Law

"We can't wait ..." President Obama's words as to a private-partnership set of building energy-efficiency investments that will total $4 billion are, sigh, ever-so-true across a huge portfolio of issues. And, well, let us be clear that this $4 billion is only a drop in the ocean of national requirements and opportunities even solely considering building energy efficiency.

When it comes to the public sector, according to President Obama:

"Upgrading the energy  efficiency of America's buildings is one of the  fastest, easiest, and  cheapest ways to save money, cut down on harmful  pollution, and create  good jobs right now.  But we can't wait for  Congress to act.  So today,  I'm directing all federal agencies to make  at least $2 billion worth of  energy efficiency upgrades over the next 2  years – at no up-front cost  to the taxpayer.  Coupled with today's  extraordinary private sector  commitments of $2 billion to upgrade  businesses, factories, and military  housing, America is taking another  big step towards the competitive,  clean energy economy it will take to  win the future,"

Note that "no upfront cost". Rather than spending $ now to save $$$$$s for the years to come, the reality of the no investment mentality is that private corporations will be coming in via 'energy performance savings contracts' to execute energy efficiency projects and then share (at quite high profits) in the financial savings.  With (some of) the taxpayers' representatives too obstinate and obtuse to understand the value of investment, the taxpayers are sacrificing too high a share of tomorrow's savings to avoid the required upfront investments.

In a rational world, we would be borrowing significant amounts of money at the incredible low interests rates to invest in infrastructure -- notably in improving buildings (not solely energy efficiency) -- to foster a stronger economy and pay back these investments with financial savings (such as due to reduced utility payments) and increased economic activity fostered by the jobs created and the commerce flourishing with more robust infrastructure.

President Obama, however, isn't facing a rationale world in terms of The Village's commentators and too many members of Congress. Thus, how to foster increased economic activity and reduced governmental costs without taxpayer investment?

Sigh, "We can't wait ..." and incrementalism is far from what is necessary, but we should applaud this $4 billion announcement.

Full press release after the fold.

Perspectives in reading the press release:

• As one reads the highlighting of businesses, this fits with the UMWframing re energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate mitigation.
• This discussion seems to miss some of the greatest economic benefits from this action. Business after business after school after ... is finding that energy efficiency ('green') investments turn out to have far greater benefits from worker productivity, improved real estate values, lower maintenance costs, etc ... than from the energy savings. This much larger value stream is absent from this discussion. Also absent are the benefits for all through reduced demand on the energy requiring, for example, lower utility customer payments for additional generation and lowered likelihood of blackouts/brownouts.  And, of course, there is that pesky little issues of reduced environmental impacts and reduced pollution meaning lower health impacts on others.  Such systematic understatement of the value of action weakens the support for action.