Obama Team Primed for a "Green Stimulus" to the Economy
Every signal so far from the Obama camp on the environment is a green light. Obama never talks about a Detroit bailout without saying the industry must be retooled for fuel-efficient cars, that we need "bridge loans" to the future, not to nowhere. Yesterday at Gov. Schwarzenegger's global conference on climate change, Obama pledged to reduce carbon emissions in the US 80 percent by mid-century. And, on Friday, I joined in a conference call sponsored by the Center for American Progress with Laura D'Andrea Tyson, a top economic adviser on Obama's transition team who headed Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, about the need for a "green stimulus."
Here are excerpts of what Dr. Tyson said:
Unless there is a significant government stimulus to maintain jobs and income, the American economy could well face a long and severe recession. More than two million people have lost their jobs over the past 12 months, and unemployment is at 6.5 percent.
An effective stimulus package must be timely so there are immediate results. But it must also relate to long-term policy objectives, including investing in infrastructure that achieves climate-change goals by reducing the use of carbon through clean energy and frees the U.S. from energy dependence.A "green stimulus" and recovery strategy would meet both short- and long-term objectives: It would have very high "multiplier effects" by creating jobs and income throughout related activities across the economy in a timely fashion while putting us on the path to green growth as the economy recovers. It is smart policy.
Studies by Bracken Hendricks of the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts have compared the effects of a traditional stimulus aimed at giving consumers more to spend with investment in energy-efficient infrastructure. They found that with a traditional stimulus, 22 cents on the dollar would flow out of the U.S. economy for imports while, with a green stimulus, only 9 cents on the dollar would flow out.
That is because, instead of spending on imported energy or other goods, we would be investing in skilled craftsmen who would replace old boiler systems, swap out inefficient lighting, install double-paned windows, or weatherize school buildings. In fact, a "green stimulus" would employ the same skill set of those who have lost their jobs because of the housing downturn. Their income would circulate in the community, buying other products and services locally.
The studies also compared spending on green infrastructure versus oil and traditional energy. They found that investing $100 billion in a one- to two-year period on such items as block grants to cities for conservation or to incentivize solar energy use would create four times as many jobs as traditional energy and three times as many "good jobs" with wages of over $16 an hour.
Hendricks has also noted that there are over 300 mass transit projects across the country that have been permitted and approved, now only awaiting federal funding. Funding those projects through a fiscal stimulus package would have the kind of immediate impact that could help stave off a deepening recession.
By definition, stimulus spending would not be paid for by taxes up front because precisely what we are trying to do is stimulate additional demand that would not otherwise be there. The problem we must face at this moment is that recession looms because aggregate demand is insufficient while there is un-utilized capacity of laid-off labor.
Energy-efficient investment is not "made-up spending," but something we would have to do anyway over time. Doing it now simply matches long-term objectives to short-term needs. The argument for government action for a green stimulus now -- probably in the range of $300 billion, or 2 percent of GDP -- is powerful.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I found this summary of the Obama energy plan http://www
this is great, and it sounds like they are on the right track, by focusing on local, point of use solutions like conservation, efficiency, rooftop solar, and hopefully energy storage. what CAN'T happen is that all our hard-earned money flows to Big Energy to destroy a bunch more of our open spaces with their inefficient, GHG emitting, unreliable remote power plants like Industrial Wind and Industrial Solar.
you want economic stimulus? ROOFTOP SOLAR AND MICROWIND PAIRED WITH GENEROUS FEED IN TARIFFS. this means millions of skilled local jobs and money circulating right back to the very people - US - who are doing the right thing by producing more clean energy at our homes and businesses than we consume, and feeding that excess into the grid. for money. not as a gift to utilities,
net metering with capped system sizes is the biggest disincentive to installing PV and conserving power we've seen! it only rewards the grossest over-consumers, and rewards them more, the more power they waste.
feed in tariffs. oversized rooftop generation. no dead ecosystems. no Big Energy monopolies. that's all we need in Phase I.
Quite the case. Of course, small business can lead the way out of this recession, as has always been the case. It's compelling that as the dow dips below 8000, would be nice to see some overlap as the underbelly of the oil economy dips into the Venn diagram mode, with the top of the green economy, no?
For an example of this, see this link
http://www
It's time we take a serious look at this so called global warming idea. Al Gore has declared it to be settled science while the skeptics are growing in number and recent data contradicts his assessment. Science is never settled and needs no advocate. Can we afford to spend billions on an idea that may prove wrong? With an economy at the brink of failure, a misallocation of resources will only prolong the recovery. Let’s keep politics out the debate and let the scientists do their research.
The United Nations study was conducted by 600 scientists while 31,000 American scientists contradict their findings. The idea that there is a consensus is ludicrous. There was no consensus among the UN scientists, but the UN politicians, many anti American, came to this conclusion.
http://www
http://www
You are wrong. The scientific consensus that global warming is real, and driven by human civilization, is overwhelming.
