Author: Kellie Bartoli

Open a newspaper or turn on the TV over the past year, and two things are sure to bombard you: “going green” and the recession. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) certainly seemed to notice the trend, as evidence by her latest proposal, S.224, the “Green Jobs and Infrastructure Act of 2009.” 

The bill aims to invest in national green technology and create green jobs. According to Stabenow, “…We can create good-paying, middle class American jobs. This legislation will invest in green technology, innovation and production, here at home, to ensure we don’t move from a dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology.”

Well played, Senator. Bringing together hot topics and the hunger for jobs has garnered much attention for the bill, not to mention outspoken support from Green For All, the Corps Network, the Center for American Progress and many others.

The collaboration doesn’t stop there. Recently, Stabenow led 18 Senators in the drafting of letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Senate Appropriations Committee – and one Mr. Barack Obama.

In her letter  to the then president-elect, Stabenow writes: “This investment would create millions of new jobs in the immediate future, help end our dependence on foreign oil, rebuild our manufacturing sector, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions…”

S.224 certainly backs up Stabenow’s words. The bill has some mighty objectives for the next year alone, including $2.3 billion in residential and commercial energy savings, $56.55 billion in federal investments in energy efficiency and green-collar jobs, $120 billion in industry revenue, and 334,00 direct and 908,600 indirect jobs. Listen carefully and I think you can hear cheers from the unemployment line.

Now I know what you’re thinking: “Oh really? I’d like to see that happen.” Well, the bill’s creators anticipated your question, and extensively listed their goals and how to achieve them. 

The 13-page proposal features four key points, the first of which is “Clean Technology Manufacturing Incentives Program.” Under this provision, manufactures would receive loans to produce or improve clean technology and low carbon products and operate more efficiently. This alone would help rebuild American manufacturing and in turn, create at least 250,000 manufacturing jobs and up to 725,000 indirect jobs. And keeping with the times, loans will be given with “priority to those facilities that are located in regions with the highest unemployment.”

The second point in the plan is the research and development of advanced batteries. Nearly $1 billion is appropriated to the production of battery technologies like lithium ion and hybrid electric systems.

S.224 also calls for a “green jobs” training program, and sets aside $6.25 million to provide grants to non-profits and other organizations to train workers on energy efficiency and technology.

Finally, under the energy efficiency and conservation block provision, cities and states can earn grants to promote and develop alternative energy usage and efficiency. This has all the makings to kick start countless projects nationwide and the potential to create 60,000 construction, 24,000 manufacturing and 183,000 indirect jobs – and it comes with a $10 billion price tag.

 Whether the bill passes is anyone’s guess but with Stabenow’s legislative track record, my money’s on her. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

The latest political fad and tax-payer dollars are like thunder thighs and miniskirts; they should just not be allowed to mix.

Olympia Snowe’s recent bill is another attempt by Washington to follow the trends and “go green.” The bill, S.3682, proposes that grants ranging from $25 thousand to $1 million be dispersed to small businesses that show a desire to produce green products. The kinds of products being produced aren’t specified, but as long as it says green, Congress says go.

Snowe is no stranger to energy bills. She paired up with Senator John Kerry in early 2008 to promote another bill encouraging small businesses to be more energy efficient. According to senate.gov, Snowe even stated in an interview that she was ashamed and surprised by the Bush administration’s lack of interest in the energy crisis.

Though the bill sounds good on the surface, the fact that it simply sounds good is exactly the point. It’s pleasing to the ear, but essentially does nothing. Going green is a fad, and with little fool-proof research done on green products, Washington should not be throwing tax-payer money at something so new.

The main problem however, is the bill itself. There are two stages in the proposed bill. Stage one offers grants ranging from $25 thousand to $250 thousand. Phase two ups the grants to a range of $250 thousand to $1 million. In order to reach phase two however, you have to pass phase one. Bureaucrats, (which are in no short supply in Washington) will decide if the business has used the phase one funding effectively and deserves to move on to phase two and receive more money. The arbitrariness of how this will be decided is also problematic. What standards will be used to measure the effectiveness of stage one?

The problem with this plan is that the bill is striving to give incentive to already existing businesses to turn to selling more energy efficient products. Certainly, most honest businessmen would tell Snowe that even $250 thousand dollars isn’t nearly enough to retool an entire company into an eco-friendly utopia. The $1 million might be doable, but this doesn’t come until phase two. Now if you don’t have enough money to turn your business around using the phase one grant, then chances are, you won’t be approved for the larger grant that comes with phase two. As a result, the taxpayer’s money will be going out for phase one, but will end there.

Ultimately, this bill is yet another sad attempt to try and make it seem like Congress is doing something about the current energy crisis. If something is going to be done, it has to be carried out on a much larger scale. Giving a few select businesses insufficient funds is going to do nothing but waste the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. If Congress wants to make our country more energy independent, how about not following the latest green fad, and start putting the taxpayer’s money toward something more along the lines of serious research into alternative fuel? Then our money won’t be going toward a fad, but a long-term commitment to bettering our nation’s future.

The House recently passed legislation which promotes the increase of public transportation and the use of alternative fuels for public transport. Bill H.R. 6052 sanctions public transportation grants for each of the fiscal years of 2008 and 2009 in urbanized and other areas. These grants are to be used for a variety of reasons, such as the any operating costs that a grant recipient is incapable of paying due to lower fares and costs accrued as a result of expanding transportation services.  The bill also requires that a grant given that involves obtaining clean fuel or alternative fuel equipment for the purpose of acting in accordance with the Clean Air Act to be one hundred percent of the net project expenditures.

Furthermore, the act amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act. It requires that federal agency employees in urbanized regions of the United States must be offered transportation fringe benefits for their use of public transportation. Bill H.R. 6052 expresses that the Secretary is to distribute direction on realization of a transportation fringe benefits program on a nationalized scale. The Secretary will launch a pilot program to carry out vanpool illustration projects. In addition, the bill insists on a grant intended for a capital project during the years of 2008 and 2009, involving the acquisition of property for the creation of new parking facilities. The grant will be for one hundred percent of the project unless the recipient of the grant appeals for a smaller sum.

Public transportation is only one step towards a cleaner, more energy efficient world. We are in a turning point in history and what we do now will affect future generations. Our planet is precious and deserves better care.