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

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

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> great stuff, however utopian it may seem! It makes more sense to me
> than dumping the idea of "growth" into the crapper, especially if the
> meaning of "growth" is left unexamined. (BTW, it's Akerlof.)

Thanks. And yes, typo on Akerlof.
>
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Devine /  "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
> days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l