If the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had been an energy bill, it would arguably have been the single-most important piece of clean energy legislation in our nation’s history. It drove unprecedented new investments — both public and private — into modernizing America’s clean energy infrastructure. And its clean energy provisions alone have already saved or created 63,000 jobs and are expected to create more than 700,000 jobs by 2012. Now that ARRA has run its course, we need to stay committed to these investments to keep building the U.S. clean energy industry and remain globally competitive.

Newly elected President Barack Obama signed the historic economic recovery package into law two years ago this week. ARRA was an emergency measure to “stop the bleeding” from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which the new president inherited from the previous administration.

Two years later we can confidently say ARRA has worked. Broadly supported by industry and economists, ARRA infused $787 billion into our nation’s economy. It created investments, saved and created more than 3 million American jobs, softened the blow of the global economic collapse on unemployed workers, sustained the ability of hard-hit cities and states to keep vital public services afloat, and buffered countless American companies from the worst of the malaise.

But there is another less heralded — though in many ways equally important — story to be told about the Recovery Act: its boost to clean energy.

ARRA served over the last two years to sustain the fledgling American clean technology industry at a time when it was hard hit by economy-wide contractions in capital investment and struggling to remain globally competitive in the absence of a clear national energy policy. ARRA provided financing tools and signaled clear demand to investors. This helped U.S. businesses rebound, got new projects built, and put Americans back to work.

Clean energy technology now remains one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global economy and it is projected to grow to $2.3 trillion by 2020. ARRA committed more than $80 billion for the development and deployment of clean energy, and with this initial investment it has set a course for this country to compete with rising nations such as China, whose scale of investment in energy innovation dwarfs our own. China’s policy commitments position them to play a dominant role in emerging global clean energy markets.

A Center for American Progress comparison of ARRA investments in clean energy to what had originally been planned in the 2009 budget reveals that the Recovery Act more than tripled spending on innovative clean energy, efficiency, and modern energy infrastructure (see table below). For some technologies — such as smart grid investments — ARRA represented more than a 1,000 percent increase in clean energy innovation.

Contrary to conservative attacks — which are too often funded by fossil-fuel industries that seek to slow the pace of change — ARRA made substantial gains to our economy and activated a growing industry with its best years yet to come. With two years of hindsight, we can clearly see ARRA was in fact the most important investment in clean energy ever achieved by an American president.

A quick review of the facts:

• ARRA’s clean energy provisions alone have already saved or created 63,000 jobs and are expected to create more than 700,000 jobs by 2012.
• More than 300,000 low-income homes have been upgraded with energy-saving weatherization, saving families on average more than $400 on their heating and cooling bills in the first year alone and $161 million in energy costs nationwide.
• ARRA provided $500 million in funds for green job training that is already helping prepare workers to transition into the new economy — many in some of the hardest-hit regions of the recession.
• Inner-city green jobs have grown by 11 percent — more than 10 times the rate of job growth overall.
• A guarantee for a $1.3 billion loan has been finalized to support the world’s largest wind farm right here in America.
• ARRA helped American motorists retire their gas-guzzling “clunkers” as well as help transition the U.S. auto industry to produce new electric cars and advanced batteries and retool assembly lines to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.
• Other measures such as the Treasury grant program (section 1603) proved essential to companies in financing new renewable energy projects, driving the industry’s rebound during the Recovery Act period.
• The Recovery Act’s investments of $80 billion for clean energy will produce as much as $150 billion in clean energy projects due to leveraging private investment.

These achievements are impressive. But they should be considered building blocks in a global industrial revolution. They are an essential part of the bigger picture: making America globally competitive in the 21st century with a stronger, better clean energy economy.

The Recovery Act’s purpose was to get the economy moving again, but through smart leadership it also helped move the economy in the right direction. It laid the foundation for a clean, innovative, and more efficient low-carbon energy future. It is a credit to the president and Congress that they recognized the historic importance of these one-time investments and directed the stimulus toward activities that anticipated the need for forward vision in a changing economy.

Clearly, our closest economic competitors understand the strategic importance of investing in more efficient and innovative infrastructure. China, for example, had a recovery package smaller than ours but invested at more than double the American rate. It spent $12.6 million every hour on clean energy in its stimulus. The story is even more pronounced in South Korea, which made greening their energy infrastructure a centerpiece of their economic competitiveness strategy (see table below).

