Stream Your Event | Partners | Speakers CART ITEMS: - | CHECKOUT

Van Jones: Inforum's 21st Century Visionary Award

Watch Full Video | free previews

Commonwealth Club of California

Commonwealth Club

Info
Bio
Chapters
Preview
Zoom In

Van Jones on BP Oil Spill: Drill, Baby, Still?

05 min 06 sec

Add to Profile

Environmental advocate Van Jones reflects on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and what society must learn from the catastrophe.

"I've never heard of a wind slick; I've never heard of a sun spill," says Jones. "There's a better way."
Van Jones: Why Should Companies Get to Pollute for Free?

02 min 35 sec

Add to Profile

Environmentalist Van Jones calls for a "serious" climate and energy bill to stop companies from dumping "planet-cooking pollution" into the atmosphere. "If you take away that right to pollute for free," says Jones, "you send a signal to the only force in the world that can solve this problem -- the entrepreneur."
Watch Full Program

01 hr 10 min 10 sec

Add to Profile

There are 24 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.

Previous FORAtv comments:

Page 2 of 3

heybd

Posted: 07.22.10, 05:52 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Alikar Strange I know of no subsidies. Perhaps you care to list the mystical subsidies. Ofcourse you can't because there are not any. Maybe they could tax us less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax instead. Well, if you want to trade wikipedia citations, here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy "Examples of industries or sectors where subsidies are often found include utilities, gasoline in the United States , welfare, farm subsidies, and (in some countries) certain aspects of student loans." Another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasolin...ge_and_pricing "United States gas and heating oil subsidies are not so visible and are generally in the free or reduced rate lease of government land, tax incentives, grants, and other compensation from the federal and the state governments. Also, pricing is a federal concern to ensure supply and demand within limits to the consumer. In the absence of subsidies in the United States, per gallon prices are expected to reach or exceeded European levels." A Reuters article with the lead "The Obama administration on Monday asked Congress for a second time to end some $36.5 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies, saying it would help fight global warming." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201 I'll include some more links from a web search, I really don't know the reliability of some of the sources, but there are many that claim to have seen real evidence of the "mystical subsidies." http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0921-hance_subsidies.html http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf (PDF) http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_ta...s&type=Project http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

PJ_T

Posted: 07.22.10, 03:33 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Robert Rucker Some undeniable truths of life: --Van Jones "resigned" because it became public that he signed the "Truther" statement, which alleges the Bush administration may have deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks --Jones says he became a "radical Communist" while in prison, and that he saw the environmental movement as a means of achieving that agenda (as many in the movement have for decades) --Marxism is evil & oppresses everyone except those administering it; and also fouls the planet --Capitalism is good; the Industrial Revolution was good; the internal combustion engine is good; God-given oil is good; oil is organic; Capitalism allows us to repair accidents & clean up messes --BP probably would have drilled where they could more easily clean up an accident, if the government had allowed --wind & solar energy doesn't work because you can't turn it on & off, and it fails every cost/benefit analysis --there are many others in the Obama administration (including Obama) that are just as destructive as Van Jones --of Americans who could vote, about 25% vote for people who hinder drilling where Deepwater-type accidents would not occur Robert Rucker Nashville, TN Dear Robert, none of these things you stated are "undeniable truths" but more "generally uninformed opinions."

Alikar

Posted: 07.22.10, 11:27 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by heybd Have you thought about all the government subsidies we all get every time we go to the gas station to pump more fossil fuels into our cars? How profitable would Exxon or BP be if we were made to pay the true cost of gasoline? And I have a hard time believing that coal plants don't enjoy enormous government subsidies as well. I'd be willing to bet that if you totaled the subsidies for green energy over the last 25 years it would pale in comparison to the fossil fuel subsidies during the same period. Strange I know of no subsidies. Perhaps you care to list the mystical subsidies. Ofcourse you can't because there are not any. Maybe they could tax us less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax instead.

heybd

Posted: 07.22.10, 10:20 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Mark Sullivan "Green jobs" would not exist without government subsidy at almost every level. His listing President Obama's "investments" as if it was the President's money, is bewildering. The sad fact about his "green movement" is that it has only been achieved by government coercion. I would like to total the subsidies for all of the solar, wind, etc., over the last 25 years. Have you thought about all the government subsidies we all get every time we go to the gas station to pump more fossil fuels into our cars? How profitable would Exxon or BP be if we were made to pay the true cost of gasoline? And I have a hard time believing that coal plants don't enjoy enormous government subsidies as well. I'd be willing to bet that if you totaled the subsidies for green energy over the last 25 years it would pale in comparison to the fossil fuel subsidies during the same period.

