Failed 'Green' Stimulus Spending Cost Taxpayers Billions (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Clean energy and "green" jobs are a win-win for both Americans and the environment - when done properly. The growth of "green" jobs in the United States may not be moving at the rate environmentalists would like, but will grind to a screeching halt if government reliance continues. Stimulus funds and grants stem from taxpayers and not a supply and demand scenario. Businesses and projects which rely government funds do not offer sustainable jobs or long-term benefits to the environment.

President Obama funneled approximately $5 billion of taxpayer of money into the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) when the federal stimulus plan passed in 2009. Although low-income homeowners may now receive less expensive utility bills, the cost was just too high to the taxpayers. Temporary jobs offered a paycheck for nearly two years allowing workers to garner new skills, but where will those skills be utilized once stimulus funding is depleted?

Increasing the energy efficiency of older homes does reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, but where will funding come from when caulking and drywall eventually need replaced? Roofing shingles and insulation prevent heat and cool air from escaping through the top of the home, but ill-fitting doors and old windows also pose problems for low-income homeowners. Rental units which house poor Americans also benefited from the WAP efforts. But the transient nature of renters typically leads to home damage and the need for landlord replacement of materials. When windows are broken and appliances damaged or stolen on a regular basis, it is likely landlords will purchase the least expensive replacement models.

Twenty-five American cities each received $20 million of "green" stimulus funding to retrofit homes to make them more energy efficient. The Obama administration projected the project would create 2,000 "green" jobs per location. The city of Seattle clearly demonstrates the failure of the government guided "green" program. Although the Obama administration claimed the jobs would primarily be entry-level positions designed to train low-income workers, only 14 jobs were ever created, most of which were administrative. Two years after the "shovel ready" stimulus funds were released, only 9.3 percent of Seattle's funds were actually used. A total of 337 homeowners applied for assistance, with only 14 actually gaining approval for the weatherization project.

"It's been a very slow and tedious process. It's almost painful, the number of meetings people have to go to. Those are the people who got jobs. There's been no real investment for the broader public," Go Green representative Michael Woo told local media.

Low taxes or low-interest loans to companies that make earth-friendly materials would provide lasting jobs and local suppliers of reasonably priced home improvement supplies. Sustainability is key when developing and promoting "green" jobs and community affinity for manufactured products. Government funding cannot create supply and demand for energy efficient products, only the private sector has such an ability. Another stimulus bill pumping money into governmental energy-efficiency programs will do nothing more than offer momentary relief and spend taxpayer money. The less money Americans have to pay in taxes the more taxpayers have in their pockets to spend locally.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/environment/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110819/us_ac/8990259_failed_green_stimulus_spending_cost_taxpayers_billions

cao bong bong taylor armstrong real housewives abbey road ps vita