by Van Jones
Farmers should love the clean energy economy because it would let America’s struggling, rural communities earn three additional paychecks. Number one, each wind turbine placed on the land—which could still be farmed or otherwise used—could produce enough energy to bring in $10,000 to $20,000 per year. Number two, once the United States has a functioning carbon market, a farmer who improves her soil by using it to capture CO2 could get paid for removing that greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Number three, farmers could earn money growing an energy crop—not corn or another food crop—but some advanced, quick-turnaround biofuel crop such as jatropha, or even algae.
Ranchers should like clean energy, too. America might manufacture wind turbines, smart batteries, and solar panels in some blue states, but where are we going to deploy them? We are unlikely to put any big wind farms in the middle of Manhattan. The vast majority of green energy solutions will be deployed in red states and in rural America; that is where we will build the big solar arrays and acres of wind turbines. Green energy solutions are stereotyped as being “hippie power” for people in Berkeley, California. But it makes more sense to see renewable energy as cowboy power, rancher power, and farmer power.
Green energy is seen as “hippie power” for Berkeley. In truth, it is cowboy power, rancher power, and farmer power.
Homeowners and commercial property owners should be thrilled about the clean energy agenda. The cleanest and cheapest watt of energy is the one that is never used. Hundreds of thousands of Americans could be employed in “energy efficiency” jobs, refitting buildings to waste less energy and water. Such workers put in clean, nontoxic insulation; replace old boilers and furnaces; install better windows and doors, cutting home energy bills by 30 percent or more. If decision makers finance the energy efficiency program the right way, the building owner would not pay an extra penny for all those services. The money would come out of the savings from her energy bill once a month; eventually the program would pay for itself through savings. Properly structured and financed, the same dollar bill would cut unemployment, energy bills, pollution, and asthma—in a program that paid for itself. These are the kinds of programs that can be created through public-private partnerships that could put people to work right now. Bill Clinton says in his book Back to Work that a million people could be employed in the energy efficiency field. The initial financing could come from these banks that are sitting right now on a couple trillion dollars of uncommitted assets. Those bankers got government bailouts to keep them in their jobs; it’s time for them to help create some jobs for the rest of America.
Young people and the parents of unemployed youth should be thrilled about green and clean energy jobs, especially in struggling communities. Idle youth could be trained to put up solar panels, refit homes, tend community gardens, plant trees, and strengthen communities. Some say we cannot afford to train youth and place them in green industries. But if members of this abandoned generation start engaging in desperate and foolish acts, society will pay a potentially heavier price. Regardless, we are already paying a tremendous opportunity cost by letting youth unemployment rates climb to 45 percent or more; for African American teens in urban areas, the numbers are staggering. We don’t know how many Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Fords, and Oprah Winfreys are being left out of the economy. Perhaps we should reallocate the subsidies we give the oil industry to employ them instead. Our most precious resource is not our petroleum; it is our people.
As we think about a new economy, perhaps we can begin to apply some new math—and begin to count what really counts. The Earth counts; our kids count; the future counts. Where economic and energy policy meet, we should calculate not only what we spend, but we should also calculate what we save. And we should consider the payoffs from the investments we make in human and natural capital.
FUNDING THE TRANSITION TO AMERICA’S NEXT ECONOMY
The transition to a cleaner, greener economy will be neither cheap nor easy. One way to handle the expense is to make sure that greenhouse gas polluters pay some of the tab for the transition. In this scenario, the United States just needs to follow a simple principle: nobody in America should be allowed to pollute for free. Nobody. Not a strolling citizen who might be tempted to litter; not a small business person who might want to illegally dump her trash; and not the biggest polluters on Earth, who belch mega-tons of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere and don’t pay a cent for the privilege.
CARBON TAX OR CARBON TRADING
Society can put a price on carbon pollution in one of two ways: through a tax on carbon, or with a cap-and-trade system. With the tax approach, the government would determine the extra price on carbon. It then would let the market sort out the amount of carbon that industry ultimately produces. With emissions trading, the government would determine the allowable amount of carbon pollution. It then would let the market figure out the price. These two ideas are basically flip sides of the same solution, with the government playing the opposite role in each. The money generated could go toward supporting the transition.
Nobody in America should be allowed to pollute for free. Our most precious resource is not our petroleum; it is our people.
This is not pie in the sky; in the first and only mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme in America, it is already working brilliantly. A new report, “The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,” quantifies the economic benefits from the implementation of a ten-state regional greenhouse gas initiative called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
To quote the report, key findings include:
• The regional economy gains more than $1.6 billion in economic value added (reflecting the difference between total revenues in the overall economy, less the cost to produce goods and services).
