Ontario is saddled with a set of economic problems that mirror those of Michigan further south: a stagnating, poor-quality job market, low wages, lack of job security, and low benefits. The province's economy is stagnant, jobs are disappearing and poverty is becoming a real issue. However, it has a trained manufacturing workforce and plenty of factories, both potential points in its favor.

With all those problems in mind, Campaign 2000, the Toronto Labour Council and the Ontario branch of the Canadian Labour Congress have issued a new game plan for the province: retool factories, create jobs, and attract investment to make Ontario a leader in green manufacturing. "Government has a leadership role to play providing policy frameworks, incentives and direct support for the development of new green manufacturing and services," the report says.

We applaud the report and support its findings. And it also makes us wonder why President Bush didn't include language like this in his last State of the Union address, where green jobs weren't even mentioned? Why aren't governments already doing this as a matter of course? In the US and in Ontario, stable manufacturing jobs that pay well are disappearing rapidly, as outsourcing undermines the security of those positions - and there are a lot of miserable people all over North America feeling the pinch.

The Energy Information Agency is predicting US energy demand to increase 39 percent by 2030. Despite some of the proactive steps states are taking to increase their renewable energy supply, without a comprehensive federal energy plan we are going to be facing a whole lot more coal plants. But, what can be done in just 23 years?

According to the Energy Department, the answer is blowing in the wind. A new DOE report concludes that the US is very capable of producing 20 percent of its energy needs through wind power by 2030.

While not as ambitious as Denmark's claim it will generate half of its electricity through wind power by 2025, 20 percent would have huge positive environmental impacts, including:

• reducing CO2 emissions from electricity production by 25 percent.
• reducing water consumption for electricity generation by 4 trillion gallons.
• Reducing natural gas consumption by 11 percent, which is equal to 60 percent of liquid natural gas imports in 2030.

Considering that 60 percent of the untapped natural gas reserves are in Russia, Iran and Qatar, every single politician who wants to be re-elected should be pushing to extend, if not make permanent, the Renewable Energy Tax Credit. Unless of course they get a kick out of supporting repressive regimes. Plus, building the turbines, new transmission lines, maintenance, etc. will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs and provide hundreds of millions in revenue for rural communities.

James Draheim says it better than we could: "You've got this energy just falling on your property and you're not allowed to use it because of aesthetics?"

One might wonder why anybody would object to a homeowner installing solar panels on their roof: ecologically, socially, and financially sensible, it's a great way to cut your carbon footprint and your electrical bill. Your local Homeowner's Association might take issue, however, on the grounds that the unobtrusive panels somehow detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And, in fact, some have done just that, including the one Mr. Draheim is saddled with.

Fortunately, eight state governments - with more to come - side with his logic, and have prohibited HOAs and local governments from interfering with homeowners who wish to install alternative energy sources on their property. California led the pack in 2005; Illinois, Maryland, and Florida all anticipate having laws on the books by this year.

While we applaud these states, it's stunning to us that such a law is even necessary. We're flabbergasted that a HOA would even consider banning solar panels, or interfering with their installation. National legislation has come before the House twice before, but the idea has died quietly due to lack of support. It's high time that these artificial barriers to alternative energy be knocked down, and we hope to see support for those bills.

OK, so maybe we're not yet in a depression from the ravages of environmental degradation. But just to be sure the carbon collapse doesn’t provoke one, former U.S. Senator Gary Hart, Oberlin College environmental department chair David Orr and Yale economist Robert Repetto, are developing the Presidential Climate Action Project.

The Project is essentially a blueprint to help the next president slam the brakes on a climate meltdown. "We're trying to use the Roosevelt model to stress the urgency," Hart told a press conference at last week's American Solar Energy Society conference in San Diego. "We're gathering the best ideas for laws and especially for Executive Orders that the next president can sign into law immediately, without having to go through the approval process. We have lost eight years."

Because no one is willing to push a simple carbon tax as the best solution, one of the Project's favored proposals is what its creator, Repetto calls an "upstream cap and trade" program. Under that scenario, the major producers of carbon, such as coal mines and oil refineries, get their production of carbon capped. "This way, you're not regulating hundreds of thousands of businesses; there are less than 2000 [big producers]," said Hart. He said the Project's authors are scheduled to meet July 1 in Washington with senior representatives of both campaigns, "to underscore the importance" of their mission.

Here at EnviroWonk, we often focus on gloomy policy news, not because we want to, but because of the cloudy political climate. But here's a sunny bit of news to perk up your day: lawmakers in Hawaii, known for its year-round sunshine and perennial 78-degree weather, have mandated that beginning in 2010, all new homes incorporate solar water heaters.

