Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGreen Stimulus
A massive stimulus package of nearly $600 billion holds promise for the economy, and could mean more federal spending on infrastructure and energy efficiency projects. An estimated $400 billion in that bill will repair lots of bridges and roads, but what will they all lead to? Nothing -- unless we first start building bridges and roads between our economic, climate, and education concerns, and start appreciating the way they're all connected.
New policy and stimulus needs to take into account that we're not just trying to save our economy with roads, bridges, and buildings: We're trying to save ourselves.
Few other national topics are as timely as a discussion of how to build a new green economy nationwide. During his campaign Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs. It is this way of thinking that should shape our country's future.
One way we can stimulate the economy while going green is to create new, personal carbon savings accounts. These would be tax-free, interest-bearing green energy savings accounts that could be leveraged to help weatherize or green-up one's home or sold to companies that need carbon credits. It would encourage energy efficiency while allowing a personal stake in emissions reductions.
At a time when we are poised to make our greatest infrastructure investment since the Great Depression, we need to make sure we do it right. Congress seems focused on shovel-ready jobs to its own detriment. We need to ensure this bailout is green, that the bridges and roads lead us to the future -- instead of another dead-end.
Putting together a new green energy program for the U.S. and other countries will require thousands of green jobs in solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy.
One plan is based on the fact that investing in energy efficient buildings would go a long way to create jobs and help the economy. The so-called Architecture 2030 plan recommends an investment of $171.72 billion over two years combining a housing mortgage buy-down and an accelerated-depreciation program for commercial buildings with energy efficiency. This plan could create over 3 million jobs in the building sector and over 4 million indirect jobs plus an additional 350,000 jobs from consumer spending.
The retrofitting and construction of green schools -- the largest construction sector in the United States -- will do the same. Between 2006 and 2008, we spent $80 billion on school construction. If we build those buildings green, they cost less than 2 percent more to construct; however, they pay for themselves in a few years. Consequently, municipalities with major school systems are increasingly looking at "green building" and renovation as they work to update school facilities and save the district money in utility bills. A green school can save a school enough money to hire two additional teachers -- all while preventing 585,000 lbs of CO2 from hitting the atmosphere.
Which, at the end of the day, helps solve a bigger problem: The economy is in a crisis, but the impacts of climate change are far greater in the long run. Fortunately though, there's no need to sacrifice one for the other.
Green jobs are in danger of disappearing from the stimulus package, to be replaced with shovel-ready jobs, such as President-elect Obama's recently announced plans to create thousands of jobs by "weatherizing" houses. While weatherizing houses is important, it is a short-term project for employment. It is not the same as creating lasting high-tech work or building infrastructure. Green jobs, however, are solid, necessary jobs which have a long-term future. What we need now is a firm commitment to include in the stimulus package funds for "green" infrastructure and jobs -- the real way to revitalize the economy and look toward the future.
House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has touted other projects like investments in new energy technologies and energy-efficient buildings. We need to hold her and the rest of the Congressional leadership to those promises, demanding that they take bold measures to resolve the economic crisis holistically -- by taking into account the challenges of the climate crisis, the health of our children, and the needs of our workforce, which is waiting for green American jobs that can't be exported.
Our government must begin the shift towards a global economy driven by massive job creation from the growth of green technology, construction, transportation, and renewable energy. While the road to a green economy might be long, we need to use this opportunity to build it.
21 Comments so far
Show AllI don't see anything here about agriculture, green agriculture. This is a major shortcoming of such an article. In the past, agriculture has been a key to stimulus, said to represent the most powerful economic multipliers, ($1 generating $7 more throughout the economy, 1 job creating 6 more). The Steagall Amendment of 1941 went through the banking committees. Some homework is in order for progressives on this. Are you leaving out your best argument? I post here to bring in this kind of information from the rural heartland, where we've done our homework on it.
