Yesterday, the Obama administration announced plans to invest $500 million in grants for green jobs training programs. The money will be used to train workers for careers in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors. $50 million worth of grants will be directed towards communities that have been impacts by the recent restructuring of the auto industry.
The announcement came at a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force in Denver and was accompanied by information about a new partnership between the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education. The new partnership will bolster the government’s efforts to provide students, the unemployed, and disadvantaged workers with the education, training, and job placement assistance they will need to compete for jobs in the nation’s growing green economy.
"Over the past three months, members of the Task Force and their staffs have come together to work on ways in which we can leverage programs at different agencies to ensure that green jobs are accessible to middle-class workers, as well as lower-income workers trying to gain a foothold into the middle class," Vice President Joe Biden was quoted as saying.
Biden also called upon the Council for Environment Quality to prepare a report on proposals that will prepare the way for future investments in the green economy. The proposals are expected to include programs designed to make commercial and residential buildings more energy efficient and develop new tools that will help Americans find green jobs. The administration hopes to revolving-loans and other forms of private financing to continue making investments in the green economy once funding from the stimulus package has been distributed.
The administration has already made great strides in using stimulus money to create jobs improving the energy efficiency of American homes by boosting in the federal Weatherization Assistance Program from $250 million in 2008 to $5 billion, according to one White House official.
“That translates to jobs for professionally trained crews using computerized energy audits and advanced equipment to determine the most cost-effective measures,” according to Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environment Quality. “To meet this demand for workers, there will have to be a huge ramp-up in training workers. That's why the Recovery Act also includes $500 million for green job training through the Department of Labor.”
David Anderson is the author of the blog The Green Jobs Report
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
Very nice article. My only problem is where is all that money coming from? If it weren't for the fact that we have spent so much already, I'd be cheering.
Excellent question Patti. The $500 million is from economic stimulus package past soon after Obama came into office earlier this year. As such, the money for these programs is already set aside - it just needs to be allocated.
We need this. It seems like a good move to me.
The idea is a good one, but this is nothing but press, there are no specifics noted.
"The administration has already made great strides in using stimulus money to create jobs"
The stimulus bill has done very little in the way of creating jobs considering that most of the spending will not even begin until 2010.
Who is getting this money? how is it being distributed? How much $ per job is it going to cost the American tax payer?
Dan,
I am not sure what is going on where you live Dan, but I see the stimulus package already in action here in New Hampshire everyday. Stimulus money is being used to repair roads and bridges, and the State of New Hampshire's home weatherization program received a substantial boost in federal funds because of the stimulus package. These are practical investments that do a lot more than just create jobs, so you can't really use a $ per job formula to measure their impact.
Who is getting this money? The money will be allocated to programs through grants on a competitive basis, which a preference towards programs targeting at communities hit hardest by the economic downturn. I'd imagine that local and state governments will be eligible, as may nonprofit organizations and some for profit institutions.
David,
www.recovery.gov is the official whitehouse stimulus bill spending website.
It's "in the news" section shows that only this month has the money for projects began to be "made available".
If you are seeing any activity towards recovery it is not likely coming from monies gotten from the stimulus bill.
The weatherization program was officially signed into effect the 11th of May so it could not have had any/little effect by now.
HUD released funds to rehabilitate public housing just this month.
There has been a lot of federal funds released to support Unemployment insurance accross the country but that won't effectively add to any recovery.
David,
What you have been hearing is press from those who support the Democrats massive spending bill to make it appear that it is having an effect.
I took a look and it seems as though funding was available for some projects in April. The distribution of funding has actually begun quite quickly, given that the American Recovery and Relief Act was signed into law on February 19, 2009. Furthermore, those who have or will receive stimulus funds have known for some time that the money was on the way, allowing them to proceed with projects that might have otherwise have been placed on hold.
Delay is a part of out system of government, for better or for worse. Lawmakers do not implement the laws they pass, nor do they provide all the details necessary to implement legislation. It is the job of the various departments that constitute the executive branch to fill in the details, define rules and procedures, and implement legislation. Often implementation involves shifting funding to state run programs, which also enjoy some discretion over how they will use the funds.
