Friday, July 25, 2008

T. Boone Pickens, Al Gore and "Green Collar" Jobs

Have you seen T. Boone Pickens on television promoting his plan to make the United States energy independent via wind power and natural gas?

Click on the title line above to go to his blog and read more of his plan.

Sunday one of his commercial spots played right before Meet the Press aired with Al Gore as the featured guest. Gore believes we can be completely energy independent in ten years.
Fascinating conversation.

One thing I know for sure. Something is up when Boone Pickens and Al Gore are in agreement!

All week I've been thinking about the potential opportunity for my low-income, struggling friends here in inner city Dallas.

What if we could bring together a plan in our city for the development of a whole new industry that demanded the creation of thousands of "green collar" jobs?
By that I mean new jobs in the energy production and conservation business that no longer depend on fossil fuels. You know: solar panels, retro-fitting public buildings, installation, manufacturing, maintenance, landscaping, water management, etc. Training our neighbors to work in this arena could radically alter the state of urban America.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are on the verge of a new day in this nation when it comes to energy. I just don't want the poor to be bypassed in the amazing revolution that appears to be upon us.

We're working on it.



reunionpi said...

Since we could not find a vehicle registered for T. Boone Pickens, the oil man on television, see what vehicle his wife drives

Anonymous said...

Al Gore is a ...... (you know what it rhymes with)

Frank Bellizzi said...

I just read in the Amarillo paper yesterday about thousands of new maintenance-and-repair jobs in the wind-turbine business. Knowing where the turbines are, I suspect that most of those jobs will go to people who are, or would have been, farmers.

These certainly are interesting times.

Anonymous said...

Gore is a fraud.

Politics & Culture said...

Patrick Mead has an interesting and informative take on Pickens and his plan.

Read it HERE.

Anonymous said...

Why this utter fascination with who drives what or lives where? Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" and owned slaves until his death. We all know men may not always act the way they talk. That doesn't alone make what they say invalid. Such logical fallacies actually have a name: argument ad hominem (arguing against the man, not the idea). If that's all you got, please don't bother.

Larry, You're right. Something is definitely up when Pickens and Gore speak more-or-less on the same side of anything. Even the Bush adminsitration has admitted that global warming is a reality (while denying it's worth doing anything about). Now that's apocalyptic stuff!

Chris said...

There hasn't been any global warming in the past 8 years.

c hand said...

Why do these things need such a huge taxpayer subsidy if they work so well? The landowners in my area love the wind turbines because of the subsidies. How much does T Boone plan on receiving from the taxpayer?

Anonymous said...

Follow the money. Gore has his carbon offset investments and Pickens has natural gas, wind farms and oil. We need oil in the interim, which we have but are not able to access it due to overkill by kook environmentalists. Nuclear plants face the same problem. We have nobody on the side of the American people. Where is the compromise everyone speaks of?

Larry James said...

I love the conversation.

Since when did it become a negative in the USA for people to make money off of their work, ideas and investments? What's good for the large oil companies ought to be good for other energy investors, don't you think.

Chris, you always tell us that global warming is a big lie, etc., etc. And someone always wants to point out the failings of people with new approaches, etc.

Forget all of that. Let's say Chris is right (which almost no one of any repute would say) for the sake of this argument.

The air quality in our cities is horrible. We are dependent on oil producers who really hate us, and this dependence has many negative international implications. So, what would happen if we moved toward energy independence without fossil fuels? Sure, we can't do it over night, but we could do it in 15 years. Such a move would change everything for us and almost completely to the positive.

We're trying to figure out how to create business opportunities for the urban poor in this mix.

BTW--Pickens needs public investment just like all big utility companies do relative to transmission and other costs of doing business that benefit the public.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:21:

Re: "We need oil ... which we have but are not able to access ... "

The US produces 3% of the world's oil, but uses 20%. We cannot drill or produce our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. Anyone in the oil inudstry could tell you that. If we are ever to be less dependent on foreign oil, it will require improved efficiency and alternative sources. And, happily, that's also good for the environment (with or without global warming). So (c hand)that's why the government might subsidize wind, solar, etc. until they are cost effective. In the long run, we need them. The only other option is increasing dependence on oil found in increasingly unstable parts of the world. There's nothing "kooky" about it. It just makes sense.

Chris said...

Maybe it's not such a good idea to go "green." The Tennessee Center for Policy Research says that after making his 20 room mansion "green" Al Gore has used 10% more electricity than before. Other reports say it went down. Either way it's more in a month than the average family use in a year.

Many scientists do not believe in man-made global warming. How about Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA?

Dr. Spencer is author of the book,
"Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor."

c hand said...

Larry, the subsidy is not just in transmission lines but in generation per kw also. This is going to be a wealth transfer up the economic ladder.
Being "cost effective" is the definition of whether someting really works or not. Human flatulence could be captured for its energy potential if the subsidy was large enough but on its own its not really "cost effective."

Coal works, nuclear works, some hydro-electric works, wind and solar will require big subsidies (i.e. they will consume and cost more than they produce). Freedom (free markets) really is a better way.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, c hand, but you're just wrong about both wind and especially solar,esp when you factor in the "indirect" costs of petro--wars, environment, health care issues, govt subsidies on all of the other sources you mention. Larry has you on this one!

Anonymous said...

It is sad to me that most of the people who have commented have totally missed the point of your post.

Larry, you make a great point, that I hadn't thought of, that is reminiscent of FDR's New Deal. We have an opportunity to create thousands of new jobs to help diminish poverty greatly by seeking and building alternative energy sources! As someone who works with the homeless daily, it would be great to have a whole other industry to steer people toward, because there are definitely not enough jobs available, and we could definitely do wind power out here in the deserts of SoCal! I think I may have to bring this up to someone real soon. Thanks!

Chris said...

I think eventually we will have alternative energy but probably not in our lifetime. I think it is at least 50 years away. In the meantime, oil is the cheapest, most abundant and the most efficient fuel source we have. We need to start drilling.

Anonymous said...

chris, I expect folks said the same thing about space flight, atomic energy and a host of other things that are now commonplace and that didn't take 50 years to realize. Your worldview is a stoned gas cop out! You take the status quo to a new art form! I hereby nominate you for President of the flat earth society--life time member!

Chris said...

Anon. 1:48

On June 28, 2005, the Senate voted 85 to 12 to pass the Energy Policy Act which had passed the House in 3 days. This was a liberal promise that we should heal our "addiction to oil" and save the planet by mandating a portion of the nation's corn supply be turned into "alternative fuel,"--ethanol.

The results of this government tinkering has been a disaster on a global scale. The market distortions created by the U.S. Congress are far-reaching resulting in higher prices for nearly everything, scarcity and food riots. All for a product that performs poorly, yielding a product that produces about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline.

So my suggestion on our search for alternative energy is that we leave the government out.

Anonymous said...

chris, I read Larry's post as a call for free enterprise employment opportunities for low income people. He wasn't talking about govt in any respect. Of course, you always bring this site back to that issue for some reason. Tiresome.

Chris said...


Ezactly, you make my point. Don't let the government mess it up.