[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING: GREEN COLLAR JOBS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-5
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-967 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin, Ranking Member
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
South Dakota JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOHN J. HALL, New York
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
David Moulton, Staff Director
Aliya Brodsky, Chief Clerk
Thomas Weimer, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement................. 5
Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement.......................... 8
Witnesses
Mr. Van Jones, President and Co-Founder, Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights, Oakland, CA...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 53
Mr. Jerome Ringo, President of the Apollo Alliance............... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Ms. Elsa Barboza, Campaign Coordinator for the Strategic Concepts
in Organizing and Policy Education in Los Angeles, CA.......... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Mr. Robert Thelen, Chief Training Officer of Capital Area
Michigan Works in Lansing, MI.................................. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 58
Submitted Material
Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of May 22, 2007, from Mr. Gavin
Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco................................. 61
HEARING ON ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING; GREEN COLLAR JOBS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2007
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room
2318 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Solis,
Cleaver, Hall, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg, Sullivan and Miller.
The Chairman. This hearing is called to order.
Over the past five weeks, our Committee has examined some
of the serious consequences of global warming and our oil
dependence. We have heard how these two challenges threaten our
national security, our economy, and our environment--all good
reasons why we urgently need to implement policies that reduce
global warming, pollution, and our oil consumption.
Today we will examine another good reason to adopt policies
that will green our economy--the opportunity to create new
jobs. We will learn that actions which serve the national
interest can also serve the public interest, and that smart
policies can provide a pathway out of poverty and into a green
economy.
As we increase the energy efficiency and use the renewable
energy of the United States, we will need green collar workers
to create, manufacturer, install, and maintain these new clean
technologies. The range of jobs and skills requirements is
wide, but the potential employment impact is substantial. In a
recent analysis, the Clean Tech Venture Network estimated that
as many as 500,000 green collar jobs could be created by 2010.
We know that green collar jobs are already growing and
having a broad impact on the economy. As just one example, the
U.S. ethanol industry clearly has already created 154,000 jobs
throughout the nation's economy in 2005 alone, boosting
household incomes by $5.7 billion. But that is just a fraction
of the potential jobs and economic growth that the green
economy promises.
Even now workers trained for traditional jobs are
translating their skill into green industries. Petroleum
engineers have become biofuel entrepreneurs. Steel mill workers
have become windmill makers. And roofers have become powerplant
builders, as they install solar electricity shingles so that
buildings can produce their own electricity.
In many communities, green collar jobs will have multiple
benefits. Pilot programs across the country are already using
low-income weatherization programs to train people in the
skills needed to upgrade the efficiency of buildings.
Those families who increasingly struggle with the decision
between heating and eating in the winter get warmer homes,
lower energy bills, while trainees expand their job
opportunities. In 2005, buildings accounted for nearly 40
percent of global warming pollution in the United States. So by
combining upgrading homes and job training, global warming
pollution will go down and the employment prospects of some of
our poorest workers will go up.
In America, as we become more efficient and more reliant on
renewable energy, the dirty power generation, which currently
exists disproportionately in low-income areas can be replaced,
including these communities. And the economic expansion
promised by the green economy has the potential to bring large
numbers of people out of poverty, while improving the
environment and public health.
As FDR said about The New Deal, the test of our progress as
a nation is not whether we do more for those who already have
much, but whether we provide for those who have too little. The
same is true for the green deal America now needs. In the green
economy, opportunities must be available for the many, not just
the few.
I look forward to learning from today's witnesses how the
benefits of the green economy can be shared broadly. I now turn
and recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member
of the Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
[The statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.002
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is about jobs. Specifically, we are going to
talk today about creating new jobs, a topic that Republicans
know something about. Since Congress passed tax relief in
August 2003, the economy has added 7.8 million jobs.
I agree there is always room in the economy for more jobs
and for better jobs, whether they are blue collar, white
collar, or what seems to be the latest in workforce fashion
green collar. We are likely to see today the Republicans and
Democrats agree on the goal of job creation, but take different
paths to reach that goal.
I believe the free market forces of the private sector
offer the best road to job creation. I think that relying on
the government to create jobs is a dead end. One question I
would like to see answered today is exactly what a green collar
job is.
One of our witnesses, Mr. Van Jones, wrote in Yes magazine
that a green collar job includes construction work on a green
building or even bicycle repair. Mr. Jones is devoted to
creating more jobs and economic opportunities, and for that he
is to be commended. He is also right to assert that some
environmental projects will help create new jobs.
But I do think it is important that we distinguish between
the new jobs created to develop advanced technology and jobs
that play a supporting role to green technology. The reason
this is an important distinction is because part of today's
focus is on government job training programs. Already the
Federal Government spends $5.3 billion annually on job
training. States together spend $500 to $700 million each year.
But the business community spends up to $56 billion per year.
That is $56 billion with a B.
I am worried that by creating big government programs for
so-called green collar job training what we really would be
doing is simply duplicating the job training programs that
already exist. It seems to me that many of the green collar
jobs require the same blue collar skill sets that are already
addressed by job training programs in both the public and
private sectors.
Is construction of a green building that fundamentally
different than constructing a traditional building? Is
installing a solar panel fundamentally different than
installing a satellite dish? I have serious questions about
what type of job training will really be needed for the so-
called green collar jobs.
As Mr. Thelen says in his prepared testimony, with
individuals who are in transition, it is tempting to encourage
them to train for the next hot job, whether that is in health
careers, information technology, or in this case green jobs.
I think we need to be cautious about creating job training
programs for jobs that don't yet exist. Thanks to the private
sector, these jobs may be just around the corner, but we
shouldn't rush to train the labor force for jobs that don't yet
exist and may not require special training anyway.
I do think that there are ways to promote jobs that are
directly related to green technology. In fact, I joined 388 of
my colleagues in the House last month to approve a bill that I
believe will help promote more green jobs. It is called the
10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds, Science and Math Scholarship
Act.
It will create a scholarship program to encourage college
students to become math and science teachers. These teachers
will help to train a highly skilled workforce in the future. I
firmly believe that we must look to advance technology in order
to address global warming issues, and it seems that I am not
the only one who believes that technology will play a big role
in climate change policy.
Promoting advanced technology in hybrid cars is the number
one point in the Apollo Alliance's plan for good jobs and
energy independence. And I am happy that Mr. Jerome Ringo,
Apollo Alliance's president, is here with us, and I look
forward to hearing what types of advanced technology have
captured his interest.
In March, the Bank of America announced a $20 billion
program that will finance green programs, including mortgages
on green buildings. Not to be outdone, Citigroup announced in
May a $50 billion 10-year program devoted to funding green
projects. That is $70 billion for green projects without a
single dollar coming from the taxpayers.
