Report: $100 billion would foster 2 million green jobs

Unemployment would plummet along with the reliance on and cost of foreign oil, if the U.S. government invested $100 billion to create 2 million green jobs, according to a report from progressive groups.

The report, released Tuesday and backed by the Center for American Progress, projected that it would take two years to cultivate 2 million new jobs in six areas related to clean technologies.

Positions paying at least $16 per hour would include installing solar panels and wind turbines, expanding mass transit, renovating buildings, developing smart electrical grids, and brewing better biofuels.

The authors compared the cost as nearly equal to that of the government's April economic stimulus package, but with better long-term results, such as shrinking the unemployment rate from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent.

Their suggested $100 billion would comprise $50 billion in tax credits to businesses and homeowners; $46 billion in direct government spending on public buildings, transportation, and energy projects; and $4 billion in federal loan guarantees to finance building retrofits and renewable energy investments.

Although that would create a short-term fiscal deficit, long-term funding could come from the proceeds of a carbon cap-and-trade system, according to the report.

The "Green Recovery" report (PDF) comes from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which projected in June the potential rise of 14 million green-collar jobs in the United States.

The report envisions upgrading blue-collar jobs to achieve green goals.

(Credit: Center for American Progress/Political Economy Research Institute)

A related coalition of progressive nonprofit groups aims to amplify its call for green jobs following the first presidential debate on September 26. Partners include the United Steelworkers union, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. And Green for All, led by Van Jones, has been pushing for "green-collar" jobs to replace lost blue-collar positions and to help revitalize blighted communities.

Retooling the economy to reduce the need for foreign oil has been a central theme in the platforms of both presidential candidates. Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama proposes spending $150 billion to add 5 million green jobs. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, though less specific, says his energy and economic policies would expand the workforce by millions of positions.

[sanenazok]

Obama ain't specific: all he says is he'll throw money at it. At the same time he'll lower taxes and start 5000 new federal bureaucracies. The only specifics is the amount, amortized over 10 years, and thus completely meaningless since Obama's entire tenure would be eight at most. Anyways, how about doing some background work on these Center for American Progress people. Sounds like a lobbyist for unions dressed up as a "think" tank. Oh wait, founded by John D. Podesta after retiring from the Clinton administration, question answered.

[muzakaz]

LOL -> here is the "green" bubble that people are talking about. Do you remember the "dot.com" bubble?

This is the Obama plan! HA!

.... Only 100 billion dollars.... OVER MY DEAD BODY! What a joke!

[Neo Con]

Green Collar, hah! More like Red Collar. Carl Marx must be pleased with himself.

Hey, here's an idea. You know what would create 10 times more jobs than this lame-brained idea? Cutting taxes on employers by $100 billion. Every time the government confiscates money from the private sector and then redistributes it, net jobs are lost. Every time. To repeat for the dim-libs, that's EVERY F-ing TIME!!! Take an Econ 101 lesson and pay attention in the M1/2/3 and opportunity loss lectures, losers.

[cmstratton]

Would you all rather invest $100 billion dollars in ending our dependence on oil and creating more renewable sources of energy? Or would you rather put that $100 billion in a pile and set fire to it?

Setting fire to it is exactly what the rebates would do. I'd much rather see that money invested in something that will provide long-term benefits vs. a quick spend one day at the mall.

And for those of you so shortsighted you'd mock Obama for having a 10-year plan, are you forgetting that he'd be elected to lead the country, and that the country will hopefully be around 10 years from now to follow-through with and reap the benefits of his plan? If any elected official were only thinking about his/her term in office, I'd have serious concerns about his/her leadership ability. We want long-term solutions, not quick fixes that won't go anywhere.

Think about it people.

[muzakaz]

"cmstratton" -> puleeze!

The 100million dollars you talk about, doesn't exist! What? Print more money with nothing to back it? NOW THAT IS AN OBAMA PLAN! Give me a break!

This has nothing to do with creating more renewable sources of energy.... this is about special interests.

[aztecs]

Puhleezzeee!!!! Center for American Progress is a Liberal/Democrat propaganda unit. Their reports coming out of that unit are so skewed to help their election candidate that it is worthless for serious consideration.

[Manhattan2]

We need a Manhattan Project to deal with the US energy crisis.

[supergoodnachos]

This is nothing more than the "broken window" fallacy. You can always when someone have zero clue on basic economics when they support plans like these.

[HeavyJim]

Lets see, get the gubmint to spend hundred billion to create jobs that would be installing green products that the gubmint has to subsidize. I would like to know what money tree the gubmint is picking from. I want to grow one.