Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Spending $100 billion to create 2 million jobs

New report by labor and environmental advocates say a federal stimulus program to jumpstart the 'green economy' would not only address climate change but create jobs.

Spending $100 billion to create 2 million jobs

0 comments

I really don’t like government subsidizing any industry when the potential market would appear to be incentive enough.

But what’s the market incentive to slowing climate change? Survival?

Thanks to a report by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, we have one possible answer. Spend $100 billion over two years in six particular areas and the U.S. economy could create 2 million jobs.

The Green Recovery report, commissioned by the Center for American Progress, advocates fiscal stimulus for three totally non-sexy activities: retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and freight rail, and constructing “smart” electric grid transmission systems.

It also deems three renewable energy technologies worthy: solar, wind and biofuels.

The researchers even calculated job creation for each state they studied. Based on $4 billion in subsidies, Pennsylvania could create 86,385 jobs, while New Jersey’s $3.2 billion could spawn 57,000.

The report is worth reading, because it applies economic rigor to what federal spending could produce. However, some caveats gave me pause, knowing the realities of life in our fair city.

For example, it says federal support for mass transit would enable areas to lower fares. I’d love to see that happen, but “SEPTA” and “fare cut” appearing in the same sentence? C’mon.

For those who’d rather shower $100 billion on the oil industry to drill offshore or elsewhere, the economists calculate that that activity would create only 542,000 U.S. jobs. And it certainly wouldn’t do lick to address our fossil fuel habit.

Presidential campaign rhetoric suggests that the next administration will be more experimental than the last when it comes to energy strategy. The longer oil stays above $100 a barrel, the more we’re going to be hearing from think tanks about what we need to do about it now.

Rebranding the urgency of global warming as a call to jobs plays well in this election year. But I can think of a lot of ways to misspend $100 billion over two years, and so can Washington.

Inquirer Columnist
0 comments
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Mike Armstrong Inquirer Columnist
Also on Philly.com:
letter icon Newsletter