New Years Revolution.
http://www.coalitionoftheilling.com
perhaps additional incentives are in order for the average person who is investing in alternative energy. setting aside the tax "credit" if one chooses to invest in a wind turbine system, a system that, even with a "credit" will still have a period of approximately seven years before paying off the initial investment, you still find yourself in the net-metering loop - at least in texas - where you will receive a credit on your monthly utility bill, provided your turbine produces more than you consume. let's see if i have this right. the utility company provides me with x amount of power. i pay them for that amount. but if i'm producing more energy than i consume, feeding said energy back into the grid, i have a monthly credit on my utility bill? where's the incentive to save energy? why invest 15 grand in a wind system, helping make at least one household energy independent (and the wind turbine manufacturer a lot wealthier) if all i ultimately get out of it is a credit on my monthly utility bill. big changes are in order if our country's leaders are going to preach "green."
ms. rogers, i applaud your effort to promote "green building" now. but what exactly are you speaking of? what type of green building(s)? in your mind, what constitutes or qualifies a building to be green? approximately half of americans think that by changing their tungsten light bulbs to fluorescent constitutes a charter membership in the green building program.
additionally, ms. rogers, although a green school might save enough money to hire two additional teachers, i suggest that perhaps that additional money should be paid to the existing teachers on the payroll. the last thing our school systems need is additionally money to be spent foolishly. i speak specifically of the public school systems in texas, if you have teachers/educators in your circle of friends then you are well aware of their hours spent educating/raising today's generation of poorly parented school children. a 3% annual pay raise (in austin texas) is a joke, not a reward or incentive, to the stewards of our school children. then again, maybe school administrators could take that saved money to hire new coaches. or recruit dumb athletes.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Bill Clinton and the Bush Family sold out
our industrial base to China, Mexico and maybe Israel..We will not return to sanity until we re-build our industrial base. Just building roads and bridges is an
accomplishment, but we cannot sell roads and bridges at a profit unless we erect
tolls on every mile of road that is constructed, then the Clintons to show us how
smart they are, will sell the toll roads to the Arabs. Why is Bill Clinton getting Billions of dollars from Foreign countries? Is this some sort of a pay-off for
selling our secrets to Red China and maybe who else? We need fewer Ivy League
politicians who will not sell us out. Harvard and Yale should take a course
in Treason and Loyalty to our country, the hell with Globalization.
We are being sucked into the swamp of this New World Order that GHW Bush sold
to the Clintons. Who will tell us?
One of the key questions to ask is how did we fall for the global capital propaganda? It was a gargantuan lie. Local self-sufficiency is crucial, everywhere, always, period. We should recognize our failure of swallowing the lie and vow to never again taste, much less swallow the elites' mythologies. Do not trust the elites. VERY SIMPLE!! This is the basis of the most holistic of approaches to public policy: Mass enlightenment/responsibility naturally organizes the society to serve the public interests, all of them. Piece of cake! Do not rely on the elites for anything! That shortcut is bogus always!
Hemp, the inconvenient solution.
See John McCabe's new book,
Hemp: What The World Needs Now
http://www.hempnowbook.com
then ask yourself,
"How bad do things have to get before all solutions are considered?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edZw3hXkGJo&feature=channel_page
There is a very long list of potential crops that can add, or better, "reconcile," values to create wealth. I hear utopian claims for hemp around here all the time, but I'm yet to see any postings establishing that hemp would stand out now, compared to corn or organic premiums, for example. Nor have I seen any that establish that hemp did this when it was grown here, many decades ago. The burden of proof is on you. If you can't give a single significant reason for folks to pursue the issue further, why would we do the homework of studying links like these.
Certainly a major obstacle for hemp (a major "value subtracted,") is its association with drug use, and that association is strongly supported by pro hemp posts at Common Dreams. I challenge the hemp posters: where at Common Dreams are pro hemp arguments credibly made?
Anyway, isn't this really a Republican issue? Are you working the small government Republicans to take the lead on hemp. There your obstacle is the big role of theocratic Republicans. So how's that going? Are you working with the conservative, pro corporatist American Farm Bureau Federation. They might be the most powerful lobby in America that has been pro hemp.
I'm curious. Is this all a bunch of hot air and moon beams? Or not?
Ron Paul is going to try AGAIN to pass the Hemp Farming Act. Let's nail our reps and senators and make them support it. We can do it. Don't give up. And stop allowing the naysayers the power to call it inconvenient. It's not inconvenient.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
greed is not good...green is greed lite...
lust is good!
