The Continuing Green Energy Debate

The Continuing Green Energy Debate

Created by: Shannon Campbell

December 17th, 2012

Steve Hargreaves writes for CNN Money about the current debate of green energy and power in the recent article, “What we got for $50 billion in green stimulus”. He begins his article with recent statistics, writing that over 770,000 homes have been weatherized, 688 square miles of land used for Cold War-era nuclear testing have been cleaned up, and more have been part of the $787 billion stimulus package granted from the United States government in 2009.High- speed rail and smart meters, as well as other infrastructure projects have also been completed.

Hargreaves reports that, “The Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives”. An additional $100 billion will be going towards the growing support of renewable energy and technology, as well as even more money going towards conservation in the next few years.

However, there is a split between the public saying it is “well spent” and it being a complete waste of time and money. The main argument is that the United States should be a leader in cleaner energy technology, as well as supplying it. On the other hand, arguments have been made stating that wind and solar power are still more expensive than the traditional coal or natural gas. Diana Furchtogott-Roth (former Chief Economist at the Department of Labor) states that, “It makes companies not want to move here and leaves consumers with less money to spend…it’s actually de-stimulative as opposed to stimulative.” She also states that people create green energy and power themselves, such as buying electric cars. 

My personal stance is to limit spending and stimulus packages on green energy for the time-being, but still continue to promote and progress a greener lifestyle (buying electric cars, conserving energy, eliminating toxic wastes, etc).

What is your stance? Should we continue funding? Perhaps we should look more into what companies we invest in and provide money to?