Right now, the United States is transitioning its energy infrastructure from capital-intensive, dirty energy sources to clean, innovation-intensive, and job-creating clean energy sources. The unprecedented investment and leadership ARRA provided has accelerated this transition and laid an essential foundation for continued business growth and a sustained period of market innovation.

But these processes won’t continue on their own. Without clear policy commitments to clean energy, the United States risks ceding its gains and falling dangerously behind its competitors. We’ve made progress but these green seedlings of an emerging industry must be protected and cultivated to reach their full potential for driving domestic economic growth.

We must seize the leadership opportunity in this sector. The president should use the power of his office in the budget process, and through all executive agencies, to catalyze the market with clear and forward-looking policies that send a signal of commitment and stability to the private sector and continue to drive investment.

In the absence of these steps, the United States will see an exodus of firms and capital to countries that are bold enough to take action — namely Europe, China, and other emerging markets. Time and time again, U.S. private-sector firms lament a lack of clear and consistent policy on clean energy. This stymies investment and slows job creation.

What we need today is another Telecom Act, which used regulatory reform, tax policy, and public investment to drive the growth of entirely new private industries. This will pick up where the Recovery Act’s clean energy investments left off.

Congress’s to-do list, therefore, should include passing legislation that encourages research and development, provides needed capital to help breakthrough technologies reach the commercialization stage, and allows for the construction of necessary electric grid improvements to carry renewable energy.

To that end, Congress should expand and extend the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit. It should also create new mechanisms for finance such as a Clean Energy Deployment Administration to promote early-phase commercialization of technologies and an Energy Independence Trust to fuel commercial deployment of mature technologies at scale.

Congress also needs to clearly define how new transmission infrastructure will be built to serve renewable electricity resources, set standards for smart grid technologies, and find a permanent solution to the challenge of using tax credits in project financing for renewable energy and energy efficiency in the built environment.

Further, a target of meeting 35 percent of all electricity needs by 2035 through energy efficiency and truly renewable energy sources — including wind, solar, geothermal, and wave technologies — would boost investors’ certainty that there will be a market for these sources. This number should constitute a floor, not a ceiling, for growth.

President Obama called for a surge of innovation and growth to be America’s next “Sputnik moment.” ARRA made an important down payment on this goal but it will take the collective will of policymakers and private-sector investment to prevail. On this two-year anniversary of the Recovery Act, we should look back with satisfaction that we have seen the American clean energy industry through a rough period in the global economy. But this is no time to rest on our laurels. The rest of the world will not wait for America to catch up. There is work to be done and America must lead the way.

Prop 23 would harm Latinos disproportionately.

The upcoming November election contains a ballot initiative that will threaten all Californians’ health and safety. But the Latino community will suffer disproportionate harm. Proposition 23 will undo California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which has catalyzed billions of dollars in private sector investment in clean energy in the state — creating jobs, businesses, and new technologies that are leading the nation toward a cleaner energy future. Repealing AB 32 will make it easier for the worst polluters to continue poisoning Latino communities, exacerbate unemployment in industries where Latinos are already suffering, and weaken opportunities for jobs and wealth building for Latinos in the green economy.

The dirty forces behind Proposition 23 are masking their efforts as “job promotion.” But California’s Latino families should not be fooled. These families have a strong tradition of standing up for the health and safety of their children and communities — especially against environmental threats. They should keep that tradition alive and vote “No” on Proposition 23.

California Latinos are already the most at-risk: Pollution already threatens vast numbers of Latinos in California. They are regularly exposed to dirty air and water, which increases their risk of developing numerous health problems.

A 2007 study [PDF] of California’s Bay Area found that more than half of Latinos live within one or two miles of a Toxics Release Inventory facility tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency. The same study noted that 17 percent of Latinos were at the “most risk” for cancer, and 24 percent were at the “highest hazard ratio” for respiratory disease.

In San Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood, where 85 percent of residents are Latino, asthma rates are 28 percent [PDF] — four times the national average. Overall, one in six Latinos has been diagnosed with asthma in California.

In California’s Central Valley, where Latinos account for 30 percent of the population, air pollution increased emergency room visits [PDF] and hospitalizations for respiratory conditions according to a 2003 study by the California Air Resource Board. Six of the 25 most polluted counties in the nation are in the Central Valley, and together these counties are home to 1.1 million Latinos.