I'm all for GREEN jobs if that's what's really being planned? Building bridges and hiways isn't necessarily green by any stretch of the imagination though. Another group getting ready to feast off of this so called Green stimulus is the Army Corp. and it's legions of environmental rapists ( Big dredging Corps. and marine Eng. Corps. masquerading as environmentalist and job creators. An example are so called Beach Replenishment projects that are being carried forward under the title of Shore Protection Projects. They are neither. These so called Protection Projects are nothing more then huge sand moving projects that create few jobs and benefit a few extremely wealthy and well connected families all with strong ties to then Army Corp. They place sand largely in front of the second homes of the wealthy and a few Coastal businesses. They require huge amounts of capital and most be maintained over decades because in may cases they wash away almost immediately! I've been fighting these wasteful stupid projects for a decade now and am watching in horror as they're K street lobbyist Marlowe & Co. sharpen their knives and get ready to feast on this so called Green stimulus. Personally, I believe it's these kinds of stupid pork barrel projects, that largely benefit a tiny elite, are what will end up being funded.
Ms. Rogers has a good grasp of environmental priorities without getting frenetic about it.
The corporate mantra of "only making money matters" is what has driven us into our present sad state financially and yes, morally, too. The time is ripe for greening America. It's just that most people don't realize how much of the green stuff can be made by going green.
Germany created some 390,000 jobs just in solar power and became leaders in the technology of making solar panels. Same with Japan and now China. American panel makers lag far behind because the political will for clean energy was never really on the Bush regime's agenda. Actually, Bush was right when he said America's involvement with the Kyoto Accords would cost American jobs. By generally shunning the clean, renewable technologies of solar, wind and geothermal potentially millions of jobs went elsewhere.
I agree with TMinSD that we don't necessarily need more stimulus to go green. We can act now. The extended solar investment tax credit goes into effect tomorrow and homeowners can take 30% of the cost of a solar (photovoltaic) installation and deduct it from their federal income tax for 2009. This had been capped at a measly $2000 since 2005. More information is available at:
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
I'm not sure, but think it was sunday NY Times that had an article about new German homes built without furnaces. They're not too large, highly insulated with very special windows and a 90% heat-recovering air to air heat exchanger. The components are being mass-produced and add 5-7% more to the cost of the home. With a little government guidance (taxes and/or subsidies) we could have huge changes in the way we use (overuse) energy. Start this off with a gasoline tax that ratchets up significantly every year. Balance this out with much lower taxes on the first $50,000 of income.
There is nothing more urgent, universally vital, and centrally simple, than ordering our socio-economic transition around reversing greenhouse gas emissions, in every way possible.
Please, everyone, according to the brightest minds on the subject, we are currently in "overshoot" which is to say the present level of CO2 (385ppm.) in the atmosphere is ALREADY triggering events which which will lead to "IRREVERSIBLE", "CATASTROPHIC" conditions on our planet.
Watch carefully, those who would deny this to be true, for they are either ignorant or self-serving.
Watch carefully, those who would propose half-measures like "cap and trade" which in the big picture is "too little, too late".
"An estimated $400 billion in that bill will repair lots of bridges and roads, but what will they all lead to? Nothing -- unless we first start building bridges and roads between our economic, climate, and education concerns, and start appreciating the way they're all connected."
The first thing that needs to be done is to give some teeth to the EPA, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife, Interior, Dept. of Natural Resources, the Forest Service, the Agriculture Dept., Energy, FDA, FCC and other gov. agencies charged with keeping all things green. If one understands interconnectedness, that includes everything and everyone.
All Bush appointees and every neocon in government should be fired or prosecuted and non-corporate scientists, ecologists, environmentalists, green architects and engineers, organic farmers, sociologists, psychologists, physicians, green transportation experts, biologists, and other scientists should run these agencies. These professionals are best equipped to lead our government in a green revolution.
Economists, corporatists, banks and financial witch doctors do not have environmental priorities. Their first and only priority, as they themselves state, is to make as much money as possible and that's mostly for themselves at environmental and public expense.
Our greatest mistake is to depend on natural science illiterates and theocrats to run our global ecosystem as if it was a gambling casino with never-ending resources provided by their money-god.