Already many companies are talking about green initiatives,
including Wal-mart, which recently announced it would place
solar panels on at least 22 of their stores. If these companies
need specially-trained employees, they certainly have the
wherewithal to fund it on their own.
Green collar jobs will be good for the economy, just like
white and blue collar jobs. I think the private sector is
already on the path toward putting people to work in the green
collar jobs, but I am worried that more big government programs
will only create a roadblock.
I thank the chair and yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis, is recognized.
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting our witnesses that we are going to hear from today. I
am sure they are going to have a lot of good information for
us. But I do want to say that when we talk about the growth and
innovation of the greening of our country, we can't forget
rural America or those low-income areas. So when we think about
Silicon Valley, think about also East Los Angeles, the Bronx,
and Missouri. So we need to be thinking big picture here.
I would also like to say that a part of what I see or
envision here in this new era is that the environmental
industries that are experiencing major job growth--and I want
to quote a paragraph from a letter that I just received from
the Mayor of San Francisco, Mr. Newsome. He said that they are
experiencing major job growth, which includes green buildings,
energy efficiency retrofit and service, renewable energy such
as wind, solar, and biofuels.
Being service-intensive, these industries produce high-
quality jobs that are less vulnerable to outsourcing. I think a
very, very important aspect of this is that we are trying to
keep our jobs here within the parameters of the U.S.A. So I
know we are going to hear about this.
I am very excited about this opportunity and am looking at
introducing legislation, along with my colleagues, Congressman
Tierney, Congressman Miller, and Congressman McNerney, to see
how we could better serve, retrain, retrofit our workers who
have lost jobs that have gone overseas, to keep them here, and
then address the issue of our youth, underserved youth who we
seem to be losing. They can also be a big magnet in attracting
new innovation and getting them more involved in the new
technological future in the environment.
So I look forward to hearing from you and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg. I thank the Chairman. And other than to
commend you for holding this hearing, and note that our vibrant
economy is responding with lots of market alternatives to the
green jobs and creating green jobs, and that there are forces
out there to try to fill the void, I will waive my opening
statement.
The Chairman. The gentleman waives his opening statement.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Mr. Chairman, I would waive my comments and
use it during my questioning.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.003
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also look forward to
hearing the testimony of our witnesses, and I waive my opening
statement.
The Chairman. Great.
I thought I saw Mr. Sullivan.
So let me then--let me begin now by recognizing our first
witness. He is the President and Founder of the Ella Baker
Center for Human Rights in Oakland, California. Mr. Jones has
spent his career advocating for social and environmental
justice and can point to the city of Oakland's adoption of his
Green Jobs Corps proposal as just one of his many successes.
Mr. Jones, welcome. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENTS OF MR. VAN JONES, PRESIDENT AND CO-FOUNDER, ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA; MR. JEROME
RINGO, PRESIDENT, APOLLO ALLIANCE, LOUISIANA; MS. ELSA BARBOZA,
CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR FOR GREEN INDUSTRIES, STRATEGIC CONCEPTS
IN ORGANIZING AND POLICY EDUCATION (SCOPE), LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA; AND MR. BOB THELEN, CHIEF TRAINING OFFICER, CAPITAL
AREA MICHIGAN WORKS, LANSING, MICHIGAN
STATEMENT OF VAN JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members.
I am very glad to be here.
Let me just jump right in. I really appreciated the
comments from Mr. Sensenbrenner. I think they are right on
point, and I want to get directly to them. First of all, I
think all of us here can agree on at least three things. One is
that, all things being equal, clean energy is better than dirty
energy. We would rather have clean energy than dirty energy in
our communities. It is more healthy for our children.
Two, conserving energy is better than wasting it. The
creator has given us so much energy we shouldn't just, you
know, waste it the way we are doing right now. And, third, if
there is a way, and a smart way, to get a reduction in both
poverty and pollution, we can cut both poverty and pollution,
we would be foolish not to do so. So I think those three values
we all share. The question is: what is the proper role for
government? What is the proper role for markets?
I want to make an argument that there is a proper role for
government moving forward. Number one, as we move from a dirty
energy, wasteful economy, to a conservation-based clean energy
economy, we automatically create more jobs. Why is that? We
create more jobs because it takes more people to do energy the
right way. If you want one megawatt of energy, and you want to
use, say, natural gas to do it, which is the cleanest of all
the dirty energy forms, one megawatt of energy will give you
one job for an American worker. One job.
If you don't go with the gas, and instead you go with
geothermal or wind, you get six jobs. If you go with solar
power, photovoltaic, you get 22 jobs. So you create the same
amount of energy, but you create many, many more jobs. The
problem that we have right now, contrary to some of your
earlier concerns, is that our workforce development is actually
lagging and lagging dramatically behind this opportunity.
We have the opportunity to grow the jobs, but we are
already encountering labor shortages in Northern California
where the green economy is moving forward most dramatically.
Community colleges are not prepared, our vocational training
programs are not prepared, and what we are hearing from eco-
entrepreneurs themselves, the business leaders themselves in
this field is that they are not getting the kinds of graduates
from our programs that they need to be able to go to scale. So
it is the business community from which we are hearing, at
least in Northern California, that they need more help, they
need better trained graduates.
The challenge that we now face is that as you begin to meet
the workforce development needs of the business community, the
cities and local municipalities cannot retrofit ourselves fast
enough. Our community colleges don't have the money, they don't
have the resources to turn around on a dime and meet this need.
We need federal help. We need--we recognize that the Federal
Government does do some work for us, development. Frankly, it
has been doing less and less over time. We think it is time now
to begin to take advantage of this opportunity and to invest
more and invest more dramatically.
I also want to speak to Congresswoman Solis' point. This is
the biggest opportunity that any of us will have to begin to
create green pathways out of poverty, to begin to build a green
economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty. I,
for one, am conservative enough, I believe in work. I believe
people should work their way out of poverty. But for too long
we have been telling people in the neighborhoods where I work,
you are supposed to climb out of poverty, a six-story ladder
with three rungs on it.
We have got to start putting rungs back on the ladder of
opportunity, and this green economy, this explosion of
opportunity, means that we can actually begin to build green
pathways out of poverty. If you teach a young person how to put
up solar panels, that young person is on his or her way to
becoming a solar engineer, an electrical engineer. They can
join the United Electrical Workers Union. That is a green
pathway to a union job out of poverty.
You teach a young person to double pane glass, so that
building does not leak so much energy, that young person is now
on the way to becoming a glazer. That is a union job. That is a
green pathway out of poverty. And for too long the young people
in this country have only heard one thing from us older folks,
which is don't do drugs, don't shoot each other, don't get
pregnant. And then we walk away from them, and we just leave
them there to figure out, now what are they supposed to do.