Latinos also comprise 60 percent [PDF] of the people living within a half mile of the top 100 emitters of toxic pollutants in Los Angeles County. This is despite the fact that Latinos make up only 44 percent of the county’s population.

Finally, 85 percent [PDF] of California’s agricultural workers are Latino, making them more likely to be exposed to toxic pesticides and contaminated drinking water. This exposure, in turn, drastically increases the risk of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, attention deficit disorder, and birth defects.

Proposition 23 will cost Latinos more than their health: The above health disparities are only made worse by California Latinos’ lack of health care. They are three times [PDF] more likely to be uninsured compared to whites, and this kind of vulnerability can be devastating. Last year, 20 percent of uninsured adults used up all or most of their savings paying medical bills, and many uninsured families pay more than 10 percent of their total family income [PDF] for out-of-pocket health care costs.

Proposition 23 will not just increase health care costs, however — it will also make electricity 33 percent more expensive. Latinos, who are disproportionately low income [PDF], also spend a greater portion of their family budget on electricity than those with higher incomes.

Latino families, with their already limited budgets, will experience even more financial hardship if Proposition 23 passes.

The initiative makes Latinos’ job situation worse: California’s Latinos are suffering from the recession. AB 32 would generate billions of dollars in investments in industries that employ Latinos, but passing Proposition 23 would prevent this from happening.

California’s unemployment rate has already reached 12.3 percent. This number is even worse for Latinos, however, who face unemployment rates as high as 15 percent. Their rates may reach 17.6 percent by this fall.

The recession has hit the construction and manufacturing sectors particularly hard, and many Latinos, including recent immigrants, have historically found work and gained access to wealth building and the middle class in these sectors.

Proposition 23 would destroy half a million jobs [PDF] in California (many in construction and high-tech manufacturing) by 2020 while costing the state $80 billion in gross domestic product. But this number does not even include the $20 billion in GDP growth and 100,000 new clean energy jobs California can create in the next 10 years if its environmental and clean energy policies are upheld (and Proposition 23 is voted down).

Proposition 23 sponsors would add insult to injury: Two Texas-based oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, are the primary sponsors of Proposition 23. They’ve raised over $3.1 million for the campaign so far. If Proposition 23 is passed, California’s strong emission regulations will be repealed, making it even easier for these companies to gain record profits from harming Latino communities.

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the California Environmental Justice Alliance released a report [PDF] exposing the toxic profiteering of these companies. They process the dirtiest type of oil, known as “ >sour crude.” This variety contains the highest levels of poisonous sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide [PDF]. The report notes that in California, “Tesoro and Valero prefer using this kind of dirty oil 2 to 1.”

Both companies repeatedly violate pollution laws in California, and together they operate 4 out of the 15 worst state facilities that contribute to pollution. Both companies, for example, have facilities in Wilmington, South Los Angeles, which are ranked number two and nine on the list. That city has a Latino population of 85 percent.

Latino leaders reject Proposition 23: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told Texas oil companies to “go home” at a “No on 23″ rally this week. He joins numerous prominent California Latino leaders in denouncing the initiative. Likewise, Latino business leaders have recognized that Proposition 23 will increase California’s dependence on foreign oil and weaken the opportunity to lead the worldwide clean energy revolution.

Finally, organizations like Green for All, the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and Communities United Against the Dirty Energy Prop have begun to successfully mobilize the Latino community to fight back against this harmful campaign.

Conclusion: Proposition 23 is all pain and no gain for Latino families. Latinos are already one of the most at-risk populations in California for environmental hazards largely due to the polluting of companies like Tesoro and Valero. These companies are seeking to increase their profits by poisoning more Californians, particularly Latinos.

Proponents of Proposition 23 are disguising it as a job-protecting initiative, but in reality it will hurt the state’s economy by reducing jobs, curbing investment in clean energy, and increasing the cost of electricity.

Latino families should reject this dirty air initiative and vote “No” on Proposition 23 for these reasons.

Get Off Your Ass Alert:

1. Visit the “No on 23″ website, learn the facts and sign up.
2. Educate yourself on how California’s climate and energy laws have created companies and jobs.
3. Tell your friends by email, on Facebook, at work, and everywhere else.
4. Participate in the debate. Write letters to the editor and post comments on blogs and websites.