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
Rather than address the whole article, I would like to comment on one aspect that is always left out of the equation. It will do no good to pour money into rebuilding our roads and bridges, when so many prior truck/traffic regulations have been deregulated. The roads going through the Metro Detroit, Michigan area are terrible because of deregulation concerning the trucking industry, and the fact that the same mob-related construction companies come in and do a half-assed job every year. We need to tighten trucking regulations, and employ construction crews who want to finish the job and move on, rather than paying them to build inferior roads that have to be resurfaced every single year.
Thanks!
It doesn't take a stupid stimulus to go green. All it takes is a shut up and just do it attitude and policy. Why does the left keep using the rightwing frame "stimulus" for everything?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Rightwing frames are ways to communicate in the language common to the mainstream media and political leaders. It's a way to show them that our ideas are better, even on their own terms.
There are benefits in "withdrawal" and just doing it, but we must also "first do no harm" and stop doing bad stimulus packages, giving trillions away in ways they do little if any good. This is a great opportunity to be proactive politically, to stop the massive subsidization of that which makes just doing it less competitive. For example, this is no time to choose to deliberately lose money on farm exports, just to subsidize giant unsustainable feedlots and animal factories, as well as food and feed mills and various processors and ethanol with below cost commodities. Actually just the reverse, a stimulus to diversified organic farming would greatly benefit the whole economy, as it creates wealth and jobs better than just about anything else.
"a stimulus to diversified organic farming"
So we use the word "stimulus", a right wing term, for political expediency here. Problem is this amounts to an activist government and we don't need/want an activist government to deliver the market demand which should come from the people themselves, enlightened, empowered people who understand their role in a functional economy: To drive the markets through informed, responsible demands and demand only what is in their best interests. For example, we don't need new roads. We need fewer roads and more rails. The people understand this. The people are ready to take over public policymaking. It never has and it never will make any sense for the elites to run the markets, manipulate demand, control the people. It's time to change the school curricula. This is the start of the new enlightenment. The people will be enlightened, free and responsible for the economy and the society.
It makes no sense to "stimulate" CAFOs, (animal factories,) as they're destructive of ecology, economy and community, each of which costs us. As John Ikerd argued, for each CAFO job gained, 3 independent farmers are lost. Diversified organic farming is particularly helpful in wealth creation, as it reconciles the most values, thereby adding the most value while losing the least value. That's my point in the quote.
When government is elitist, we certainly don't want it to be activist. Regulation isn't very helpful if the fox is guarding the henhouse. So you've got a point there. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for good regulations balanced out with other strategies such as incentives, the ending of bad incentives and bad regulations, etc.
I don't see purist approaches working at either extreme.
At present we have dominating corporations building demand for the kinds of products and services that make them the most profit with the least effort. Consumers have "demanded" transfats and other harmful products, because they buy them, it is argued. But that "market demand' didn't "come from the people themselves."
Education is one need, so people are "enlightened, empowered," but it isn't sufficient to achieve the goals you suggest.
Farm markets lack price responsiveness on both supply and demand sides. So prices tend to be low, below the cost of production, which depresses our economy. It makes no sense to export farm commodities at a loss for decades (as we have done,) just to satisfy utopian, free market, or libertarian visions of what government should do, (which is how I hear your arguments,) or corporatist demands to be covertly subsidized at massive levels by below cost raw materials (which has actually motivated these policies). Management of farm markets has overcome the lack of price responsiveness when responsibly managed, but not when mismanaged by elitist exploiters.
As it appears in your case, ideological paradigms greatly color how people see the world and the direction change should take. Framing things in "right wing" ways can help right wingers see alternatives that otherwise would make no sense. This same framing, of course, can make no sense to someone from some other perspective, as in your case. Through discussion, as we're doing here, reframing can adjust to the needs of the listeners on both sides.
I ran across the John Ikerd article (cited above) online. "If new contract hog units were to replace independent operations producing the same number of hogs, approximately two hog farmers would be left without jobs for each new job created. In the process of changing $1.3 million in hog production from independently-owned production to contract production, a net of 18-19 jobs currently linked to hog production would be displaced. A new $5 million investment in contract production would generate 40-50 new jobs but would displace approximately three-times that number of independent hog farmers." http://web dot missouri dot edu/ikerdj/papers/con-hog dot htm.
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
Ancient Native American Proverb