I hope that both parties will say to this generation of
Americans, ``We have work for you to do.'' We want to reboot;
we want to retrofit this whole economy. We want to do energy in
this country in a clean way, and by doing it in a clean way we
want to take that handgun out of your hand and put a caulk gun
in your hand. We want to give you some hope and some
opportunity to do something beautiful for your country.
I think both parties should embrace that agenda. We don't
have any throw-away resources. We don't have any throw-away
species. We don't have any throw-away children or neighborhoods
either.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.008
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jones, very much.
Next, we are going to hear from Jerome Ringo. He is the
President of the Apollo Alliance. He has been employed for more
than 20 years in Louisiana's petrochemical industry. He has
firsthand experience in the challenges faced by workers and the
communities near chemical plants and the benefits that green
collar jobs can offer American workers.
We welcome you, Mr. Ringo. Whenever you are ready, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF JEROME RINGO
Mr. Ringo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the Committee for inviting us here today.
The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor activists,
business and environmentalists, faith community, what have you,
who believe that our nation can and must achieve a triple
bottom line, and that is profitability and markets for a
growing, clean energy future industry, curbs on global warming
pollution and good jobs for American families. We have got to
bring jobs back to America, reduce our dependency on foreign
oil, and get off the oil barrel that we have been held over by
foreign countries.
We at Apollo believe that the ambitious $300 billion in
federal spending over 10 years could create three million new
good jobs for America. It would be a big win, but to win big we
need to set forth and place the specific policy supports that
seize the economic growth in jobs creation potential of new
technologies.
We should view the development of a cap and trade system as
an opportunity to create major job investment funds that would
be used to develop more secure, home-grown energy supplies, and
create those good jobs. Such programs would control global
warming, pollution twice, once by capping pollution, then by
supporting the new generation of clean power sources.
For instance, we would very much like--we very much like
the idea enshrined in Senator Bingaman's cap and trade bill to
move and start the date of carbon auctions ahead of the start
date for capping the emissions. That puts the horse properly in
front of the cart by creating a new energy investment fund that
could be used proactively to ease any employment issues that
might arise later from global warming pollution controls.
Likewise, we feel that we should match new regulations with
positive job strategies. For instance, mandates to improve auto
fuel economy should be packaged with the big retooling
incentive to help the domestic auto industry transition to
compete in the new marketplace. Also, any renewable energy
standard will be more attractive if it is matched with loan
guarantees for renewable energy manufacturing. That way we
create jobs manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels, and
at the same time the RES grows, and the market for renewable
power.
Our analysis estimates that a $300 billion investment would
return $306 billion to the Treasury at the end of 10 years, so
it pays for itself. And just a few suggestions on how we can
ensure clean energy for good jobs investment fund delivers on
its promise for good jobs for working Americans. First, we need
to finance a big increase in clean energy research and
development.
I know both chambers are moving ARPA-E legislation.
However, please make sure America captures the jobs by
requiring that any new and successful technologies be licensed
for development and commercialization first here in the United
States. To the greatest extent, these technologies should use
domestic materials.
Second, we need to establish a long-term certainty in the
clean energy market. It is widely observed that inconsistent
federal incentives have been a major barrier to clean energy
development. A two- to three-year time horizon simply does not
provide the assurance that project developers and component
manufacturers need to justify investment decisions.
And, third, we want to match long-term market support with
manufacturing incentives. As the market grows, so should our
ability to produce clean energy systems and system components.
Renewable energy is growing fast in the United States, but
European and Asian manufacturers now account for more than 85
percent of the global market. And we need to build up our
renewable energy manufacturing by strengthening the Department
of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, so it supports
manufacturing of proven energy technologies, not just pilot
projects.
And, finally, we must do more to prepare the workforce for
a green economy. We are proud to support Senator Sanders'
efforts to create a clean energy workforce development program.
And Senator Sanders' bill would not only ensure that we have
the skilled workforce to meet the challenge, but it would also
make sure that the jobs created are going to be jobs that
people deserve and need the most.
And, Senator Solis, thank you, as she prepares counterpart
legislation in the House. That legislation is crucially
important to Apollo's strategy in creating clean energy and
good jobs.
The challenge for congressional leaders today will be to
ensure that we all get there together, working men and women
alongside industry, environmentalists, and our national
security community.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ringo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.012
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ringo, very much.
Our next witness I would like to recognize is Elsa Barboza,
the Campaign Coordinator for the Strategic Concepts in
Organizing and Policy Education in Los Angeles. Her latest
project involves developing a green career ladder training
program to provide workers to upgrade the efficiencies of the
L.A. city buildings.
Ms. Barboza, thank you for your testimony this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF ELSA BARBOZA
Ms. Barboza. Good afternoon. My name is Elsa Barboza. I am
representing SCOPE, a grass-roots organizing and policy
institute in Los Angeles, and we convene a progressive alliance
in Los Angeles called the Los Angeles Apollo Alliance. And what
we are about is to take the second-largest U.S. city and shape
its economy and transition its economy to a clean and
sustainable and equitable economy, and to address poverty in
Los Angeles.
Thank you for having this hearing today on green jobs and
global warming. It acknowledges that energy independence is a
jobs issue. It is a workforce development issue. It is an
equity issue.
I just want to spend a little bit of time talking to you
about what our green jobs campaign is, but let me give you the
backdrop to the story. The backdrop is that in Los Angeles the
low-income communities of color, like South Los Angeles, like
East Los Angeles, face the same underlying systemic trends as
other low-income major cities, other low-income communities in
major cities. Economic restructuring and globalization, so
those high-wage, long-term union jobs have been lost, and they
have been replaced by low-wage, short-term temporary jobs.
Shifts in public policy have rolled back the changes that
have been made. Increased division along geographic racial and
income lines resulting in 30 years of disinvestment in low-
income and communities of color. Severe environmental inequity
and crisis-level health impacts in poor communities. So
according to the World Health Organization, in the United
States such groups such as the inner city poor have extremely
poor health, poor characteristic--more characteristic of a
poor, developing country rather than a rich, industrialized
one.
I will skip over all of the data that talks about how one
in four Latinos and African-Americans live in poverty. With all
of that as a backdrop, we have--we are contributing to growing
to the job sector of the green industry in Los Angeles. The
L.A. Apollo Alliance is focusing political power toward shaping
and transitioning to the new economy.
Just in L.A. alone, billions of dollars in development are
in the works right now for Los Angeles for the next two, five,
ten years. In February of 2006, 23 labor community
environmental groups came together to make sure that that
development is going to be green. So we came together to create
quality jobs in the new green industry and focus on the
unionization of the new economy to ensure livable wage jobs and
benefits for families.
