UN: Lets invest heavily in Green Energy

March 20th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

green energyThe United Nations has a brand new idea to revive the world economy… and ’save the planet’ at the same time:

Investments of $750 billion could create a “Green New Deal” to revive the world economy and protect the environment, perhaps aided by a tax on oil, the head of the U.N. environment agency said on Thursday.

Achim Steiner said spending should focus on five environmental sectors including improved energy efficiency for buildings and solar or wind power to create jobs, curb poverty and fight climate change.

“The opportunity must not be lost,” Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), told Reuters of a UNEP study that will be put to world leaders meeting in London on April 2 to work out how to spur the ailing economy.

The UNEP report said investments of one percent of global gross domestic product, or about $750 billion, could bankroll a “Global Green New Deal” inspired by the “New Deal” of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt that helped end the depression of the 1930s.

Investments should be split between more energy efficient buildings, renewable energies, better transport, improved agriculture and measures to safeguard nature — such as fresh water, forests or coral reefs, it said.

The idea isn’t “brand new” at all, of course. UNEP suggested the exact same thing last year, when there was no crisis.

Investing in alternative energy projects is smart policy and smart politics, to a degree at least. You have to be sure that the investments will pay off. I can’t help but wonder whether the UN’s plan will be economically feasible. It seems to be an environmentalist’s wet dream, and nothing else.

Lastly, I get real tired of the calls for a new ‘new deal’ or a ‘green deal,’ etc. They’re worshipping FDR and his New Deal even though experts agree that his economic policy prolonged America’s crisis.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. FraidyKatt
    March 20th, 2009 at 19:59
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I do find it pathetic that the left has a single mindedness. Taxes. While being equally fair the GOP seems single minded as well. Cut Taxes.

    perhaps aided by a tax on oil, the head of the U.N. environment agency said on Thursday.

    I am all for Green and think its the future but why is it that everyone in the world except Republicans think the answer to everything is another tax?

    I want to pull my hair. Can’t someone come up with something better then taxes or cutting taxes? Is our life on this planet so entertwined to tax vs. no tax that we can no longer think beyond this?

  2. Michael van der Galien
    March 20th, 2009 at 20:09
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I want to pull my hair. Can’t someone come up with something better then taxes or cutting taxes? Is our life on this planet so entertwined to tax vs. no tax that we can no longer think beyond this?

    That’s a great point actually. I think the reason liberals tend to use taxes for these purposes is because they consider ‘money’ and ‘income’ to be owned by the government and they are convinced that you can truly steer behavior by economic incentives… and punishment.

  3. Jay_C
    March 20th, 2009 at 20:15
    Reply | Quote | #3

    “I do find it pathetic that the left has a single mindedness. Taxes. While being equally fair the GOP seems single minded as well. Cut Taxes.”

    Fair enough to contrast the two extremes, but we must be careful not to fall into the trap of taking the middle ground for middle grounds sake, that is the easy way out. Thought must be applied and I think the question then is, which of these 2 extremes or between them, or something completely different has the most evidence of workng. I don;t agree with this global view as far as it goes, but I think the same bedrock principles apply weather you are talking about this at the world, country or a town level.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.