Of the recently enacted $787 billion stimulus legislation, known officially as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, approximately $308 billion consists of government spending, and $70 billion of that is intended for spending provisions that promote energy efficiency, energy independence, and environmental protection. (The stimulus also contains some $280 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in government benefits.)
The spending bill allocates $37.5 billion for energy-related programs, with more than $12 billion for energy-efficient building and retrofit construction measures. These upgrades, such as weatherizing government buildings, aim to cut energy usage and lower government expenses over time. The funds will also go some way toward upgrading the nation’s electrical grid, which crashed in 2003, leaving 40 million Americans and another 10 million Canadians briefly without power. New technology will make the grid more energy-efficient and implement measures to guard against the kind of destructive events, be they accidental or otherwise, that can cause widespread problems.
The long-range goals of energy conservation measures are the gradual reduction of American dependence on foreign oil and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The “green” spending provisions include money for research and development of alternative energies, such as advanced batteries, and funding for currently operating renewable energy producers like wind and solar.
President Barack Obama made it clear during his campaign that moving the nation in the direction of energy independence would be a significant priority in his White House. The American rate of consumption of foreign oil is such that cold-turkey measures are out of the question; any viable plan will be expressed not in months but in years or decades. Some see American energy independence as a moral imperative, however, since a number of the world’s major exporters of oil — among them Russia, Venezuela, and several Middle Eastern nations — share neither the United States’ liberal democratic values nor its security goals.
Obama had pressed for the clean energy provisions during negotiations on the stimulus package. There may be less urgency now that oil prices have fallen, but the long view suggests that as natural supplies dissipate and world demand increases, oil will only continue to cost more to drill and more to buy. Meanwhile, there is concern over global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, a phenomenon in which fossil-fuel consumption plays no small part.
Backers of the ARRA have emphasized that the legislation was rushed into law in order to save or create between three and four million jobs in an economy now losing jobs at a rate of 500,000 per month. Obama spoke of shovel-ready programs and promised a two-year duration to the jobs stimulus. However, a detailed review of the spending provisions suggests that the funds will make a significant boost to longer-term environmental protection as well.
The environmental protection provisions in the bill are modest compared to its energy provisions, but they’re still significant. Six billion dollars will be set aside for the distribution of clean and safe drinking water; this money will go at least in part toward new water treatment facilities, which can cost as much as one billion dollars each for major urban systems. Another six billion has been pledged for cleaning up toxic military installations and industrial manufacturing sites, many of which are left over from World War II and Cold War weapon and aerospace manufacturing programs. The remaining funding is spread out among National Parks, forests, and specific pollution problems that have been identified and targeted for shovel-ready efforts, including:
· $300 million toward technology to reduce diesel emissions
· $275 million toward National Park Service programs and work on trails and abandoned mines
· $200 million for cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks.
Energy policy presents different challenges than other parts of the economy. Free market principles would suggest, more or less unequivocally, the continued use of imported oil, as it’s the least expensive method around, if one leaves environmental costs out of the equation. However, because few oil-producing nations are political allies of the United States, energy independence has risen as a national priority. Thus, public funding of research and development into alternatives, and conservation of resources used, is expected to remain leading policy in the years ahead.
source: http://politicsunlocked.com/index.php/article/the_long_green/18910
