First of all let me say if you’re on twitter and not following @sharishapiro you’re missing out on some of the best info and opinion on green building to be found. Her recent blog post Proposing a Band Aid, Where a Transplant is Required is a thought-provoking piece about the short comings of the forth coming stimulus package the president is helping to push through congress. To quote:
The problem with the stimulus package and the proposed amendments is not the amount of the allocations, or even the worthiness of some of the programs, like higher education and healthcare. Rather, it is the fundamental perspective on the American economy that it represents.
I just wonder if we in the green building community have lost our sense of scope when it comes to change and nature of government in the US. While I share a desire to see the future of energy use and building in the US forever altered and I believe we need the federal government’s help in getting there, I can’t help but wonder if our disappointment is misplaced. Didn’t we used to think that the government’s role was in passing legislation, not funding every green project we ever imagined?
The fact is if the economy hadn’t slid into this horrendous tail spin we would never see a spending/stimulus bill this massive coming from Washington, and in truth it wouldn’t have been warranted. Perhaps we should take the president at his word. That the primary purpose of this bill is to get people to work, to stimulate demand in the economy and break the downward trend. Not fulfill the agenda of the liberal left in one massive bill passed within 3 weeks of taking office. Candidate Obama never promised us such a thing, and at one point he even said paraphrasing:
I didn’t come to Washington fixing to spend $850 billion
Shari points out in her post that total “green” stimulus equals $62.7 billion. Hold that figure in your head for a second. That amount of green spending from the federal government is huge. Is it big enough to totally change the nature of building in America, not even close. Is it a start? I think so. Does it need to be augmented by strenuous energy code changes and green building incentives? You bet. Most of all does it need to be augmented by the free flow of private capital to get some of these major projects off the ground? Overwhelmingly yes.
Perhaps what we in the green building movement should focus on is advocating for the kinds of regulations that will stimulate private investment in energy saving projects in the private sector. Perhaps we should make sure that the larger agenda isn’t forgotten as the President tends to the meltdown left by his predecessor. This bill was not to be the answer to the prayers of any one group or interest, but a life line to a nation in economic peril.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for the thoughts James. I am a big advocate of smaller government in even the most important areas. A spending bill that is (should be?) designed to free up credit cannot accomplish the sea change that I believe the marketplace will accomplish, i. e. greener building and a greener economy.
I don’t know that the stimpack is supposed to free up credit. I think it’s more or less a jobs program with money spent across the economy broadly. The credit crisis needs to get dealt with separately. This was alluded to last night and I believe today by Geithner.
Thanks you so much for your thoughtful response to my Senate stimulus package piece. My difficulty is that once you have passed a $1 trillion (there, I said it, everybody ok?) stimulus package, there will be little capital–fiscal or political–left over to apply to other projects. Obama will have essentially spent all of his favors passing the stimulus package, and not be able to get solid legislation through on energy efficiency, green building codes, etc.
Any time you have to say “trillion” it is waaaayyyyy too big! That said, I agree that this is a jobs program ala New Deal, but we need the underlying change in governmental policy if real change is to occur.