Though there wasn’t much new in terms of policy, Obama did lay out a bold goal for clean energy, saying that the U.S. can get 80% of its electricity from clean sources by 2035. This includes natural gas, of course, which is cleaner than coal but not a renewable energy source.

The idea of domestic energy and national security was mentioned a few times, a recurring theme recently. Obama specifically envisioned “A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.” While biofuels were not mentioned by name, the president did acknowledge that with only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”

As is the tradition in presidential addresses, Obama cited working class individuals who were in the audience. In particular, he mentioned Bryan Ritterby, a formerly out-of-work furniture maker. Ritterby was hired at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan.

For a brief reminder of last year’s state of the union, check out our coverage of the speech.

Apparently, the company that is building the pipeline acquiesced to demands from environmentalists that the pipeline avoid certain areas of Nebraska that supply water from an aquifer there. NPR had reported earlier in the same week that the Canadians were going to look to China to sell their oil since potential environmental reviews that would have been part of rerouting the pipeline very well may have delayed the deal. Some argue that this would have been a reason to go ahead and build the pipeline as planned, reducing resource scarcity and ensuring supply.

I’d argue a slightly different tact about “going ahead” with the project. There’s a great quotation that I recently inserted into my dissertation proposal (which I’m supposed to be working on right now and not this site) that says: “To be a teacher is to be a prophet – you are not preparing a student for the world of today but for a world twenty to fifty years into the future.” While referring to colleges and universities, I am going to link it to the world energy economy. Oil is the 20th century’s fuel. Biofuel (algae, switchgrass, agricultural waste that is not tilled back into the soil/composted) is the future. The US can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

In order for the U.S. to lead – something we at 2nd Green Revolution would like to see, as would the rest of the world – there needs to be a functional political atmosphere, something that obviously doesn’t exist. Without a government that can come together for the benefit and security of the nation’s future, leading the energy revolution is the last thing we will be doing.

[Image source]

The Associated Press is reporting that the president’s plan will save $4 billion. Perhaps most importantly, the “effort to increase the energy efficiency of government and private sector buildings, aiming for fuel savings and job creation [comes] at no cost to taxpayers.” According to a press release from the White House “60 CEOs, mayors, university presidents, and labor leaders [yesterday] committed to invest nearly $2 billion of private capital into energy efficiency projects; and to upgrade energy performance by a minimum of 20% by 2020 in 1.6 billion square feet of office, industrial, municipal, hospital, university, community college and school buildings.” In order to achieve the goal of “no cost to taxpayers” the $4 billion will be recouped through the energy savings. This process is referred to as performance contracting, mentioned here by former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter.

Interestingly enough, performance contracting, also known as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, was originally implemented during Clinton’s administration. However, the AP mentions that it has been used infrequently. “The proposal, to be announced by Obama and Clinton on Friday, would upgrade buildings over the next two years with a goal of improving energy performance by 20 percent by 2020.” The story cites Gene Sperling, director of the White House National Economic Council, who claims that the program “could generate about 50,000 jobs over two years.”

The White House announcement “builds on a commitment made by 14 partners at the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting in June to make energy upgrades across 300 million square feet, and to invest $500 million in private sector financing in energy efficiency projects.” The June commitment by CGI is part of the Better Buildings Challenge. “The Challenge is part of the Better Buildings Initiative launched in February by President Obama, and is spearheaded by former President Clinton and the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to support job creation by catalyzing private sector investment in commercial and industrial building energy upgrades to make America’s buildings 20 percent more efficient over the next decade, reducing energy costs for American businesses by nearly $40 billion.” Capitalizing on reducing energy consumption represents not only a fiscal savings for the short term, but one that will continue to pay dividends after the initial investment is paid off.

[Image source]

What if the United States government took the lead and created a regenerative economy that leads instead of reacts. Historically, the US has been an innovator in fields ranging from technology to medicine. This opportunity is no different. The US could increase jobs, build the next generation of products based on renewable materials and resources, and model the regenerative economy that will serve the country going forward. The time has passed for reactionary policies. In addition to the leadership role inherent in this type of economic system, there would be a wealth of secondary benefits. By excising all toxic materials from production, a la Cradle to Cradle design, healthcare costs would be driven down as toxins would be virtually eliminated from the assembly line. A recent New York Times photo gallery depicts just how bad chemical exposure can be for people suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

This pie-in-the-sky thinking is often deemed too idealistic, not grounded in reality. However, as a famous scientist is quoted as saying, “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” The same scientist defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I may be no Einstein, but he was.

[Image source]