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.
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.
For an example of this, see this link
http://www.mygreenfootprints.net
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.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
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.
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.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
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.
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.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
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.
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.iplanretirement.com/retirementblog/green-jobs/
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?
In NJ they are going the way of the dinosaur:)
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...