Imagine a $700 Billion Bailout for the Environment
The economic crisis currently facing the nation has caused a flurry of political action. From McCain “suspending” his campaign to massive bailouts, the response has been immediate and serious. Even though the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street was rejected by the House of Representatives, which would have been the largest US government financial market intervention in history, I can’t help but wonder what a $700 billion bailout would do for the environment. What if the US government had responded to the twenty years of dire warnings by James Hansen in the same manner as the current economic crisis? Such an aggressive response may have stopped climate change and saved our economy through green jobs and technology.
>> See also: Why Van Jones should be Obama’s Secretary of Prosperity
Government scientists, like James Hansen, have been muzzled for warning us that the Earth “is nearing… a tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far-ranging undesirable consequences.” Sounds like the sky is falling to me, but when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says it, the government takes note. As Bruce Marks, founder and CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) explains:
Paulson says the sky is falling, we have to bail out Bear Stearns, $30 billion; the sky is falling, we have to bail out Fannie and Freddie, $200 billion; the sky is falling, we have to bail out AIG, $85 billion.
I can’t fathom $700,000,000,000. Jon Stewart told us $700 billion is equal to around 2,000 McDonald’s apple pies per individual American. The investment could turn our economy green on a larger scale rather than fatten us up on apple pies. As Van Jones explains:
It’s time to stop borrowing and start building. America’s No. 1 resource is not oil or mortgages. Our No. 1 resource is our people. Let’s put people back to work — retrofitting and repowering America. … You can’t base a national economy on credit cards. But you can base it on solar panels, wind turbines, smart biofuels and a massive program to weatherize every building and home in America.
Former presidential candidate John Edwards and the NRDC proposed the April 2008 $100 billion stimulus package be spent on green infrastructure investments, such as “retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and freight rail, constructing ’smart’ electrical grid transmission systems, wind power, solar power, and next-generation biofuels.” The program was even proposed to be paid for by auctions of carbon permits and would have created two million jobs!
What could 700 billion do for the environment if invested in a green economy? The economic crisis is real, and I don’t know the solution, but climate change is also real. I just wonder when the environment will get its bailout.
Image: My Hero
Why does each household need 3 cars?
Sounds like one of the best ideas I’ve read in ages – a far better use of $700 billion than making sure Wall St carries on – filling their pockets – as normal!
I like the thought, but according to your link there are 105.5 million households in the US, not 10.5 million. That adds up to $6,635.07 per household. Thats still quite a bit of money though.
Similarly, a $100 billion investment in renewables would cost $947.87 per household, which is a fraction of the annual energy cost of an average household these days. Seems like a good investment to me considering what we could get for that money (the renewable energy part, not the financial bailout).
Peter, they don’t need three cars. It was just a way to help us understand how much money it would be divided up among households.
Sorry, but you’ve made a mistake that is disturbingly common in this economic mess. 700 billion divided by roughly 100 million households is 7,000 dollars per household. That’s not the worst error I’ve seen. One commentator actually said that each adult could get 2.5 million each. Sorry to be the wet towel.
I have been thinking/talking about this for a while and this article just re kindled my enthusiasm.
I think that this could actually help the economy a lot.
It saves money from the consumer, creates jobs producing/installing solar panels, and most importantly takes the main load(electricity) off of coal power plants.
Even if it isnt fully subsidized making alternative energy easily available to people who actually need would be great for this country/world.
Thank you for making this post.
Your math is wrong
200 billion divided by 10.5 million households is only 19,047 per household.
If there are 200,000,000 adults in the country it is $3500 per adult. $7000 per couple.
its ARITHMETIC
You really need to check your math and your sources
The census data you link to says that their are 105 million households not 10.5 million. This is an error that should have been caught, given the fact that if America only had 10.5 million households each household would need to average around 30 people to make up the 300+ million population in America.
Having made this change you would realize that each household would get approximately $6,600, with each household averaging around 3 people. While still a lot of money it helps to put things into better perspective. I completely agree with you that America should invest money into alternative energy sources, but it should not be done at the exclusion of fixing our current credit problem. If we do not fix our credit problem green technology wont work, because the companies who research and produce these amazing technologies will be unable to get the money they need to function. This is a sad and simple FACT of business. If we dont try and actively fix our credit problem it will eventually resolve itself but it would take far longer and most likely end up costing average Americans more.
Hopefully we will see a new improved plan from congress in the coming days, one which will free up credit for businesses both big and small. While making sure that companies and brokerage firms that do use the government plan are forced to put wage limits and a moratorium on bonuses for the their executives.
Interesting, but what does 3.4kW per day really mean (and is that 3.4 kW each, or combined)? how much energy does the average house use?
What good is Obama’s #1 green policy if terrorists come over here and wipe out the people, they may even take out a few trees in the process, wouldn’t that be terrible?