Robert Rucker

Posted: 07.21.10, 11:29 AM

Some undeniable truths of life: --Van Jones "resigned" because it became public that he signed the "Truther" statement, which alleges the Bush administration may have deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks --Jones says he became a "radical Communist" while in prison, and that he saw the environmental movement as a means of achieving that agenda (as many in the movement have for decades) --Marxism is evil & oppresses everyone except those administering it; and also fouls the planet --Capitalism is good; the Industrial Revolution was good; the internal combustion engine is good; God-given oil is good; oil is organic; Capitalism allows us to repair accidents & clean up messes --BP probably would have drilled where they could more easily clean up an accident, if the government had allowed --wind & solar energy doesn't work because you can't turn it on & off, and it fails every cost/benefit analysis --there are many others in the Obama administration (including Obama) that are just as destructive as Van Jones --of Americans who could vote, about 25% vote for people who hinder drilling where Deepwater-type accidents would not occur Robert Rucker Nashville, TN

Mark Sullivan

Posted: 07.21.10, 06:55 AM

I didn't find much substance in what he said. He did make some statements that needed some fleshing out to get to what he really means. For example, what exactly is this "new politics" he speaks of. He stated that we need this "new politics," but he does not say what that means. I would like to know what he means. He also laid out his vision for putting all of the idle engineers in Michigan to work, but has no answers on how this can happen. Why does he not start a green power business? Who are "they" who killed "hope" in 1968? Who are "they" who killed Bobby Kennedy? Why speak in this cryptic way? His vision of what the "next economy" ignores reality. "Green jobs" would not exist without government subsidy at almost every level. His listing President Obama's "investments" as if it was the President's money, is bewildering. The sad fact about his "green movement" is that it has only been achieved by government coercion. I would like to total the subsidies for all of the solar, wind, etc., over the last 25 years. Additionally, it still is only achieved through arbitrary government coercion. I realize it is an important question as to whether or not the government should be allowed to force us to adopt changes that are economically inefficient, or that we just plain do not want for whatever reason. It seems to me that voluntary cooperation due to the soundness of the economics of the issue at hand and benefits, both perceived and real being greater than the costs, is the most just way for change to happen. Mr. Jones still carries his naiive language and views he picked up on a college campus. The gentleman who asked about the inefficiencies of the government hit the nail on the head. Mr. Jones' answer was not convincing. He has a corporatist/soft fascist in that he states that markets are the answer, but then he goes on to defend the stimulus and he completely oversimplified and overstated its benefits. There is no middle ground - there is free markets or there is not.

rocketdog

Posted: 07.20.10, 11:57 AM

From chapter "Q3: Catalysts": Quote: "If you take away that right to pollute for free, If you close that loophole, you send a signal to the only force in the world who can solve this problem: the entrepreneur.... You unleash the innovation, the entrepreneurship, and the creativity of the whole world to solve this problem, and you get a solution faster than you could get it any other way." - Van Jones That quote is regarding Cap and Trade legislation, which you can agree with or not. But here's my question, Alikar : how can you argue that a guy is "too socialist" to bother with when he's up there stating that ultimately the best way to solve a major social crisis is through private sector entrepreneurship? And I'm curious... Would you call any use of economic intervention from the government "socialism," even if the end result is to spark development in the private sector (unless, I'm assuming, it would be in the form of a tax cut)?

Philippe Orlando

Posted: 07.19.10, 06:52 PM

I wish he was in the White House instead of, well..more courage, more vision!

Alikar

Posted: 07.19.10, 06:09 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Sokratez Do you mean: "Why was he let go if he wasn't..." ? Well, he wasn't "let go"... That's just plain and simply wrong again... How about you actually watch the video before you comment? He himself quit! Right... Keep telling yourself, he quit because he wanted too. Its the "politically safe" way he was let go. After all his superiors didn't "fire" him, he let himself go. I also think its funny you think of Racism right away. I never mentioned that the guy was black. A reader would have had no idea of that until you brought it up or have seen the video. Perhaps a Freudian slip on your part sir? As for who I want in power now that you bring it up: I could easily go for Allen West. http://allenwestforcongress.com/ He, Sir, is a true American. A man I would gladly stand behind. Hiring him wouldn't cause a controversy in the first place. P.S. Thank you for the correction of the incorrect wording of my post.

Sokratez

Posted: 07.19.10, 04:48 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Alikar Why wasn't Van Jones let go if he wasn't... Do you mean: "Why was he let go if he wasn't..." ? Well, he wasn't "let go"... That's just plain and simply wrong again... How about you actually watch the video before you comment? He himself quit! If you'd actually paid attention to what's going on and not just regurgitate bulls**t, then... never mind... you're just super... USA! USA! *sigh* I guess you only see reality the way it fits your predetermined worldview... If Glenn Beck was normal, this wouldn't have been an issue ;-) So you'd want only "normal" people to be in positions of power? What's "normal" ?!? Are you "normal"? Do you mean white people?!? What kind of code-language is this? And where in the Constitution does it say: "only normal people can..." Doesn't it say in there somewhere something about all people being equal? Are you a racist? Or a normalist? Or an unequalist? Or just a Glennbeckist?

Page 2 of 3