Greenpeace: Stimulus plan cuts carbon emissions

The massive government economic stimulus plan now in Congress would reduce pollution that causes global warming and lower energy bills for many Americans, according to an analysis published on Thursday by environmental watchdog Greenpeace.

The primary purpose of the stimulus package--said to be in the range of $825 billion to $900 billion in government spending and tax cuts--is to jump-start the ailing U.S. economy.

Greenpeace commissioned climate change consulting firm ICF International to analyze the environmental benefits from the energy and transportation portions of the bill. Overall, the report concludes that, from an environmental perspective, "it's money well spent," Greenpeace executives said.

If implemented, the measures would cut 61 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from electricity, the equivalent of eliminating power use of 7.9 million homes or taking 13 million cars off the road.

"It's a real sign that we're starting to move the world beyond the era of fossil fuels and we're setting an example for others," Greenpeace research director Kert Davies said during a conference call with reporters.

ICT said analysts were able to quantify only about half of the environmental benefits from the stimulus plan, which means that emissions reductions could be more than projected.

Investments in energy efficiency offer the most economic ways to reduce carbon emissions and save money annually.

In the package is a provision to give $6.9 billion in state and local aid to retrofit municipal buildings to be more energy efficient, which would save $3 billion annually. Similarly, a proposed $2.5 billion to weatherize people's homes would save $1.25 billion a year in utility bills and cut 87.6 million metric tons of carbon of the lifetime of the program.

The report did not focus on the economic impact of the stimulus package, which is the source of debate among policy makers who question whether the spending will have an immediate impact on job creation in the U.S.

But Davies said that it's clear that the legislation was drafted with an eye toward short-term benefits and longer-term economic development. "This is smart money being put forward to build a clean-energy economy," he said.

Studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the U.K.'s Stern Review have calculated that the effects of climate change hurt the economy, such as the economic fall-out from floods and droughts.

The economic stimulus package has passed the House and is now being debated in the Senate, where it is in danger of being watered down, said Steven Biel, Greenpeace's global warming campaign director.

He recommended that the tens of billions of dollars set aside for energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions in the package not be cut. Also, the renewable energy policies, which are based on tax credits, should be altered so that more clean-energy developers can take advantage of it.

Biel said that tens in billions in loan guarantees for nuclear energy and coal-to-liquids would not have a short-term stimulative effect. Also, the ICT analysis found that spending on mass transit infrastructure would have a far lower carbon impact than new construction or even improving existing roads and bridges.

[HeavyJim]

Greenpeace must be wanting some of this tax,spend,increase government funds so it can do something about its fleet of oil burning icebreakers they cruise the world in.

[iptofar]

Complete BS.

What's the carbon foot print of all the necessary materials and labor to do these things? Right.

[galeso]

As the economy expands, people will start driving more and heating their houses a little more. Perhaps Greenpeace ignored these on purpose to promote their agenda.

[fcg1502]

"Studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the U.K.'s Stern Review have calculated that the effects of climate change hurt the economy, such as the economic fall-out from floods and droughts."

Ah, yes, because we didn't have these until the big bad humans started to change the climate. And I'm just so happy that this bill will buy government officials brand new cars with our money. If this stimulus isn't payback to all of Obama's supporters who got him elected, I don't know what is.

[clamenza]

There were floods and droughts but they become more frequent and severe from global warming.

From earlier springs to double harvests, receding glaciers and expanding deserts, people world over from the Alps to the Nile to the Andes are seeing the effects. Holdouts these days are just stupid or selfish.

[galeso]

When 10% of global climate change scientist believe there is no global warming, 20% do not think it is not man-made, and even more do not think that it is caused by CO2. So there is room for doubt. It is only probable that that there is man-made global warming. What is the cause? Since global warming seems to occur only in the winter and only in the more developed northern hemisphere, one might think that the cause is also seasonal like plowing asphalt roads.

[auto460991]

I'm concerned that any stimulus money is going to the nuclear industry, but you barely touched this issue, despite reports that there's 50 billion dollars in the bill for nuclear power.

The argument that nuclear power is a carbon-free energy source, and therefore good for the environment, shows a galling disregard for the potentially catastrophic environmental damage that might result from another accident. We need look no further than three-mile island and Chernobyl to see its more than just a theoretical issue. The insurance companies won't touch it, which is why the nuclear industry has been hiding behind an artificial liability shield, provided by Congress in 1957 - The Price-Anderson Act. The current dollar amounts in the Act would be overwhelmed by an accident anywhere near the scale of Chernobyl. If you're not familiar with the Price-Anderson Act, then I strongly recommend you look it up.

There are reasons nuclear power in the US has ebbed nearly to extinction over the last few decades, and those reasons are as valid today as they've been in the past. The true cost of nuclear power makes it a terrible choice for future energy plans, ESPECIALLY if the liability risks in their true form are taken into consideration.

At the very least, a complete repeal of the Price-Anderson Act should accompany any government support for the private nuclear energy industry - that would uncover a large part of the hidden costs of this energy source.

[baronsamadi]

Floods AND droughts?

First of all, when was the last time we heard about floods in Bangladesh or any of the world's flooding hotspots?

Second, sea levels have dropped by a foot around some of the world's lowest coastlines such as The Maldives. Why is this so? Because warming, which has been tiny and which we desperately need, evaporates water and thus increases atmospheric humidity and rainfall.

So instead of floods we should be seeing coastlines expanding, shrinking deserts and increased rainfall to help irrigate lands. All side effects of warming.

It's just too bad that temperatures have been falling instead and in many places we're seeing the coldest temperatures for years. Cold weather means more energy use by humans and economic gridlock as people can't get to work and long winters kill plant and wildlife.

[mbatcnet]

hahaha, let the propaganda roll.

[Aggie1295]

If Greenpeace endorses the plan, then that is reason enough to scare me if it gets passed by Congress.

[Inconnux]

I heard one of the founders of Greenpeace in an interview once say 'Greenpeace is a 300 million dollar a year global corporation that makes its money by scaring people out of their money'.

Its funny how not one founding member of Greenpeace supports them anymore.

[ledhead1962]

This comment is not posted to judge Greenpeace pro or con, instead I am going to point out the abundance of negativity that stories like this bring out of the woodwork. Every positive story that addresses moving forward on environmental issues is over run with people who absolutely "know" why the proposed action simply will not work. So the outcome is nothing gets done, instead another round of hand wringing and dithering can take the place of initiative and problem solving. I don't think that anyone believes for a second that every idea to change the ignorant waste that our existence stands for is going to be the silver bullet that magically saves the planet but the only way to find out for sure is to try something other then the current effort at mass mass suicide. Besides a threat of something like Nazi Germany we just simply don't seem to be able to agree on anything and the constant bickering is definitely hurting not helping. These comments are the thing that worry me the most for the race's continuance. A union of can't do instead of can do. The current trend seems to be to place the environmental issues behind solving the financial meltdown, when the reality is that they are the same thing - the old paradigm has run it's course and is unsustainable. Salvation lies in the next socioeconomic revolution, period, and that is scaring the bejesus out of the status quo set ( so you don't agree with with global climate change. What's the worst that could happen by making humanities impact on the planet less? Cleaner air and water? Less environmentally linked cancer? What a waste of money that would be). You know - silver linings, carpe diem, onward and upward, constructive criticism. Too much to ask for apparently.

[rickweiss99]

Unfortunately, it now looks like some of the most progressive aspects of the stimulus bill are on the chopping block, as part of a large whack at important science-based elements of the plan. See http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/02/senate-stimulus-proposal-could-stifle-innovation-support/