The process takes time, but in the case of the stimulus lawmakers were careful to outline procedures intended to speed up the process. For example, they stipulated that stimulus spending should target "shovel ready projects" - projects that were ready to go once funding was made available.
Hmm,
"I took a look and it seems as though funding was available for some projects in April."
Just now took a look?
Any of those "April" projects substantial enough to have as much effect as you suggested in your article?
I don't suggest anything in my article. I simply quoted a number of statements made by administration officials, which you have for whatever reason attributed to me.
I have followed the stimulus spending for some time, however I do not spend every waking moment following updates made to the Recovery.gov website. I'd hope you don't either. There are plenty of other sources of info out there. For example, I have followed local media accounts as well as state government information to better understand how stimulus money is being spent in New Hampshire.
By the way, new information released by the Obama administration claims that stimulus spending has already create 150,000 jobs:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/100-days.pdf
This I feel is a good step
Yes it was part of Pelosi's Anti Stuimulus package Obama helped pass. It is something we do not need, and will not even help. If you have not looked yet, when you make things green, you increase costs, and decrease value. Not to say everything green is of low value, just that the ability to make them costs more than the product should.
Another point is that most issues that are "Green" usually have a lot of aspects that are much more environmentally distructive than beneficial. It is like the Green Lights, the Aron Gas was replaced with Mercury Gas and now they are a high toxic item, but use less electricity so they are called green. To think these jobs will less is lame at best. I mean after all we are talking about what Pelosi has had control of.
Actually, home weatherization is a widely recognized as a sound investment. It is relatively cheap and helps household reduce energy bills, as well as air conditioning and heating costs. Over the long term having your home weatherized can actually save you money and increase the value of your home.
As for CFL light bulbs, they are perfectly safe unless they are mishandled. When they are properly recycled, the mercury is safely contained to prevent its leakage into the environment.
The expansion of the weatherization program will probably do more towards greening the U.S. than all the other alternative energy promotions to date.
It will do more more quickly to help with the recovery than any other program right now.
The reason being is that most states counties and cities already have weatherization programs in place with equipment and employees ready to go. With the influx of monies into these pre existing agencies across our country they can quickly hire more employees and the necessary supplies to expand their work and applications.
By this winter we can be seeing a positive effect from this investment.
We need to train both our displaced workers and future workers with jobs that can't be off shored the ROI on this program pays a lot of long term benefits. This is a can't lose idea.
There is no cure without cost- African proverb
"This is a can't lose idea."
You know nothing of the plan but think it is a "can't loose idea"?
This is the type of 'Green is always good' thinking that leads to the wasting of The American citizens money.
Dan,
There is plenty of information out there about the administration's plans to create green jobs. I'm sure plenty of folks have already taken a look at some of it. Here is a good place to start:
www.whitehouse.gov
David,
It is commendable to support alternative energies and conservation of our resources I do myself, but to do so blindly simply because they are "green" is not reasonable nor a responsible use of other peoples monies.
You may be sure that many have looked at it but such a generic link provided would suggest you know little of the details yourself.
There is a wealth of information out there about how the stimulus money is being spent. The federal government has launched a website dedicated to providing the public with information about where money from the stimulus package is going:
http://www.recovery.gov/
The site includes state by state breakdowns of projects being funded by stimulus dollars.
I certainly don't advocate anyone embracing any policy blindly. Every policy has comes with its own costs and benefits. I have studied environmental policy in depth as a graduate student, and worked for a number of environmental non-profits including the Sierra Club. While I consider myself green, I am not naive when it comes to understanding that environmental issues tend to be complex issue, and solutions are rarely simple.
When it comes to making practical investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and education designed to prepare Americans for the jobs of the future I do believe that the benefits outweigh the costs in many cases.
"http://www.recovery.gov/"
Well David you must have noticed that I have already posted examples from this site to show how your assumption about what effect the stimulus bill has already had can't possibly be.
Even the break downs on the site that you mention are general in nature and not worth much from an analysis point of view, it in no way gives us the way to determine if it is indeed worth it.
Your thinking that it is worth it is a personal opinion not based upon anything else, which is fine except that you have just promoted yourself as being a (semi) expert (see below)
"I have studied environmental policy in depth as a graduate student, and worked for a number of environmental non-profits including the Sierra Club."