And we also came together to focus on the workforce
development, training, and access for communities of color in
low-income communities, to lead and establish the needed work
to make the move to a clean energy economy. So our vision is to
create a pipeline that upgrades the skills of existing workers,
backfills with new workers, and addresses the basic skills gap
of low-income communities of color.
Connecting to union apprenticeships, where there is a job
at the end of the training, so that we are not doing training
just for training's sake; that we are creating healthier and
safer communities and prioritizing the environmental uplift of
inner city communities, and impacting the public sector to take
leadership and grow and show a critical mass of results to move
into the private sector.
L.A. is unique in the level of collaboration and political
leadership. We are poised to contribute a critical piece of the
national strategy. Los Angeles' Mayor Antonio Veragosa and
other City Council members have committed to a partnership to
shape a new economy in Los Angeles.
Two things. One is the level of public education and
organizing in Los Angeles is high. We collected over 6,000
signatures from Angelinos calling for this new economy. Over
15,000 Angelinos were educated and mobilized to vote using this
division in the mission of the Apollo Alliance to gauge
California propositions last fall.
Why is there such a resonance? Because this really is a
catapult to large-scale job creation in Los Angeles and in the
country. It is a way to link community members to union jobs
and other type jobs, as well as to promote environmental
benefits of what is needed today. So how we are able to put
together the progressive majority in Los Angeles, and in the
country, we think that we have a model to do that.
Our first campaign is around conducting an energy audit of
city buildings to identify the sites and job potential, to make
them energy and water efficient with those technologies, to
create 2,000 union jobs, to establish policies to see the
development of local green building manufacturing in Los
Angeles, and to establish a green career ladder training
program to connect inner city communities to green jobs.
And this is all in the short term. So the possibilities for
the green economy to help reshape our country and the major
cities is vast.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barboza follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.017
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Barboza.
And our final witness is Robert Thelen. He is the Chief
Training Officer of Capital Area Michigan Works in Lansing,
Michigan. Mr. Thelen has spent 35 years working with economic
and workforce development programs and has vast experience with
the needs of workers retraining for new careers.
Thank you for your testimony this afternoon, Mr. Thelen.
Would you turn on your microphone, please?
STATEMENT OF BOB THELEN
Mr. Thelen. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner,
and distinguished members of the Committee, I am Bob Thelen,
and I do appreciate being here today.
Our mission at Capital Area Michigan works is to enhance
the quality and productivity of people and businesses by
providing a world of occupational choices. But what is the
potential for green collar jobs in the United States?
An environmentally conscious population is looking for
responsible corporations who reduce, reuse, and recycle. They
want to give these corporations their business, and, as a
result, businesses are enjoying gains in brand-name recognition
and consumer confidence.
As world recognition increases the need for environmentally
friendly lifestyles, many businesses are recognizing that
staying in business has much to do with environmental
responsiveness for consumers who are supporting the products
and services that they deem to be environmentally friendly. I
give specific examples in my testimony.
We know that the employers that will keep America running
in the future--and that will be important to the bottom line of
America's corporations--are those who have an understanding of
environmental needs and specific business processes related to
their needs.
One of my areas of interest and where I have spent my
career is helping young people and adults develop their career
plans, and for adults who are dealing with transition, helped
them move through that transition. We know that young people
will be involved in eight to ten different careers during their
lifetime. It is particularly vital that we understand the
changes in our labor market and how we prepare individuals to
enter and reenter the labor market.
I think many of these green collar jobs are being filled by
individuals with an existing set of knowledges and skills who
are now choosing to apply these skills and knowledges to a new
sector of the economy, i.e. green industries. This past winter
I had an opportunity to spend a week in a training program at
an ethanol facility, and it was very enlightening.
And as I was reflecting on this, I realized that the
typical ethanol facility has about 37 to 38 employees. Of those
38 employees, 32 of them were involved in--were traditional
manufacturing job classifications, such as maintenance and
repair workers, equipment operators, and transportation and
material movers.
The industries in which these individuals are applying
their skills and knowledges may be new. However, the necessary
knowledges and skills are not entirely new.
And I noticed this: I went out to some of the green job
boards, and I noticed the titles of the jobs that people were
recruiting for were very traditional job titles, such as CFO,
corporate attorney, technical services director. I even noticed
that the company I worked for in college as a tree trimmer is
now listed under green industry jobs.
So in most cases we are not preparing people for green
collar jobs. We are preparing people for jobs that, at this
stage in their life, they are applying their skills to needs of
industry that is focused on environmental concerns. As an
example, a lab technician, who today works at a brewery,
tomorrow may choose to work at an ethanol facility--a true
example--and the person at the ethanol facility, he went to
work for Seagrams. So go figure.
So how do we understand and address these green jobs? I
think the most critical thing is helping people like myself,
our teachers, our workforce people, understand, what are these
jobs? Are there some new jobs, or are many of them just
transition--or just sort of places where people are applying a
traditional set of skills in a new environment? So we need to
figure out how to inform teachers.
The main thing as I work with teachers and counselors is I
am helping them use quality career information. We have to
ensure that this information is out there, and the main way we
do that is through federal publications, such as ONET, Career
Infonet, and systems like that that are out there supported by
the Federal Government.
With students who are currently in high school or college,
they have a longer timeframe. But it is so important we help
these kids understand how they connect what they are learning
in school to these real-world applications. We know that kids
today who are in school must have high-quality jobs.
Let me just close with this. In closing, I would like to
reflect on what a 16-year-old student told me about 35 years
ago when I asked him what he wanted to do. What he said to me
is as appropriate today as it was then. ``Don't ask me what I
want to do until you show me what there is to do.'' Our
responsibility is to help students connect academic studies to
real-world jobs.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thelen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.026
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Thelen, very much.
And now we will turn and recognize members of the
Subcommittee to ask questions. I first recognize the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Solis.
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to direct my question to Ms. Barboza. Thank
you for talking about some of the barriers that you face out in
South Los Angeles as well as East Los Angeles. Could you
describe for this Committee how you go about engaging that
community, so that they also understand the kinds of
opportunities or challenges that they need to be ready for, and
how you help prepare them?
Ms. Barboza. We involve community members in policy
development, and then helping to--so part of what that looks
like is going door to door and talking to people about what
have been the job barriers and the workforce development
barriers. Lots of people have been through a job training
program. Lots of people get a job training certificate, but a
lot of people--but a lot of training programs are not focused
around actual training programs that result in a good-paying
job.
