Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Eco Groups Fear Opportunity Lost
Economic stimulus plans being rolled out across the world could commit countries to rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions, canceling some of the green initiatives included within them, analysis has found.
The packages of tax cuts, credits and extra spending have been trumpeted for their environmental credentials by the governments proposing them, but a closer look shows that green spending account for only a small part of the bigger initiatives.
"This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that is being fumbled," said Ben Stewart, spokesman for Greenpeace, the environmental group.
Much of the spending will go to projects that will, in fact, increase emissions, such as new roads or fossil fuel power stations, while too little money will be devoted to low-carbon projects to make a real difference, experts believe.
For instance, Barack Obama, the US president, wants $27bn (€21bn, £19bn) to be spent on new roads, which will raise traffic emissions. Although some funds will be spent on developing low-carbon vehicles such as electric or hydrogen cars, the benefits gained will be outweighed by the emissions generated by the extra petrol-driven cars.
Such increases in spending on high-carbon activities are a serious threat, according to a growing number of economists, politicians and environmental groups.
They are concerned that a failure to "green" the huge fiscal expansion proposals will doom the world to decades of high-carbon economic growth and spell disaster for the planet.
Andy Atkins, executive director of the environmental charity Friends of the Earth, said governments must do more to avoid locking the global economy into decades of high-carbon growth. "We need urgent and comprehensive green action, not more token gestures and hot air."
The United Nation's Environmental Programme estimates that only South Korea is now spending enough of its stimulus on green investment to cut the costs of climate change later.
Japan and India will spend paltry sums on green investments such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies.
Tokyo will devote 2.6 per cent of its spending to green investments, mainly energy efficiency for buildings, out of a total stimulus package of $486bn, according to an analysis by HSBC.
New Delhi has no plans to spend any of its $14bn fiscal package on low-carbon activities.
The same analysis suggests China will spend 38 per cent of its $586bn on green themes. However, the size and details of the Chinese stimulus are still unclear and many economists believe the green impact will be much more modest and could be outweighed by polluting infrastructure projects.
On current plans, Europe and the US fare a little better than Asia in green terms.
Mr Obama has held out the prospect of millions of new "green-collar" jobs, in activities such as refurbishing federal buildings to making them more energy efficient and overhauling the country's creaking electricity transmission networks. According to HSBC, about a tenth of the US's proposed tax breaks, extra spending and other incentives can be classed as green.
France and Germany are leading the way in Europe, with a fifth of the $34bn French package and 13 per cent of Germany's to be targeted at low-carbon industries. In the UK, where ministers have promised hundreds of thousands of new green jobs, about 7 per cent will go to environmental goods and services.
Meanwhile, Italy will channel only 1 per cent of its planned $100bn to green measures and Poland, which is highly reliant on coal-fired electricity, does not plan for any of its stimulus to be green.
Lord Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank chief economist who wrote the landmark study that found the cost of tackling climate change would be far less than the costs of unchecked global warming, has led calls for green measures to be at the heart of global stimulus measures.
He said: "It is vital that these investments do not lock us for many more decades into an unsustainable high-carbon economy."
Investing in low-carbon technologies would improve the world's economic prospects for the long term, he said. "If we are going to make this expansion, let's look at what is going to be the growth story of the future. Low-carbon growth is going to be the only growth story of the future."
Lord Stern calculates that governments need to spend $400bn on green measures to achieve the emissions cuts required and to help the global economy recover.
Only if spending was concentrated on low-carbon technologies would the world escape the prospect of raising emissions for years to come, and "thus having to spend much more in the future to bring them back down to safe levels", Lord Stern said.
Still, green companies are generally hopeful about the packages and it is easy to see why. Sums of the sort being contemplated under the stimulus plans dwarf the amounts devoted to green subsidies and other government incentives in recent years.
"If the financial crisis has done anything, it has made sums like $50bn seem small," said Steve Howard, of the Climate Group, an influential organization that attempts to bring businesses together to tackle climate change.
So if even a small proportion of the proposed stimulus packages was spent on projects such as more renewable electricity generation, energy efficiency and developing low-carbon technologies, that would represent a huge increase to the companies involved in such plans.
Pavan Sukhdev, a senior banker from Deutsche Bank who has worked on green ideas with the UN, said: "Investments will soon be pouring back into the global economy. The question is whether they go into the old, extractive, short-term economy of yesterday or a new green economy."
- Posted in

15 Comments so far
Show All(i almost wrote this on the thread from Van Gelder's article...)
Frankly, we missed our chance back in the 1960s and 1970s.
In 1962, Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring" because birds were dying, the delicate biochemistry of their reproductive systems thrown into chaos by pesticides such as DDT. There was a huge outcry, and within ten years the US passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, and founded the Environmental Protection Agency. But...
On April 22 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated. That same year, in the wake of Earth Day, scientist Barry Commoner wrote "The Closing Circle" covering basic disruptions of the Earth's natural living systems caused by human industrial activities and chemicals. One section in Commoner's book was about global warming caused by atmospheric carbon from fossil fuels. But...
In 1972, the Club of Rome published their work "The Limits to Growth". But...
Since 1972, human population has increased by 3 billion, to very near 7 billion. Our agriculture, urbanization, fisheries, transportation, mining etc, now dominate the living systems of the Earth. THE MAJORITY OF THE LIVING MATTER OF THE EARTH EACH YEAR - THE "NET PRIMARY PRODUCT" - IS NOW CONTROLLED, USED, CONSUMED, BY HUMAN SOCIETIES. And the long-predicted climate effects of human-generated atmospheric carbon are now becoming obvious.