Don't succumb to any more of the oil-man propaganda. Global warming is reality. The only "politics" involved are those are those behind the global-warming deniers.
Did you even read the links I gave you? Can you name any poll or study that supports your “overwhelming consensus” besides the 600 UN scientists? Are there millions of qualified scientists who believe in the theory? The “overwhelming consensus” is mostly based on computer models from incomplete data.
I have a master's degree in engineering, so I understand the science behind it. I spent hours in research and found that those who believe in global warming give very little evidence to support their theory. Dr. Arthur Robinson goes into detail to disprove global warming theory along with the 31,000 other scientists. Every day another study calls the so called “settled science” into question.
http://www
http://www
Those 31,000 (including 9,000 plus PhDs) risk their reputations by signing the petition. If the oil industry is behind the 31,000 scientists it would take more than all their profit to payoff them off. On the other hand look at the money that Gore and the green industries plan to make from mandated policies. Oil companies are also stand to profit from alternative forms of energy so your idea that they are behind it is false.
I don’t doubt that the weather has been warmer over the last 30-40 years. I doubt it was caused by man and I doubt even more that man can change it. Take you head out of the sand do a little research.
Did you even read the links I gave you? Can you name any poll or study that supports your “overwhelming consensus” besides the 600 UN scientists? Are there millions of qualified scientists who believe in the theory? The “overwhelming consensus” is mostly based on computer models from incomplete data.
I have a master's degree in engineering, so I understand the science behind it. I spent hours in research and found that those who believe in global warming give very little evidence to support their theory. Dr. Arthur Robinson goes into detail to disprove global warming theory along with the 31,000 other scientists. Every day another study calls the so called “settled science” into question.
http://www
http://www
Those 31,000 (including 9,000 plus PhDs) risk their reputations by signing the petition. If the oil industry is behind the 31,000 scientists it would take more than all their profit to pay them off. On the other hand look at the money that Gore and the green industries plan to make from mandated policies. Oil companies are also stand to profit from alternative forms of energy so your idea that they are behind it is false.
I don’t doubt that the weather has been warmer over the last 30-40 years. I doubt it was caused by man and I doubt even more that man can change it. Take you head out of the sand do a little research.
See, now that is what I call good trolling. Get's you tons of the attention that you crave so much.
Here is a plan that generates $150 billion per year for Green Infrastructure, creates 27 million jobs within 5 years, AND reduces the budget deficit by $100 billion annually.
1. Double the gas tax and generate an additional $38 billion per year in federal revenue. The price of gas at the pump has dropped $1 per gallon over the last few weeks, and it appears it will continue to decline, consumers will not even notice a 17.4 cent additional tax. $30 billion for Green and $8 billion toward budget reduction
2. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American taxpayers spent $188 billion in 2008 on two needless and unpopular wars. $100 billion to Green and $88 billion to budget reduction. Give all veterans free Green Job training, to avoid repeating the mistake of Vietnam, and flooding our streets and prisons with homeless vets.
3. Cut the prison population in half. As one of the impacts of out-sourced manufacturing jobs, the prison population has nearly doubled, during the Bush administration. The nation spends $49 billion per year, to house and feed 2.3 million of our fellow citizens, up 76% from 1.3 million in 2000. Provide Green Job training in prisons, and as a diversion program for non-violent offenders, giving graduates the opportunity to work for the state installing a green infrastructure. $20 billion per year for Green and $4 billion in debt reduction.
full article here: http://www
Mr. Green Jeans for Secretary of Energy.
How about replacing every traffic light in the country with a rotary or roundabout, ala everywhere in Europe. Studies show that with traffic circles carbon monoxide emissions are reduced 29 per cent, fuel consumption is reduced 28 per cent, and accidents with fatalities and serious injuries are reduced as much as 75 per cent. I've never understood the aversion in the US to this sensible traffic solution. Bring back PSAs that educate the public about responsibility, conservation and public sacrifice.
Not a bad idea in low traffic zones. Roundabouts feel a lot safer than lights and they work.
I am not sure how they perform in already congested traffic zones. Do you have any data about the increase/decrease in total traffic caused by the replacement of lights with roundabouts?
They just don't work that well because it's really difficult to negotiate.
In NJ they are going the way of the dinosaur:)
we have a few in LA and drivers here are such aggressive jerks, and don't pay any attention, that they are total disasters. the yielders always race through without slowing (like they do at red lights, to turn right), and the other half stop dead in the middle of the roundabout, causing the whole thing to malfunction.
they have millions of them in Seattle, where everyone is desperate to let everyone else have the right of way, but here in LA? forget it. people here will race down a bike lane at 100 mph just to get to a red light one car ahead of where they were...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
