Skip to content
Subscribe

Can the Stimulus Package Boost the Green Economy?

By Indy
Published:

The American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus package worth a heaping $787.2 billion, sought in part to put Americans back to work. With $71 billion stipulated for energy and environmental incentives, and another $20 billion for green tax incentives, that funding has the potential to create a better environment, and the jobs--in California and beyond--to work toward it.  

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the package will increase Gross Domestic Product by 1.4 to 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009. In the process, that can create up to 2.3 million new jobs, "green" ones included. In fact, $500 million have directly been set aside for careers set in energy efficiency and renewable energy fields.

How will--and can--this affect environmental innovation in California? Some examples are more direct than others. Take NASA, which has some of its largest research centers based in the Bay Area and Pasadena, and is earmarked to receive $1 billion, including $400 million for climate change and other Earth science research. Other exact uses of the funds remain unclear. Up to two billion could go toward Solar LA, Los Angeles' plan to utilize 10 percent of the county's power by solar sources by 2020 and, as a bonus, create 31,000 jobs. Such a move--though the total funding remains questionable until an exact breakdown occurs--is worth considering amidst the job crunch; the U.S. Conference of Mayors has predicted that 134,000 jobs will be lost between now and the end of this year in LA county, which is basically the second highest string of employment losses behind New York.  

While most of the money categorized for general environmental purposes has yet to be divvied up, there are many more projects that stand to receive it. For the Golden State, that means a lot of tough decisions are in their hands, since states will oversee 69 percent of the stimulus money.

As reported in CAIVP earlier this month, Southern California Edison, which services more than 10 million customers, may be investing $15 billion in alternative energy for its power grids. The stimulus money would allow such ambitions to be brought closer to reality as $11 billion has been set aside for "smart grid" activities. Innovative green ideas such as California's Million Solar Roofs Plan, with aims of constructing 1 million solar rooftop installations over the next next ten years, can apply for a small piece of $6.3 billion of loan guarantees aimed at wind or solar projects.

Some scholars, writers, and organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation, argue that money toward such projects is being misspent, as the creation of these green jobs in the stimulus package could come at the poor cost of other ones. However, correlating places like California with a high number of green jobs and a weak economy is a logically flawed argument which offers no proof. Furthermore, as academic studies have demonstrated, environmental policies in California have created more jobs than they have eliminated.

Yet not all is environmentally pleasing about the stimulus package's environmental initiatives--or, in some cases, lack there of. Congress scratched a $4.6 billion provision for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies for coal-fired power plants. Vastly more money goes into roads than public transit, to the point where some say it effectively "screws commuters" with its unequal allocation of $27 billion for for highways versus $8.4 billion for transit and $3.4 billion for rail. Still, the large amount that remains of the environmental funds are still a good start if California really gives some thought as to what organizations and plans are both in the largest financial crunch and will benefit the most people down the line.

As UC Berkeley Professor David Roland-Holst aptly puts it: "If investments are made for the New Economy, enhancing productivity, long term employment gains will follow."

The money invested cannot fund all environmental projects--nor should it--but it can allow existing ones to operate more effectively and, ideally, with longer term social and environmental benefits.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Can the Stimulus Package Boost the Green Economy?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us