Poliwonk USA,

Do you have a source for that $1200 per year cost? Is that supposed to be per household? 

I see a lot of these higher numbers being flung around, but most of them seem to come from conservative think tanks who aren't exactly know for their objectivity. The administration's estimates are based on numbers produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO is nonpartisan, not a part of the administration, and works to provide Congress with cost estimates and other relevant information. 

David Anderson Jul 3, 2009, 7:41am EDT
The link you provided is to an article about S. 2191, The American Climate Security Act of 2007. That bill, sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Warner, is history. The article  was written in 2007 and is not about the climate legislation about to before the Senate, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

In addition, you may want to take a look at the missions statement of the Heritage Foundation:

"To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and is hardly objective in its approach. I wouldn't consider the work they do to be very credible.

Last month, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts published a report that found that growth in the clean energy sector generated by the American Relief and Recovery Act and the American Clean Energy will create a net increase of about 1.7 million jobs in the U.S.

Where did you get that figure? I believe there is ample evidence to show that building a clean energy economy designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels - one of the key goals of this bill - actually creates jobs. 

According to recent findings by the Pew Charitable Trust:

"The number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to a report released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts."

Pew placed the total number of workers employed by the clean energy sector at 770,000, compared to 1.7 million for the fossil fuel sector. Not bad considering how long the fossil fuel industry has been dominating the energy industry. 

In addition:

"Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007.  There was a similar pattern at the state level, where job growth in the clean energy economy outperformed overall job growth in 38 states and the District of Columbia during the same period.  The report also found that this promising sector is poised to expand significantly, driven by increasing consumer demand, venture capital infusions, and federal and state policy reforms."

Well Dan, the article is about an energy company that has come out in support of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The company has experience creating green jobs, which in my view makes it a good judge of the kind of impact the bill will have on the nation's economy.

The federal government and state governments have been offering incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for some time. Unfortunately, these incentives have been small in comparison to the amount of taxpayer dollars being forked over to the fossil fuel industry on an annual basis.

It is quite likely that either the federal or state government of Washington provided some sort of financial incentives to PSE to build wind farms and invest in energy efficiency programs. Either way, taxpayers pay for any energy project in the end - be it through their tax dollars or the money they pay out to utility companies as ratepayers. If you can find an energy project that does not involve some type of government involvement, let me know. Government is heavily involved in the energy industry.

Naturally, fossil fuels like the ones you mentioned are not going to disappear over night. I am all for technologies that can make these fuels burn cleaner, however we must acknowledge that these technologies will likely come with their own set of costs that taxpayers and rate payers will have to pay. In the end, it makes sense to transition to renewable energy - environmentally and economically. 

There is technology in place to make coal burn cleaner in terms of mercury and some other emissions. However, these technologies do not eliminate all pollutants being emitted by coal burning power plants. Nor do they help to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions they emit. So called "clean coal technology" is not yet available on the market - a fact regularly acknowledged by the industry. When it is it will cost money to retrofit existing plants to make them clean. Why not just invest that money in renewable energy?

Precisely. The wind farms were built prior to the stimulus.

My point exactly. 

Dan,

I guess you think that one company based out of the State of Washington is somehow responsible for turning around the entire economy. I am sure those 225 people who got jobs thanks to PSE's wind farm projects and energy efficiency were glad to have the work. 

The federal government has a long history of providing financial incentives to the energy industry. In the past a lot of tax payer money has gone to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industry. Much less has gone towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, although that seems to be changing to some extent. Still, I don't see anything in my article that has to do with stimulus spending or government spending.