So we try to take people's experience and help to develop
good training programs that are based on targeted industries
that pay a high wage and a livable wage. We also do voter
education as well, so to make sure that folks--and the values
that we believe in and the issues that we think are important,
that we take that to the ballot and we take those values to the
ballot as well.
Ms. Solis. If you could, and this is for the whole panel,
what two concrete steps could the Federal Government take to
help ensure that our workforce and our communities advance with
technology? And I will start with Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Great. Well, before I get to that question, I
just wanted to make sure--Mr. Sensenbrenner had asked a couple
of questions that I didn't get a chance to get to in my
testimony. I wanted to make sure that you feel that you are
getting taken care of by this panel.
You asked what a green collar job is, and it came up on the
panel as well. And there is a concern I think some people have
this is just a bunch of hype, right? This is just another fancy
way to package up, you know, traditional work. I want to be
very clear: it is not. We are talking about new categories of
work that, frankly, is stumping people who have been in the
workforce for a while, let alone new entrants.
For instance, geothermal heat pump jobs. That is not
traditional HVAC. That is a new category of work to get homes
heated and cooled by the earth. It is almost like using
antifreeze in a house, very new stuff. Solar water heaters,
somebody--you asked a question, is it any different to put up a
solar panel than to put up a----
The Chairman. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Yes.
The Chairman. I am going to recognize Mr. Sensenbrenner----
Mr. Jones. Sure.
The Chairman [continuing]. In two minutes and 18 seconds.
Mr. Jones. Sorry. Okay, good.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. If you could answer Ms. Solis' question----
Mr. Jones. All right.
The Chairman [continuing]. That would be helpful.
Mr. Jones. That would be two concrete steps.
Number one, do not leave cities and communities out on
their own to try to figure out how to turn around our public
schools and our vocational schools to meet this opportunity.
The Federal Government needs to put money on the table to
invest in us to be able to help our kids meet these
opportunities.
Number two, recognize that the new business community, the
new eco-entrepreneurs, they are not as sophisticated as the
established businesses. They don't know how to come interact
with you and ask you for what they need. So recognize that in
order to help business, the new American business, you are
going to have to meet them halfway, interact with them, engage
with them.
Don't assume that the voices of business that you are
hearing are the voices of American business in total. There are
new businesses now that need your help in a new way. Listen to
them.
Mr. Ringo. This Committee is a Committee on--Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. And when
you talk about what you can do, what you can do addresses both
areas; one, when we talk about global warming, and we talk
about work, building a workforce as a result of dealing with
issues like global warming, energy independence.
We have got to--you can level the playing field with
respect to the good jobs and the training for those people that
have been in the past disproportionately impacted by global
warming, and that is mainly the poor and the people of color.
I live in Louisiana. I am an evacuee of Hurricane Rita. And
today I think it is going to be announced the activity for the
upcoming hurricane season, which will probably be more active
than last year. We didn't even get one that hit the United
States last year. We didn't have one to do that.
But when we talk about the intensity of those storms due to
global warming, and then what do we do about reducing that
impact on the environment and benefit from it, we want to make
sure that those people that are disproportionately impacted
also can get a piece of the pie with respect to the benefits of
the new jobs and what have you.
Surely, we talk about in building a green economy that
there will be jobs created in retrofitted assembly lines to
build hybrid cars, but poor people can't afford hybrid cars.
Poor people can't afford to buy a Prius. And so, therefore,
there must be legislation taking place by the gatekeepers--you,
the policymakers--that are going to level the playing field and
make it easier for the poor to reap the benefits of the good
jobs and the training, and also not be disproportionately
adversely impacted as they have been in the past.
Ms. Solis. So we might have to target some of that funding
to these kinds of particular rural or city/inner city areas.
Mr. Ringo. Absolutely.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a comment for Ms. Barboza, and then a couple of
questions for Mr. Ringo. Ms. Barboza, I listened to your
testimony and the answers the previous questions quite
carefully. And you seem to be advocating using tax dollars for
community organizers, voter education program, and electoral
and union organizing.
I don't think that tax dollars should be used for that
purpose, because it is designed to achieve a political
advantage rather than to train people to do jobs, whether it is
green collar jobs or any other kind of jobs. And I would hope
that you would rethink what your organization is doing, because
I don't think you are helping poor people get jobs by training
them to be community organizers. You may end up winning a
referendum question or electing somebody, but I don't think
that that is what we have in mind in terms of providing job
retraining funds.
That being said, Mr. Ringo, nuclear powerplants have on
average 400 to 700 jobs, depending upon how big they are, and
these jobs pay an average of 36 percent higher than the average
wages and salaries in local areas. Would you agree that these
are green jobs, because nuclear power doesn't omit any
greenhouse gases?
Mr. Ringo. Well, I believe that it is important as we go
into this new green economy that we diversify our energy
portfolio, but we diversify that portfolio with energy means
that would not have adverse consequences to us. We don't want
to switch seats on a sinking ship. And I am not saying I am
anti-nuclear, but I believe that nuclear has a place on that
portfolio list if we can guarantee that spent nuclear waste can
be properly disposed, and we don't create adverse impacts on
both the environment and people, as well as coal or other
industries.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay.
Mr. Ringo. So sure, you can create green jobs from them,
but we want to make sure that those jobs are not jobs that are
going to----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now----
Mr. Ringo [continuing]. Equate into adverse consequences.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now, that is fair enough. We do have a
cap and trade system in existence in Europe, and one can buy
carbon credits from that. The bottom has dropped out of the
carbon credit market in Europe in the last six to eight months
or so.
I am concerned that the thrust of your testimony appears to
be that we would be financing these green trading programs on
the revenue that would be obtained through carbon credits.
Don't you think that is a little risky, given the volatility of
the carbon credit market where it has been tried?
Mr. Ringo. Well, you are right. The carbon credit market
in Europe has been challenged, and I think that we have just
got to find effective ways to generate the necessary revenue
that it takes to invest in research and development, but also,
as I said, level the playing field.
You know, we are in our infancy with respect to what will
work, and I think that it is important that organizations like
myself, like Apollo Alliance and other organizations, give real
considerations to, as I mentioned before, investing in ideas
that will not have adverse impact on the economy or on this
country as a whole. You know, if it is not working in Europe,
it does not mean it is not going to work here. But it is surely
worth a try and worth the investment for us to see if we can
find meaningful revenues to stimulate our economy and to level
that playing field.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I have one final question, and that is
on the issue of CAFE standards for autos.
Mr. Ringo. Yes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. In your statement, you mentioned you
support retooling incentives for the auto industry.
Mr. Ringo. Yes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would you support CAFE standards being
higher for the auto industry without the retooling standards
even though it might cost unionized autoworkers their jobs?
