can understand hating coercive government power. It's an attitude I readily sympathize with. The question is this:

    How do you address the problems of the Gilded Age where industrialists like Vanderbilt, Rockefeller and so forth basically create a type of economic nobility? What do you do in the face of the inevitable rise of working class dissatisfaction with that inequality?

    Not to mention the social problems that come from lack of food, inadequete housing, poor education, inaccessible medical care and so forth? Don't these type of problems undermine the very principles of individual liberty that the Constitution is based on?

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2007 @ 9:13pm

34. "...on the gas motor and innovate like Tesla Motors [teslamotors.com]"---Posted by METTEYYA 06/13/2007 @ 4:49pm

    Now...why am I NOT surprised that you're a fan of Nikola Tesla?

    "Tesla was also recorded to display sporadic anti-Semitism ... once calling a secretary to him and telling her, "Miss! Never trust a Jew!"---wikipedia.org

    Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 9:34pm

35. Posted by METTEYYA 06/13/2007 @ 4:49pm

    Electric commuters are cool. Only when they are recharged with non petro generated electricity. Otherwise the loses in generation, transmission and recharging would exceed any percieved gains in efficiency or enviromental friendliness.

    200 mile range/long recharge times will never sell and won't make any hydrocarbon energy savings w/o using wind/solar/nuclear power generation.

    Same with the myth of the hydrogen car. Where do we get the hydrogen? (Most of what is produced now, comes from natural gas, providing only the option of sequestering the co2 produced).

    If everyone simply stopped insisting on trucks as cars, we could double our fleet economy. Real gains will be made only with sensibly sized/powered vehicles and attention to milage driven. I like fast cars too. (maybe more). Still own one. Just don't drive it daily.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/14/2007 @ 12:57am

36. If everyone simply stopped insisting on trucks as cars, we could double our fleet economy. Real gains will be made only with sensibly sized/powered vehicles and attention to milage driven. I like fast cars too. (maybe more). Still own one. Just don't drive it daily.

    Eric

    Posted by MALCONTENT 06/14/2007 @ 12:57am

    Ah, ?LACK?CONTENT,

    Ever tried to haul some sheets of 4'x8' plywood or drywalls, half-cubic yard of bulk mulch, topsoil home on your "sensibly sized/powered vehicles"? Ever tried towing a car/trailer from one place to another? How about taking 6 kids to a swim meet along with their bags? Taking really old Dads/Moms plus own family out to dinner?

    Your EXTRA car! Do you ever give thoughts as to how much energy it took to build that car when, today, it could be actually put into daily use by some lesser mortal....so that one less car will be built somewhere up the food chain of cars?

    Why do Liberals think it's `liberal' to take away consumer choices? Who do they think they are to know what's best for ?all? Liberals of today, are the most illiberal malcontents around!

    HAPPY Owner (of 3 successive 1/2-ton pickups & `professional' Do-It-Yourselfer)

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 10:57am

37. Posted by HAPPY 06/14/2007 @ 10:57am

    I don't drive Happy. Want to make some comments about me too? Perhaps I'm reducing choice because I'm not supporting the automotive economy (although in my defense I DO take the bus)? Need to be careful with that overly broad "liberal" brush. =)

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 12:23pm

38. I don't drive Happy. Want to make some comments about me too?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 06/14/2007 @ 12:23pm

    You are fortunate! For the times I've played/lived in high-density cities (NYC & Taipei being the most notable), it's the most practical choice.....tops being the headaches of parking & vandals!

    For more spread out cities, like Houston and LA w/decent route coverages, I question mass transit's overall cost-benefits! Other than 3~4 Rush hours, the buses run mostly empty....that's a lot of ton-miles.....Like a lot of things, equipment/labor capacity sized to meet close to `peak' conditions but most of the times, huge wastes....:-)

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 2:19pm

39. Posted by HAPPY 06/14/2007 @ 2:19pm

    True. But not everyone can afford a car and cities like Houston were designed around cars - more a problem in city planning than mass transit in my opinion.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2007 @ 3:45pm

40. "Ever tried to haul some sheets of 4'x8' plywood or drywalls, half-cubic yard of bulk mulch, topsoil home on your "sensibly sized/powered vehicles"? Ever tried towing a car/trailer from one place to another? How about taking 6 kids to a swim meet along with their bags? Taking really old Dads/Moms plus own family out to dinner?