• Customers save nearly $1.1 billion on electricity bills, and an additional $174 million on natural gas and heating oil bills, for a total of $1.3 billion in savings over the next decade through installation of energy efficiency measures using funding from RGGI auction proceeds to date.
• Sixteen thousand jobs are created region-wide.
• Reduced demand for fossil fuels keeps more than $765 million in the local economy.
• Power plant owners experience $1.6 billion in lower revenue over time, although, overall, they had higher revenues than costs as a result of RGGI during the 2009–2011 period.
Massachusetts benefited most, creating thirty-eight hundred jobs and nearly $500 million in economic activity between 2008 and 2011, because it used the bulk of its money to help fund its aggressive energy-efficiency agenda. A similar program at national scale would enable hundreds of thousands of Americans to go to work, create or grow hundreds of private firms, and put the United States in a position to compete with China (which is now eating our lunch using our technology).
OTHER POLICIES TO JUMPSTART GREEN ECONOMY
If Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats continue to oppose cap-and-trade, there are other ways to stimulate green growth. The federal government could simply mandate that our utilities buy more clean energy; this policy—called a Renewable Energy Standard—would create an instant market for entrepreneurial purveyors of advanced batteries, smart grid technologies, and clean energy. Alternatively, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could directly regulate carbon polluters under the Clean Air Act, as the Supreme Court says is lawful; Democrats would have to maintain a filibuster to keep the Clean Air Act from immediately being amended. If the EPA were to exercise this authority, clean energy entrepreneurs would have a guaranteed market.
There is no rational reason that any of these solutions could not be implemented on a bipartisan basis. As it is, too many of our clean and green industries are teetering on the brink. The Chinese government is pumping money into its solar companies to flood the world market with cheap solar panels; once it achieves a monopoly, it will jack the prices back up. Meanwhile, the U.S. government won’t even commit to m
aintain the modest subsides it has made available to domestic clean energy producers. At a time when we need jobs, our government is throwing away the industries of tomorrow.
It is important to remember that the green sector of America’s economy—often associated with expensive eco-products such home solar systems, organic food, and hybrid cars—is no longer just for affluent people who are willing to spend more money. It is also for middle-class, working-class, and low-income people who want to earn more money and save more money.
With the right policies in the Head Space, the 99% movement can help rebuild the middle class; fight pollution and poverty at the same time; simultaneously beat global warming and the global recession; and create an inclusive, green economy that Dr. King would have been proud of.
WE MUST REJECT THE IDEA that people who love America and who respect the free market are just supposed to sit back and give the country over to the global corporations. We cannot accept the idea that the American people can do nothing but suffer until eventually an international company decides that it wants to create a job somewhere—and then hope it is in America. We need Uncle Sam to do more than just cross his fingers and wait for the global market to magically fix everything for us. We must support the idea that there is something very American about Americans working together with America’s government to solve America’s problems.
People who actually love the country—and who understand something about economics besides a slogan—need to speak out. Having a blind, religious faith in markets has nothing to do with the kind of economic thinking and investment strategy that built America’s middle class. That is the kind of thinking that is actually destroying the middle class in the United States and killing the American Dream.
9
OCCUPY THE OUTSIDE GAME
FROM THE MOMENT OF ITS BIRTH, the 99% movement has owned the Outside Game. Those who pitched tents in downtown Manhattan were the ultimate outsiders, with no Washington lobbying operation, no pollsters, and no electoral game plan. They were engaged in a purely grassroots effort to impact the public discussion—and they succeeded beyond all but their wildest ambitions.
So far, so good. But as hard as grassroots movements are to start, they can be even harder to maintain. The launch requires a near miracle: jumping over the barriers to press coverage erected by a cynical media, and then capturing the imagination of a somnolent or discouraged public. Keeping the momentum going and avoiding an early flameout can be equally tough. Newborn grassroots movements face a “grow, deepen, or die” challenge; if they fail to meet it, they risk disappearing as quickly as they emerged.
It is especially important that the Occupy-inspired movement of the 99% continue to experiment, evolve, and innovate—to find ways to engage a continually growing cross-section of people. The initial set of tactics associated with Occupy centered on the twenty-four-hour encampments, which were usually set up in defiance of local, anticamping ordinances. Both confrontational and controversial, the tent cities were essential for building community among the highly dedicated, as well as grabbing the attention of the public. But in many cities, this tactic also created a context for an adversarial relationship with city officials and law enforcement agencies. Some of the resulting clashes and conflicts were alarming and a turn-off, even for those who shared the protesters’ underlying concerns about the economy.