Yet policy-makers cannot seem to see the actual situation, and plow forward with plans that will increase the rate at which we pump carbon into the atmosphere - not to mention all other critical effects of human society on the living systems of the Earth, less immediately in the front of our minds than the climate crisis.
We as a species are NOT effectively addressing the meta-crisis of our undermining the living Earth that sustains us. Yes, this crisis should be an opportunity to massively shift our investment priorities away from disruptive activities toward sustaining activities. But...
Frankly, we missed our chance. Civilizational collapse, in the relatively near term, is a likely scenario. Yes we should keep trying to do the right thing. We should also grieve for the collapse that is coming.
very good comments
thanks for posting this
i'm not sure 'grieve for the collapse that is coming' or grieving for the not-dead-yet is going to grab any headlines --
there's an infantilism behind every decision made by whoever the 'best and the brightest' might be on any given day --
nukular weapons are still in the budget -- do you think if maybe even one
of them went off in a major population center...anywhere...the world would finally say 'okay, enough!'
no, sadly, we have to fry first -- whether it's slow-fry, quick-fry, deep-fry...
none of that really matters --
catfish is still catfish -- global crisis will smell about the same regardless of the indices...
The title of my next best-seller:
"Grieve for the Collapse that is Coming".
Who wouldn't get excited over that? It's my most brilliant marketing stratagem ever!
and a perfect recipe for inaction, too! Thanks for that. The denialists among us thank you; our fathers and mothers thank you. Our children, not so much. But who listens to them anyway?
nukular weapons are still in the budget -- do you think if maybe even one of them went off in a major population center... anywhere... the world would finally say 'okay, enough!'"
TWO of them have gone off in major population centers...
Webwalk, you did a good job of summarizing where we are and the missed warnings. I would add that there were also plenty of cassandras warning about overpopulation overwelming progress, starting with Thomas Malthus in 1798; William Vogt, Road to Survival in 1949; Ehrlich's, The Population Bomb in 1968; The Population Commission Report by the Rockefeller commission in 1972 and the list goes on on on and unheeded, unheeded and unheeded apparently because humans are clever and stupid at the same time. Any other theories?
Despite the late hour in human history, the Catholic Church still opposes contraception despite the deplorable human conditions and environmental destruction in the world. The media cannot say the overpopulation word, nor can politicians. It is like there is a unspoken gag rule in play on the whole problem. Even the environmental groups can't seem to pronounce "overpopulation" and it is a pretty easily pronounced word and easily condeptualized in scientific terms that are not too hard to grasp.
"Humans are clever and stupid at the same time."
You said it all.
Humans take Nature for granted and hate being told its wrong to do something.
They are outraged about floods, cancer and anything Nature does, but never mind cars, meat, pollution or anything that humans make. They are A-ok.
Until you crack open the mindset that humans are better than Nature, you will never even hope to see change.
Its like robbing a child of their favorite teething ring, but in the end its better for them.
Teethign rings make for crooked teeth, just as human supremacy myths make for poisoned habitat.
And it infects both secular and theistic mindsets.
Secularists think they can transcend the world through science(rocketships to other planets, immortality through biotechnology) and theists think it will come through salvation from a human centered god(although a good number of them also embrace science).
Got to lose that saliva covered teething ring.
Good points webber....
It, then, falls to us to do what can be done.
Our "ark" could be local and regional green coops, organized pre-collapse, to give small groups their best chance to extend their viability post-collapse.
The poor man's equivalent to gated communities, without the gates.
Expect the start to be seismic. It seems to be the missing link in the volumes of climate data that describes our predicament. The emphasis so far has been on all the ways we're warming up. What is it that says that when all possibilities are considered, the simplest one is most likely it?
I think it just goes mechanical after a certain threshold of water mass changes from solid to liquid. We are already within a stone's throw of the temp limit. The global riot we need to buy a few more decades to prepare probably won't happen. The records on the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic Ridge could shed some light on inclusion of seismic forcings in the climate system.
(Occam's Razor...that's it)
The "hour-glass" is probably Greenland's ice sheet. Apparently the top 2500 meters of ice of 3000 total, was deposited in the last 100,000 years.
The mechanics of melting ice flow include the possibility of ice sheet collapse.
It would be drastic, but a good wake-up call.
Oh, well. Good luck.
Well it's no surprise that we are missing opportunities here. The most obvious missed opportunity is rail. If we started a national initiative to develop mass transit rail systems within all of our major cities we could really benefit. First, infrastructure is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. Second, such an initiative would require large purchases of property (think of the EL in Chicago) and remove housing from the market, a direct attack at the heart of the crisis. Third, the banks will get an influx of money, indirectly (no more trickle down). Fourth, we will likely NEVER get such a great price again. Fifth, we will combat global warming. Sixth we will combat the soon to rise again fuel prices. Besides, who actually likes driving in big cities? I don't!
I wrote my representatives this a while ago. As expected I got just a bland "we like mass transit" letter. Even though the original letter also said something about nationalizing Fannie and Freddie to help resupply loans to the displaced. I'm becoming more convinced that I should focus more of my effort writing complaints to the media. Do you agree?
Some folks believe Obama and company have done a pretty good job so far:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/26/obama-first-sustainable-budget-us-history-clean-energy-cap-and-trade-repeal-fossil-subsidies/#more-4961
Worry not. No one will be able to afford the cars for the new roads as none will be working or making any money.
No one YOU know, maybe. But then there will just be more room for the bankers, corporate politicians, and energy company execs--people on both sides of the revolving door.