With the 2012 presidential campaigns beginning to get ramped up, it is as good a time as any for all sides to reexamine the impact that “green” government spending has had on our country … or, shall I say, the lack of impact the spending has had. There is no better time than the present to move beyond the rhetoric and billions of wasted dollars, and let the private sector do what they know how to the best – not waste money, put people to work, and thrive despite the ever-changing rules that are presented for playing the game.
According to Foxnews.com, the most recent exposure of tax dollars being wasted on environmental programs without much of an impact was in Seattle, where $20 million was spent on just 14 full-time jobs. The article made a very good point, that the many restrictions for implementing environmental programs – such as requiring a wage of $20 plus benefits to the insulation guy when the average wage for the work is $12 – are making it virtually impossible to have the positive impact that was initially estimated.
In the case of Seattle, the poor performing program was aimed at making homes more energy efficient through energy audits and retrofits. In addition to the program being financially unfeasible for the contractors, in many cases the cost to the actual homeowner was also unfeasible. Put simply, the energy savings didn’t offset the high front-end costs of the environmentally friendly improvements. It’s no wonder that the President’s environmental earmarks have been under constant fire considering the vast mismanagement of “green” projects and programs.
Now, I want to make it clear that I am a big proponent of energy audits ... they are invaluable in identifying ways that individuals and businesses can reduce their energy consumption and negative impact on the environment. But, when these audits are coupled with a program that makes it unfeasible for contractors or homeowners to implement the recommendations and reap the benefits, what's the point? Here's a novel idea, instead of dumping millions/billions into inefficient projects, why not use the money to finance retrofits that are recommended during the audits ... the government could then make the principal back plus interest, and homeowners and business owners could use their energy savings to pay the government back. Imagine that, a government program that not only makes money, but also has a positive impact on the communities in which we live.
It seems very hard for me to fathom that our government, those that we elected to serve our best interests, is pushing for and then defending mislabeled “green” programs that don’t benefit small businesses or individuals. As of August 30th, the national debt clock at Brillig.com said that each citizen was on the hook for over $47,000 of debt. Poorly planned and implemented programs are going to take that number higher, and it is particularly bothersome that mishandled “green” projects are being lumped into this wasted spending.
Why not let the people take back control of their own lives, and regulate themselves? Just think, if each of the US’s over 300 million citizens had just half of that $47,000 of debt, everyone in the country could afford to drive a brand new hybrid car to work every day. Or think about some of the other things citizens could do with the debt our country has accumulated: they could pay off their personal debt, retrofit their homes with solar panels and modern appliances, hire employees at their small businesses, or start their own small business. If you think about every aspect of sustainability – the economic, social, and environmental – it's not that farfetched to imagine how much better the world could be if we stopped wasting money because of individual pride in Washington, and started trusting American’s to make the right decisions themselves.
Christopher A. Craig, MBA, MA