Tell me David,
How many degrees of planetary warming will the Waxman Carbon cap and trade plan avoid?
How much benefit to the country in comparison to the damage caused by raising prices, higher energy costs, a reduction in gross domestic product, a slower (than even now) economy?
The facts are that a cap and trade scheme will have far greater harmful effects to our society than it will reduce global warming in any perceivable amount.
But I'm sure you support it (or something more extreme) don't you?
Well Dan, it seems to me as though you have decided to enter into the realm of personal attacks. It seems to me that you have a number of your own unbased assumptions about me, my beliefs, and about cap and trade legislation - which was not the topic of this article.
Let me know when you are ready to continue with a rational, civil debate.
Personal attacks? Where?
If you consider what I just posted a personal attack you are way to thin skinned and should not be posting on Gather.
It's a good bet that if you have done what you claim, and promote the stimulus bill as you do, you also support cap and trade, if I bet on it I'd most likely win.
"Let me know when you are ready to continue with a rational, civil debate."
I'm always ready but apparently you are not.
I simply see no point in continuing a discussion when it gets down to hurling assumptions about. However, if you insist...
As for cap and trade and the Waxman bill in particular, I readily admit that I would need to do more research before I wholeheartedly support it. From what I know, lawmakers are working to negotiate measures that will minimize its impact on industry. For example, by providing free carbon credits to certain industries so that they can ease into compliance over time.
I assume that you simply don't believe in global warming, which would explain why you are so opposed cap and trade legislation. You have after all posted numerous articles about the alleged inaccuracy of global warming science. If that is your opinion, I am not going to slam you for it.
Finally, for someone so concerned about expertise, you have a surprising tendency to use Gather as a place to cut and paste articles and reports written by others. Do some original work of your own, and perhaps I will take your expertise a bit more seriously.
"Do some original work of your own, and perhaps I will take your expertise a bit more seriously."
Interesting David.
What you have read of my postings is simply sharing information concerning climate change.
If you are looking for 'opinion' I suggest you check out my comments on other people's threads... It gets fun sometimes.
"I assume that you simply don't believe in global warming, which would explain why you are so opposed cap and trade legislation."
I believe in global warming David, I just believe the science that supports the theory that man made C02 is the cause of global warming is lacking.
"Finally, for someone so concerned about expertise, you have a surprising tendency to use Gather as a place to cut and paste articles and reports written by others."
Again, interesting, Did this statement have any real meaning in your mind as you were thinking it? or was it just that the combination of words sounded good to you as you thought them?
Because they make no sense what so ever to me.
But then that is probably due to your superior intellect which I can't possibily begin to comprehend.
David; "As for CFL light bulbs, they are perfectly safe unless they are mishandled. When they are properly recycled, the mercury is safely contained to prevent its leakage into the environment."
Wake up! Do you realize how often a bulb, even a CFL tube explodes during a lightning storm? Do you realize how ofte little kids knock off lights by accident? And do you realize how many accidents that have nothing to do with intentional mishandling, or even mishandling at all hapen every Month? Agon Gas was not as dangerous as Mercury gas is, and you want to defend the use of Mercury gas?
Do you realize that the Green junk they make is just that, junk.
Man anything to avoid the truth.
Naturally, every individual has a choice about what kind of light bulb they use. I for one, prefer CFL's. I have never heard of nor witnessed one exploding. The EPA provides ample information about how to clean up after a broken CFL:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
The EPA also notes that all types of fluorescent light bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, not just CFL's. CFL's are not flawless. They are a relatively cheap and effective way to save energy. I would suggest that individuals are perfectly capable of making an educated decision about the costs and benefits of CFL's on their own. Many people use them with no problems, others want to avoid the risk.
There are also other energy saving alternatives for lighting out there, such as LED.
David, yes and I do not buy the CFLs. Have you checked the area that small amount of mecury covers that is a hazord zone? It is a large area, because it does not take a lot to cover a big area and make it dangerous.
"I have never heard of nor witnessed one exploding."
Interesting, I would not have thought anyone living had not seen or heard of this. Are you sure you are living?
Pretty sure :)