Mr. Ringo. Again, I am talking about a level playing field.
It makes no sense to me to have standards that are going to
have adverse consequences, and I believe that if--I believe
that standards are important, but standards should not cost
jobs.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay.
Mr. Ringo. And so we strongly support the idea of
standards, but let us make sure that we don't create casualties
as a result.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been a very interesting Committee hearing, as all
of them have been thus far, and very instructive and
informative. The issues that I think have been placed on the
table today are ones that may be ideological as much as they
are climatological, because we are actually dealing with
whether or not the government has a role, and then how deeply
should the government go in dealing with climate change and the
industry that could be developed from it.
If we talk about--and Ms. Barboza mentioned this, I think
all of you hit on it a little--if we are talking about turning
loose this great American ingenuity to create another
industrial age, and this time minorities would have an
opportunity to participate as the door opens as opposed to as
it closed at the beginning of the 20th century, but when we
talk like that, what inevitably surfaces is the ideological
issue, and that is, well, you know, is this a jobs program? Is
this, you know, some kind of social program?
And I left the Committee hearing last week and went outside
and two young men whom God loves stopped me and went off about
how much of a hoax this whole issue is. And so if we are
talking about taking advantage of this new technology or
advancing a new technology, does it not present all kinds of
issues that we have got to get beyond before we can make the
kind of progress that we need?
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. My great hope is that this is the one issue
that we can be one country about. This really is the
opportunity. At this point, nobody is proposing that the
government is going to come in and fix it. What we are saying
is we want to set our eco-entrepreneurs up to succeed. We want
to give the ecological entrepreneurs a world-class--as our
colleague said, a world-class workforce, so they can meet a
world-class challenge.
Now, I can't imagine that anybody here thinks that the
government has no role in education. I think all of us agree
that one of the great strengths of the American system is that
we do have a public education system, and that we have invested
in it. What I hope will happen is that we will use what we
already agree on, which is that young people and displaced, our
veterans coming home, deserve an opportunity to get well
trained to be a part of this new opportunity. I hope that this
green wave can lift all boats.
Mr. Cleaver. I agree with you. But if we start--the moment
we say it has great opportunity for minorities, for whatever
reason, that also----
Mr. Jones. Well, I think that--we have now decided I think
as a country that affirmative action is something we are moving
away from. I think we have decided as a country that we see----
Mr. Cleaver. Well----
Mr. Jones. I am just--I think it is unfortunate. I am a
product of affirmative action. I went to college and everything
else on minority scholarships, but it seems to me that that is
something that we don't want anymore. It seems to me that we
are concerned about welfare.
At some point, there has to be a ladder of opportunity that
we hold for people. Let them climb that ladder, but there has
got to be a ladder of opportunity. I think this is our best
opportunity to build that ladder, and I hope that we can be one
country on this. If we can't be one country on this----
Mr. Cleaver. Let me ask--thank you. Let me ask--go ahead,
Ms. Barboza.
Ms. Barboza. Well, put the ideological aside, I mean, I
think that federal policy needs to include policy that is based
on data, and that data needs to talk about creating policy
based on the labor market trends. And so look at that from the
climate change, energy independence way, and look at that labor
market.
Do long-term planning for equitable economic development
that creates quality job opportunities where there are jobs,
where the are interventions that can be made, look at and
support workforce development to ensure hard skills training to
address the skills gap. We all know there is a skills gap in
this country. Supportive services and support overall regional
economic development strategy, and that is really what this is
about is that this isn't just an environmental issue, but this
is an economic issue, and we need to create federal policy that
is based on all of those.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. Are any of you familiar with the
Chicago Climate Exchange?
Mr. Jones. None of us are experts on it, but----
Mr. Cleaver. The truth of the matter is, we would not even
be selling ethanol at the few stations in this country where it
is sold but for the federal subsidy. Without the federal
subsidy, this would not be anything going on in this country.
I guess the point I am making is that the Federal
Government has a history of always stepping in to launch
projects and programs that are in the interest of the
government. And I am not--in the interest of the country. I am
not suggesting that we just open up the bank and say, you know,
anybody with a green thumb come in and take as much as you can
get in a wheelbarrow. But do you not believe that the Federal
Government should play a major role in getting us off into a
new direction with regard to green technology?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Ringo. Absolutely. And by virtue of the opportunity,
we are faced with an opportunity, as Van Jones mentioned, that
we have never been faced within our history. Not only--and it
is an opportunity driven by the events of our time, under the
umbrella of global warming. We are seeing events associated
with global warming that are unprecedented that are affecting
the lives of people in a way like it never has before. Katrina
was that example.
The gas prices at the gas pump are a prime example. Being
held over the oil barrel by foreign governments with respect to
our dependency on foreign oil is a prime example. And so this
is a galvanizing issue that can galvanize America, and there
could be benefits from it that puts America back to work again,
stimulates our economy in a way like it has never been before.
We are going to create a new green economy.
As I keep alluding to, we have just got to make it a level
playing field to where all America benefits from the solutions
that we are pursuing. That has not always been done in the
past, but we have an opportunity to do it now. It will require
some government intervention.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I have been informed that there are five
roll calls on the House floor. We have time to recognize Mr.
Shadegg for his questions.
Mr. Shadegg. I will waive.
The Chairman. We can recognize, then, the gentlelady from
Michigan for her time, but then we will have to recess and come
back, if that would be the wish of the members, for any
additional members. Would that be the wish of the Committee, to
come back?
Mr. Hall. I will submit written comments.
The Chairman. All right. We will ask the indulgence of the
witnesses to stay here, then, for about 25 minutes. I will
return. If any members return, I will recognize them. And if
they do not, then I will ask my questions, and then the hearing
will end.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms.
Miller, for five minutes.
Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief here.
I was just very, very pleasantly--I shouldn't say
surprised, but it was pleasant to hear Mr. Ringo say that--and
I wrote this down--that standards should not cost jobs. And you
were responding to Mr. Sensenbrenner's question about CAFE
standards, and, of course, higher CAFE standards are absolutely
going to cost jobs.
And I am just wondering if you could flesh out for me a bit
when you talked about supporting retooling incentives, or
perhaps a question for any of you, what incentive the Federal
Government could actually provide to devise some assistance for
the Big Three for the auto jobs that will be lost when the
higher CAFE standards happen.
Mr. Ringo. Well, when you talk about a new green economy,
and surely I think when we talk about a new green economy we
are talking about good jobs, but we are talking about new jobs,
and there are going to be opportunities for new jobs that are
going to take the place of those lost jobs.