    Your EXTRA car! Do you ever give thoughts as to how much energy it took to build that car when, today, it could be actually put into daily use by some lesser mortal....so that one less car will be built somewhere up the food chain of cars?

    Why do Liberals think it's `liberal' to take away consumer choices? Who do they think they are to know what's best for ?all? Liberals of today, are the most illiberal malcontents around!

    Posted by HAPPY 06/14/2007 @ 10:57am

    I haul plywood occasionally in my truck. Equipment for my business. I just don't commute by myself in a full size SUV. Trucks can be useful (and communal, by the way, just ask my neighbors). If you need to move something, great. If it's just your lazy ass, drive a small car.

    I have no clue what to say to those who are retarded and selfish enough to bring six mouths into this world, so we'll ignore that pointless remark.

    As for the extended family, they fit fine in a 4 cyl. or V6 minivan, instead of a fullsize V8 SUV w/extra drivetrain weight, that most never use.

    As to my 88 civic, which should be in a junkyard by now, leaching contaminants into the ground...I have many times wondered if buying a new "cleaner" car is offset by the energy used to manufacture an entire new vehicle.

    Who wants to take your rights away? Not me. I merely suggested you use common sense, minimize fuel used and not be a selfish bastard, before someone makes us all drive small cars.

    (Let's save some gas for my grandchildren to take sunday drives in their musclecar they inherited).

    As for your last remark, it is nonsense. How can a liberal be illiberal? Is that conservative wisdom? No wonder I am a Malcontent. Your linguistic skills are apparently lacking, as "mal" content, would stand for lack of contentment, not content. (That would be your posts).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/14/2007 @ 10:02pm

41. I have no clue what to say to those who are retarded and selfish enough to bring six mouths into this world, so we'll ignore that pointless remark.

    ....I merely suggested you use common sense, minimize fuel used and not be a selfish bastard, before someone makes us all drive small cars.

    ....How can a liberal be illiberal? Is that conservative wisdom? No wonder I am a Malcontent. Your linguistic skills are apparently lacking, as "mal" content, would stand for lack of contentment, not content. (That would be your posts).

    Posted by MALCONTENT 06/14/2007 @ 10:02pm

    You are petty dense and LACK CONTENT (as I first intended). You see, nothing personal, no one cares how `contented' you are just as I'm sure, no cares if I'm HAPPY.....hahahahhaha....

    You are ILLIBERAL! So what if a woman or couple "bring six mouths into this world"? To you, it doesn't matter if they are model parents w/financial means, they are "retarded and selfish"! BTW, I have just two kids but perhaps you don't know anything about carpooling kids to games or practices...more to save time than money or gas! Now, don't you "Want to get Away?" Go Southwest!

    As for common sense....typical ILLIBERAL cop-outs dictating "suggestions" to others! Frankly, what I or anyone else drive or how much is wasted (selfish as you called), is nobody's business but mine and the gas station. When the cost exceed the utility I derive from said "waste", I'll adjust accordingly. Have you noticed that US gas consumption is ~2% higher this year....with $3+ gas? You see, your "common sense" is applicable to YOU, but most assuredly, IT IS NOT "common" at all.

    Through this exchange, you, sir, are ILLIBERAL!

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 11:04pm

42. Posted by HAPPY 06/14/2007 @ 11:04pm

    "When the cost exceed the utility I derive from said "waste", I'll adjust accordingly."

    ...Missing the whole point of conservation entirely. It all ready is to expensive to live our (not excluding myself here) lifestyles. We are just defering the enviromental, financial and geopolitical costs to future generations.

    And no, you don't have to follow/like my suggestions. (Hence the term "suggestions"). But I don't believe in overtly selfish behavior. Most stupid /overly restrictive laws are made in response to the irresponsible behavior of others.

    Why do "conservatives" (in spite of the "moral" posturing of many of them), not see the value of a little self restraint, whilst fending off regulation. Self restraint works well in nonsexual situations too.

    Yes. $3/gal gas is selling well, where is the self restraint? I'd wager it'll be mostly the ones with the least, who will whine the loudest when there are restrictions or a prohibitive tax...or the inevitable shortage comes sooner, rather than later.

    Interesting conclusion to your post. You, uh....(ahem)sir, are illogical

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/15/2007 @ 01:49am