The heaters, which preheat water running through a heat exchanger on the roof, takes advantage of that lovely tropical sunshine that would otherwise just bounce off the roof. The initial investment is steep - $5,000 for a typical system - but saves so much power that it should pay for itself in just 2.5 years. For a typical four-person house, this should save $150 per month, or about 30-35 percent off the electricity bill. In turn, we bet that results in a healthy savings in greenhouse gas emissions.

It's this sort of thing that we wish we saw more of out of our nation's policymakers. There's no good reason not to incorporate solar heating in the warmer areas of the country, and likewise solar, passive geothermal, and other in-home alternative energy technologies. However, most builders and buyers often shy away due to the high initial investment, even if it ends up being a net money saver.

Libertarians might chafe at the government involvement, and we can understand that argument - but, like airbags for cars and brakes for elevators, we're of the opinion that sometimes, when the benefits of mandating standard equipment are so clear, a little legislation is no bad thing.

That's John McCain delivering his climate change speech yesterday, surrounded by models of wind turbines. As you see, he is in Oregon. What you don't see -- and what the folks at Climate Progress astutely noted -- is that McCain delivered his remarks at the Portland headquarters of Vestas, a Danish wind turbine manufacturer.

McCain need only look in the mirror to understand why finding an American turbine manufacturer has become such a challenge. He has repeatedly opposed tax breaks and subsidies for the once dominant American industry, and has been particularly soft in his support for the wind power production tax credit. As Climate Progress noted, that tax credit has been the key incentive for the industry, "allowing it to compete with our better-subsidized power sources (like nuclear) in this country, and to partly offset the much bigger subsidies other countries have for renewables."

You may also remember that soon after securing the GOP nomination in February, McCain skipped a Senate vote on a $204 billion stimulus package that included a one-year extension of the PTC, as well as credits for energy-efficient homes and appliances. The bill failed by one vote, unable to hit the 60-vote threshold necessary to stop a GOP filibuster. McCain was in Washington, D.C. at the time of the vote.

Of course, how surprised should be really be about the hypocrisy of yesterday's speech location? Remember, this is a senator who earned a score of 0 (zero) from the the League of Conservation Voters after he failed to show up for every one of the 15 votes last year related to conservation issues, ranging from a bill on CAFE and energy efficiency standards to the Farm Bill.

And as the Center for American Progress has nicely documented, McCain has made a habit opposing renewable energy, voting to scrap or weaken the renewable portfolio standards for utilities three time in 2002 alone, and again in 2005. But hey, those turbines make nice speech props.

Do you live in San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tucson, or anywhere near there? Well, the EPA just shook up your Magic 8-Ball, asked if it should regulate the perchlorate in your Colorado River drinking water, and "Outlook not so good" came up. Bummer! Guess you'll have to live with a known toxic component of rocket fuel that harms fetuses and affects thyroid functioning.

However, they may issue a bulletin telling you that it might harm your unborn children, just so you know. At least it works out OK for the poor, impoverished Department of Defense, who'd have to fund the cleanup.

The EPA's assistant administrator for water, Benjamin Grumbles, said he knew that perchlorate was toxic, but questioned whether regulation of drinking water was feasible or effective. He cited a Food and Drug Administration study released in January that found 81 percent of perchlorate intake by infants comes from baby foods and dairy foods, and that 74 percent of the 285 distinct foods tested contained the chemical.

Grumbles' point that drinking water isn't the only source of perchlorate intake is well-taken, but we'd rebut that by noting that the study he cited only dealt with infants, not adults, who are more likely to drink significant amounts of tapwater. Also, given the EPA's jurisdiction over water pollution in all forms, not just drinking water, the fact that it's present in food doesn't seem to be a barrier to regulating its presence in surface and groundwater used for irrigation and livestock watering too.

Much to the chagrin of many environmentalists (among others), nuclear power is making a comeback as nations scramble to find zero-emission sources of energy. The Washington Post reported that at least 40 countries have told the UN that they are interested in developing nuclear energy programs.

Until relatively recently, only the US, Russia, and a handful of European nations actually enriched uranium, and countries with nuclear reactors would purchase the material from them, keeping the production of weapons-grade material in the hands of a few. Now that so many other countries are looking to enrich their own uranium there is concern that the true motives of most of these countries is to develop their own nuclear weapons.

When you consider that many of the enrichment-happy countries include oil rich Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; the rather poor Yemen and Jordan; and Egypt and Turkey, who had both dropped their nuclear power programs decades ago, something doesn't sit right. Hmmm, all of these countries are neighbors and/or rivals with Iran, who has also promised to enrich uranium for power and not wiping out Israel.