Now, I am surely not saying that there will be an automatic
major job loss because of CAFE standards. What I am saying is
that there has to be a balance in that we do not overregulate
ourselves to where it does cost jobs. I think that we will have
to make the necessary adjustment to minimize the economic
impact.
But for those that lose their jobs, we are looking at a
creation of new good jobs in the area as a result of the
research and development of new alternatives that would keep
America working. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will
keep the same jobs they have. Some people will lose jobs, but
at least they won't remain unemployed. There will be new
opportunities for new jobs if we promote this research and
development.
And because there is a sense of urgency to do something
when you talk about global warming, and the increase of carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere, there is a sense of urgency. We have
got to respond, because we have not responded properly in the
past.
Ms. Miller. I appreciate that. So do you think it is
appropriate, then, for the Federal Government to assist the Big
Three as they transition from what will be most certainly a
loss of jobs because of higher CAFE standards?
Mr. Ringo. I think the----
Ms. Miller. Maybe any of you could answer.
Mr. Ringo. I think the responsibility of the American
government is to assist creation of new jobs which would
benefit the Big Three as well as any other job losses that
occur in any field anywhere in the country.
Ms. Miller. Do any of the rest of you have a comment on
that? Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Yes, this is a tough one, obviously. I think
two things. One, it is really not clear to me--and I am not
being ideological about it. It is really not clear to me that
the CAFE standard, changing that is going to cost jobs. I know
that people are trying desperately to buy hybrids, they are
trying desperately to buy more fuel efficient cars. I think
that we could be actually, you know, seeing a renaissance for
Detroit by giving Detroit the encouragement to do what really I
think there is a pent-up market demand for anyway, number one.
Number two----
Ms. Miller. ``The encouragement'' meaning the Federal
Government encouraging them?
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am. Yes.
Ms. Miller. So you are talking about federal----
Mr. Jones. At this point, we are talking sort of in
theoretical terms. So I am saying that I just want to challenge
gently your assumption that changing the CAFE standards would
create huge dropoffs. I am not convinced that that is true. It
could be true; it could not be true. I just want to challenge
it gently.
But the other point I want to make is simply this. Detroit
is hurting. The health care bills that the Big Three are
carrying are tremendous. I don't--they get kind of termed as a
political football. To me, Detroit is not a political football.
I have got family there.
I think that we have got to do a better job of helping
Detroit deal with some of these legacy costs, help Detroit
catch up to where I think the pent-up market demand is. Now,
how we help, we may disagree, but I like the idea of health
care, you know, for hybrids, that kind of a tradeoff where we
maybe help Detroit with some of their health care costs if they
are willing to transition over.
We have got to be smarter about how we partner with our
business community, both the new eco-entrepreneurs and those
existing businesses that want to go in the green direction. I
don't have the final answer on that, but I do think that we
should not retreat into ideological camps on this. It is too
important for working people in Detroit.
Ms. Miller. You know, just one other question, and, Mr.
Thelen, I appreciate you being here as well. But it is--I think
it is clear from all of the studies, at least all of the
domestic autos believe it, the United Auto Workers believe that
they will--this will cost a huge job loss. Are you working with
the UAW to assist some of these displaced auto workers which
are just about to happen here with these higher CAFE standards,
thousands, hundreds of thousands perhaps?
Mr. Thelen. Yes. I have spent the last 15 years of my life
working with UAW in one capacity. We have developed world-class
training programs with them, and, really, have worked with a
lot of UAW folks as they go into--as they go through a
transition. It is very difficult.
They have been used to a lifestyle, in terms of a wage, and
it is hard for many of these people to understand that there is
a different market out there than what they have been involved
with for 25 years in terms of what they--how the market values
their skill set. And so the only way they will get back up is
if they increase their skills.
The Chairman. I apologize to the gentlelady. I wanted to--
--
Ms. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I wanted to give Mr. Hall just two minutes,
so he could ask his question, and then that is all the time we
will have left.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Two minutes.
Mr. Hall. Just quickly, I have had a number of
conversations with the UAW folks in my neck of the woods who
are--who share the opinion that I hold, which is that the
decisions made by management have drastically hurt the American
auto industry. And believe me, it is struggling without our
giving them any further encouragement or direction.
I think that it would help if they were encouraged to make
the kind of cars that their own employees would like to drive,
not what the Madison Avenue power and speed and sexiness lobby
and the whole advertising business wants them to try to sell
us.
I also wanted to comment regarding nuclear power being
green. I hold that it is not. It is not renewable, it is not
green, it is not new, it is not alternative. It is a 50-year-
old technology, and were it not for giant subsidies from this
government, including insuring every nuclear plant, the
taxpayer insures via the Price Anderson Act every nuclear plant
in the country, there would never have been a single plant
built, because they can't stand up in the market.
And they still can't stand up in the market, so I
personally--I have one in my district that is leaking
strontium-90 and tritium into the--not just the groundwater and
the Hudson River but now into the sewer system of the town of
Buchanan where the plant sits. So that is supposedly a closed
system.
If it can leak into the sewer system, which just came out
last week, and possibly into the water system, into people's
wells, and so on, and we don't need terrorism when we have got
leaking nuclear plants in our neighborhoods, not to mention the
fact that Mohammad Atta wrote about this plant as a potential
target in papers that were found after 9/11.
So I look forward to what I think will be a development
across the board from high-tech all the way to low-tech
installation of passive solar and that sort of thing.
And I thank the Chairman for the time.
The Chairman. Great. The gentleman's time has expired.
There are three minutes left on the House floor for this
roll call. The hearing will recess for about 20 minutes, and we
will come back. If any members wish to ask questions, please
come back at that time.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for
sticking around. The unpredictability of the House floor
schedule is something that is ultimately an adjustment that
each of us has to make to our own lives, and the vagaries are
so unpredictable they do lead to discomfort not only for
witnesses and for those in the audience, but also for the
members of Congress themselves. We will let it stay there.
We will now turn--and I will recognize myself for a round
of questions for five minutes. If any members come, then they
will be recognized. And if they don't, that will be the
conclusion of the hearing.
For all the witnesses, we have seen a number of analyses
projecting large numbers of jobs that the green economy can
create. From your work in your communities, what policies are
needed to make green collar jobs live up to their potential?
Mr. Thelen?
Mr. Thelen. I think the first thing we have to do is--and
I am coming from a background of working in workforce
development and career development--is help all of us
practitioners understand what is the skill set necessary for
these green jobs. How are we going to communicate to people the
difference between these green jobs and a traditional job,
i.e., let us say a construction worker? How are we going to
help that construction worker know what additional set of
skills they need to function in this new environment? And one
of the roles of the Federal Government should be is to provide
us good data on these emerging jobs.