The future of the 99% movement will be determined in part by the next stage of activity in the Outside Game quadrant. I see three main areas of urgent focus. Those of us who are committed to the 99% movement must do the following:
• Systematically involve the five main “casualty groups” of this economic crisis.
• Continue broadening the protest and community-building tactics beyond the encampments.
• Embody and promote alternative economic models (“American Dream 2.0”).
ENGAGING FIVE NEW ECONOMIC CASUALTY GROUPS
A movement strong enough to achieve economic renewal must be both deep and broad. The 99% therefore must find ways to reach out to new constituencies, engage with sympathetic audiences, and convert skeptics. The movement today can still get attention, but it is not large or powerful enough to force decision-makers to make real changes.
For the next round of growth, the 99% should look to those whom I call the new “economic casualty” groups—those who got the short end of the stick in the Great Recession.
By definition, every new economic crisis results in new economic casualties. These are people who were doing fine prior to the crisis. They generally had homes, jobs, reasonably secure futures, and big dreams for themselves or their kids. Suddenly, they found themselves in a very different situation. But because they are newly impoverished, they do not have preexisting champions, advocacy organizations, policy solutions, or political movements with which they identify. They are doubly disadvantaged because they have lost their economic place, and they lack political voice. At the same time, their ranks are filled with the leaders of tomorrow who have fresh energy, skills, social capital, and a direct stake in a new direction for the economy.
These newly impoverished or newly anxious constituencies, in addition to the millions of historically low-income and disadvantaged people in America, make up the main base of potential recruits into the 99% cause.
Every new economic crisis creates new economic casualties—people who have lost the place they had yesterday. But their ranks are filled with the leaders of tomorrow.
The 2008 collapse created at least five such casualty groups.
Millennials
Although the so-called Millennials (born after 1980) are already represented within the core of Occupy’s ignition layer, it is nonetheless worth reviewing why young people should be ongoing targets of special outreach and engagement. They represent the first postwar generation of Americans in danger of faring much worse economically than their parents did. They have tremendous energy for change—and a big, objective need for change. The injustice of their situation is growing increasingly palpable and obvious to them: it does not seem to matter whether they finish high school, finish college, or drop out. They are too likely to end up back at home, sleeping on their parents’ couches, anyway. Some of these young people have done well at some of the nation’s top schools but still find themselves, upon graduation, struggling just to find unpaid internships. In some of our larger cities, they comprise a whole class of unpaid workers who are increasingly despairing of their ability to even get their foot on a rung of the paid ladder inside the organizations in which they are volunteering and temping.
For those who have been trapped in failing schools, or who have been sucked into America’s massive and ravenous incarceration industry, the prospects are worse. The unemployment rate for African American and Latino men in some of our urban areas is above 50 percent—a national catastrophe that has gone unaddressed by both the Bush and Obama administrations. All of these young people deserve better, especially given how much vital work is going undone or poorly done in our country. This generation should and could be fully employed through public-private partnerships to rebuild our infrastructure, repower the country with clean energy, train the next generation, and care for the aging population.
Young people are always at the forefront of important social change movements, especially when they have a direct stake in the outcome. Because millions of young people had a direct stake in ending Jim Crow and the Vietnam War, youth in the 1960s emerged as a tremendous force for positive change. Today’s new generation—made up of millions of unemployed and underemployed, ecologically aware, and socially conscious young people—has a direct stake in changing the economic and ecological direction of the country. They know no one is coming to help them. Washington is not figuring this out on their behalf. They should remain the central and growing core of the 99%.
Veterans
There is a subset of this rising generation that is especially skilled and deserving: our young veterans, coming home from war
s to few jobs and little hope. Their plight is particularly sad and ironic. When they were fighting on a military battleground, and as long as giant war profiteers such as Halliburton could get a piece of the monetary action, our young men and women in uniform had support. But once they arrive at their hometown airport, they often feel like they have been dumped into an economic battleground with little or no help at all. The Obama administration has done more for them than previous administrations, but much more is needed.
Many of them have served four, five, or six tours of duty. They return to their old neighborhoods with catastrophic psychological and physical damage, much of it unprecedented. Medical care can save the bodies of young people who were hurt on the battlefield; psychological care may help heal their trauma. But it will take a powerful political movement to make sure that they get those things and that America’s economy can provide them with a decent shot at a good life.
Let’s not forget, few children from the top 1% serve in the military. The young people coming home are from the middle-, working-, and disadvantaged classes. They are the children of the 99%. It is also important to remember that today’s veterans are now made up of both genders, all sexual orientations, and every color and nationality. They look like America, and they feel acutely America’s pain. They should be central to the push for economic progress.
If our country is lucky, these returning veterans, including our wounded warriors, will be engaged in a whole lot of nation-building, right here at home.