The Stimulus Goes Green
The $789 billion recovery package wasn't all enviros hoped for. In some cases, it was more.
Thu Feb. 12, 2009 1:06 PM PST
The stimulus package about to be passed by Congress is one of the biggest spending bills in US history, and environmentalists are crowing that they got a decent share. Roughly $60 billion of the $789 billion package will be devoted to spending on clean energy, environmental projects, and scientific research. "Overall, this will be by far the biggest investment in new green technologies that we've ever seen from the federal government," says Gene Karpinski, head of the League of Conservation Voters. "And that's good for our economy and for our environment."
Details of the conference package released on Thursday show that spending on green causes did not decrease significantly in the process of creating a compromise bill. "I thought we fared pretty well," says Marchant Wentworth, a legislative representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Is it true that these are monster funding increases for everything green that we believe in? Yes it is."
Advertisement
Advertisement
The conference bill's near-final numbers contain $11 billion for the creation of a smart energy grid; $8.4 billion for public transit; $6.3 billion for state and local energy efficiency grants; $6 billion for the cleanup of contaminated Department of Defense sites; $4.5 billion to green federal buildings; and $1.2 billion for the EPA's cleanup programs. Loan guarantees for nuclear and so-called clean coal technology development—included in the Senate bill—were cut. Tax credit programs, incentivizing research and investment in clean renewable energy, will add further to the bill's green tally.
"This is unbelievable," says Josh Dorner, a spokesman for Sierra Club. "This is an unprecedented investment in building a clean energy economy. The Clinton Global Initiative, about a year or so ago, their big challenge was to get spending on energy efficiency to reach $1.5 billion, total, in all of America. And this bill, just on federal buildings, has $4.5 billion. It's just kind of sinking in that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and Congress and President Obama really stepped up to the plate."
Some green measures were cut in the process of hammering out the bill's two compromises: the first to secure the three Republican votes needed to break a Senate filibuster, and the second to bring the House and Senate bills into harmony. Funds slated for adding hybrids to the federal fleet of cars and trucks were halved from the initial House total of $600 million. Weatherization assistance—intended to make homes more energy efficient—started at $6.2 billion in the House, dropped to $2.9 billion in the Senate, and eventually settled at $5 billion. The $400 million the House allocated to help states and localities build energy efficient buses was cut to $300 million. "We're not impressed overall," says Kert Davies, the research director for Greenpeace. "It seems in the prioritization of things, environmental matters got the short end of the stick."
But Davies acknowledges that the stimulus is a way to "start the green economy and create green jobs." He also sees the comprehensive climate change bill that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has promised to push through his committee by the end of May as another opportunity to get the country on the right track environmentally. "I don't think it's the last bite at the apple."
Comments
environmental loophole
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Feb. 13, 2009 2:12 PM PST.
you'd think that we won a victory
over clean coal. Fat chance! There's a huge loophole in the Energy portion of the bill,
and every environmental group should be aware of it.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/12/integration-loophole/
we don't need a victory over clean coal
Submitted by ericf on Sat Feb. 14, 2009 8:13 PM PST.
I recognize the loophole the senate put in, and it's despicable the way industry groups are running ads claiming coal is already clean and global warming is a hoax. Nonetheless, we don't know of carbon capture will work, and we won't if we don't try to develop it. We do know that coal use is growing worldwide because coal is plentiful in many countries, the technology is known, and the additional power is needed. That leads to the conclusion that coal will be used regardless of whether clean coal technology is developed, so we should try to develop it. Unless you think the coal industry will do this themselves, despite their insistence there's no global warming, this requires funding by the federal government.
http://www.ravensblog.net
Don't Touch The Monkey.
Submitted by Benine (not verified) on Fri Feb. 13, 2009 6:27 PM PST.
This is a new thought. I personally have been on the comment scene for a short time. It seems as though there is always one or two neocono rebubblican phlem spouts that comment on every posting. Start a precident, do not reply, don’t bait them.
They are small in number and steal time away from the debate. Honestly, I wouldn’t get near their keyboard after reading 30+ replies to their taunts (fluids). Again, if you need to reply to a pointless GOPeePee raunt, find one of their posting sites and take the battle to them. Preceed to the comment.
Waxmans Committee
Submitted by Marc (not verified) on Sat Feb. 14, 2009 5:47 AM PST.
Thanks for the fine overlook. I just had a look into the Waxman initiative. Would be of interest to receive your estimation of mr. Mulvas testimony. He's from Conoco and talked about a complete change of their mindmap. Lip service or a real change of mind?
Green Collar
Submitted by Odetta (not verified) on Mon Feb. 23, 2009 4:35 PM PST.
The best way to bring the changes we need in the economy and the environment is by creating local jobs to improve our infrastructure to lessen the impact on the environment. I feel really inspired after reading Thinking Big, especially the essay called An Inclusive Green Economy by Van Jones and Jason Walsh. They took the idea of green collar jobs farther and suggest a Clean Energy Corps be created that is a combined service, training, and job creation effort, concentrated in cities and struggling suburban and rural communities. Price and the market are too slow to base the shift to a green economy on, we should have a governing body put into place that coordinates green collar efforts to maximize efficiency and opportunity creation for Americans. We need the government involved in creating jobs, not just handing money out to industries.
Haven't we done this before
Submitted by Merchant Card (not verified) on Mon Apr. 13, 2009 3:28 PM PDT.
Haven't we done this before and most money spent on envorinmental program ended up failing, case in point, ethonol? Spending $60 billion on clean energy, environmental projects, and scientific research is a too extreme. I think the private sector can do a much better job, we just need good sound regulations for merchants and businesses
Details of the conference
Submitted by louis vuitton (not verified) on Sat Sep. 12, 2009 6:31 AM PDT.
Details of the conference package released on Thursday show that spending on green causes did not decrease significantly in the process of creating a compromise bill. "I thought we fared pretty well," says Marchant Wentworth, a legislative representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Is it true that these are monster funding increases for everything green that we believe in? Yes it is."
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
