[Pen-l] Green public investment - spend how much and on what

["Gar Lipow" <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/25/17212/723

How much should we spend to green the U.S.?
Public investment and regulation can be main means to green
Posted by Gar Lipow (Guest Contributor) at 11:59 AM on 29 Nov 2008

In the face of economic catastrophe, yesterday's controversial
assertion has become today's conventional economic wisdom. That lack
of regulation is one root of the current depression is not only the
view of liberals and moderates, but also of sensible conservatives.
And the need for public investment to fight the depression is no
longer in doubt either. There are really only two tools in the
conventional economic toolbox to fight a depression: lower interest
rates, and public investment. Given that real interest rates are close
to zero, that doesn't leave a whole lot of alternatives.

Most of the economists who predicted the crash, Nobel laureates Joseph
Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlo, not to mention Roubini, now
support [PDF] really large scale public investment -- $300 to 400
billion annually. Dean Baker and Paul Krugman suggest the right number
may be more like $500 to 600 billion.

At same time, Joe Romm wrote an open letter to Jim Hansen indicating
how much technology we have to deploy very quickly to meet the 350 ppm
target Hansen has set. Below the fold I describe in detail how we
could deploy existing technology to meet these goals, how much we'd
have to spend on grants, and how much we'd have to spend on loans. All
figures are taken from the spreadsheet Jon Rynn and I have put
together on green scenarios.

The bottom line is that we have about $275 billion a year we could
productively invest in a green transformation, rising over the course
of 20 years to $475 billion, and then dropping down to $265 billion
for a decade after the transformation was complete, to pay off the
last of the "green debt." Those subsidies would make up for any
difference in cost between green energy and dirty energy.

Social benefits from such a transformation (aside from global warming
reduction) would result in net economic growth compared to the
scenario in which we continue to use dirty energy.

Read the rest at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/25/17212/723
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l