The Chairman. Mr. Jones, do you think because Germany and
Japan don't have any oil or natural gas that their adoption of
this green collar agenda is something that comes more naturally
to them, but here in America, the oil, the gas, the coal
industry, serves as a powerful counterbalance, so that we don't
make the transition and ultimately we could lose these job
opportunities to other countries?
Mr. Jones. You know, American exceptionalism is always a
mystery in any number of directions. So it is hard for me to
know. What I do know is that the opportunity that we have for--
--
The Chairman. I think you do know, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Okay. Well----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones [continuing]. Not in the time that we have
remaining. A couple of things which were raised earlier and
weren't fully addressed, just to make sure that we get them.
Number one, the workforce development stuff does need to have
business and labor and community at the table. Number two, each
community will be different. The green economy in North
Carolina will look very difficult than it looks in California,
and so we do need to make sure that each community is able to
design its own strategy with support from the Federal
Government.
The Chairman. Great.
Ms. Barboza, what is the single biggest problem in your
mind in ensuring that these jobs actually get to the workers
who are the next generation of blue collar/green collar
workers? In your mind, what is the single biggest obstacle?
Ms. Barboza. I think workforce development, training and
workforce development dollars. So I think that a lot of--the
question right now is: who pays, right? So is it the employer?
Is it the government? Is it the workers or the unemployed
themselves?
So I think that that is really one of the biggest--it is
going to take some time to do, and that is one of the biggest
barriers is thinking through a workforce development strategy
that is in collaboration with a larger economic strategy or
with a regional economic strategy.
The Chairman. Mr. Thelen, you are from Michigan?
Mr. Thelen. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. There are obviously a large pool of skilled
manufacturing workers there. Have you seen any gravitational
pull towards Michigan, trying to take advantage of these
manufacturing job skills that already exist in terms of new
companies starting up there and trying to move into these new
energy technologies?
Mr. Thelen. Yes, we have. Just two days ago there was a
large article in our State Journal, Lansing State Journal, our
paper, talking about a manufacturing company that had been
aggressive and they make housings for cars, parts for cars, and
they were just awarded a contract that would allow them to hire
200 people because they are now making--they are making the
same types of parts for large wind farms. And so we have seen
that.
We have also seen a large company that is now--or a startup
company that is making special shingles that can be used for
solar energy. So we are starting to see that. I think it is a
difficult transition for some of us.
The Chairman. Here is what I am going to do. I am going to
give each one of you one minute to summarize what you want the
Subcommittee--the Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming to know about your testimony and what you want
us to retain in our minds as we are moving forward this year.
Mr. Jones, whenever you are ready, please begin.
Mr. Jones. Thank you. First, I want to enter into the
record these two reports. One is called Community Jobs in the
Green Economy. That was done by the Apollo Alliance and Urban
Habitat, for which I wrote the forward. And the other is New
Energy for Cities, also by the Apollo Alliance. This really
answers many of the questions that came up, and I just want to
make sure they are----
The Chairman. So in a way, I didn't make a mistake. You
are being Mr. Ringo right now.
Mr. Jones. Exactly. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be entered in the
record.
And let me then recognize you, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Good, thank you so much. So, and I am happy to
do that for him.
The other things I think are important--I think that we
need a paradigm shift in our discussion about environmental
solutions. The first shift is away from talking about
environmental problems, talking about environmental solutions
more, which I think we are well on the way to. But the other is
to think every environmental solution that comes across your
radar screen, if you would subject it to the lens, where are
the jobs, how can we use this to increase jobs for poor people,
wealth-building opportunities, entrepreneurial opportunities
for poor people, improve health for poor people?
If we just begin to apply that lens to the entire
discussion, I think it will radically transform the way that
the public as a whole relates to this. Eco-elitism, for lack of
a better term, will not save this country. Eco-populism, as a
strategy that says we are going to pull the country together to
solve the toughest problem ever, finally unleash American
ingenuity on this problem, to your earlier point, I think is a
majoritarian strategy for uniting the country.
The Chairman. So eco-elitism, bad.
Mr. Jones. Eco-populism----
The Chairman. Eco-populism, good.
Mr. Jones. Good.
The Chairman. And eco-entrepreneurs, excellent.
Mr. Jones. Excellent.
The Chairman. Ms. Barboza.
Ms. Barboza. I also want to enter into the record three
different studies on training in the sectorial industries, and
looking at--so three things. One is we have a study coming out
called Green Cities, Green Jobs that is going to look at Los
Angeles as a case study. Also, as a case study to look at
policy financing.
We also have another study called Under the Line that looks
at L.A. employment and the training needs for Los Angeles
communities, as well as lessons from a Career First Program,
which brought together public sector jobs with people on
assistance. And those are models that we can learn from and do
large--have a larger impact on the work that we are doing now
with green jobs and the green industry.
I just want you to know that the decisions, the federal
policy, the discussions that are happening right now impact
real lives and impact real families and on a very large scale.
So we have the opportunity to do something here that is going
to change generations, and just as the manufacturing industry
did for our generation and our communities. And so I would just
ask you to think big.
The Chairman. Will do. Thank you, Ms. Barboza.
And you have the final word, Mr. Thelen.
Mr. Thelen. Thank you. It will be short. I think the--I
will go back to I think what the Federal Government should be
doing is bringing together this information and ensuring those
of us who work in the field have a clear understanding of,
number one, what do we mean by green jobs, and, number two,
what is the next step? What is the call to action that we in
the field should be doing to help our young people understand
these new opportunities? Because they are the ones who are
going to benefit the most from this, and so that is what I
would hope.
I don't like my information to come from a biased source. I
trust the information that comes out by labor market
individuals, and that is what I would like to see.
The Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Thelen. I think you are
right on the money. I think our panel is right on the money. We
are at the dawn of a revolution. Actually, it has already
begun, and it is driven by the green generation. This younger
generation does understand it. They do understand that it is a
huge issue that we have to deal with and that the solutions are
available. Our job is to make this transition in an effective
way.
When the old economy was dying in Ireland, my young
grandparents got on a boat and headed for the United States of
America, right into the mills of this Industrial Revolution
that was unfolding. But it kept moving along. Different
resolutions just kept succeeding it.
And so now it is our job not only to create this
revolution, put in place the policies that make it possible for
it to unfold in a telescope timeframe, but also prepare the
workers of the country, so that we can move them in and so that
we can capture the lion's share of the opportunity, which the
global economy is going to present, because I think that this
is going to become a global revolution, and we should be the
leader and our workers should be the principal beneficiaries
across the planet.
We thank each of you for your testimony, and any other
comments you wish to add will be included in the record.
And with that, and with the thanks of the Committee, this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57967A.036