Houston, we have a problem

Opinion writer suggests efficiency stimulus would be more effective

Posted by Sarah K. Burkhalter at 12:15 PM on 13 Feb 2008

An opinion writer at the Houston Chronicle says:

Congress missed a major opportunity with the stimulus package. They could have invested in something that would have been good for the consumer (encouraging energy savings), the environment (reducing emissions) and the economy (stimulating development of products that represent our future).

The magic elixir?

Energy efficiency is the best thing we can do for our economy and environment right now. Instead of $600 once for every consumer, how about $100 to every family that replaces incandescent bulbs with florescent? Or $1,000 to every family that buys a car that meets future CAFE standards today? Or perhaps $500 to every family that improves its home insulation by 20 percent?

These investments would cost no more than the present stimulus and save consumers at least as much (probably more in future electricity, heating and fuel bills) while stimulating industries that lead toward a better long-term economic future.

At least one commenter is unimpressed:

While those of us who have already replaced bulbs, insulated, replaced windows and doors, upgraded to a high efficiency heat pump, purchased a front load washer get nothing. Yeah, let's reward all those that arrive late to the party. Thanks, but no thanks.

Thoughts?

For story: Houston, we have a problem
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Late to the party

Yeah, why doesn't the store refund me 30% for the product I bought last week that went on sale this week?

That energy efficient quibbler shouldn't complain about all the money they've saved over the last few years.

by katakanadian at 12:38 PM on 13 Feb 2008

Good Idea, Details Need to Be Resolved

Overall, this is a creative and good idea. While I agree with the critic who complains those of us with CFLs and high-mileage cars don't seem to benefit from the op-ed writer's proposal, I think that's a minor point. The author of the opinion piece (Scott Tinker) just wrote a paragraph's worth of policy ideas -- clearly there are details that could be worked out to benefit all consumers in their green and/or efficient tendencies. That's what I take away from Tinker's proposal -- that instead of just handing money to consumers, the way the Romans handed out the dole to angry proles and kept them content with bread and circuses (while Rome sank into decline), we ought to find ways to encourage more virtuous behavior.

Let the pols work out the details -- the basic idea is good.

by austinbirdman at 12:46 PM on 13 Feb 2008

The Shock Doctrine

Just another tax break at the expense of social programs. One more step towards the destruction of the Earth for the religion of money.

The richest people on Earth do not need more money. We do not need more people buying more crap made from burning more fossil fuels.

Give me Earth or give me death.

by sunflower at 12:50 PM on 13 Feb 2008

no way to run an economy

I don't think this idea is so good.

Coming from manufacturing as I do, how is the supply of cfl bulbs? Or energy efficient cars? Or insulation or any of the other things you might sell. I would like to run a plant at 100 percent of capacity. If you are going to rebate/reduce the cost of bulbs or cars to sell more, can the supply keep up with the demand? If I got to add more lines to manufacture more bulbs, I have to order more materials to make these bulbs, hire more people to make them, train more people, etc. My competitors have to do the same thing which drives up the price of supplies. The new machines to make these bulbs take a while to ramp up to production and the quality is less on the new ones. Rebate me for fuel efficient cars and then there is more demand for the fuel efficient cars that are available so the price goes up because the demand goes up while the supply is about the same.

what happens after this bulge of sales ends. I bought new machines and hired people to make bulbs, but now sales go down because people stocked up the the things. Now I gotta lay people off and machines are idle.

Things take time to make. I agree with your goals, but it's not a way to run an economy.

by trock at 8:29 AM on 14 Feb 2008

Not the Goal

While I do not support the Bush stimulus plan its purpose is to put money into the hands of consumers that do not have income to purchase such items as you listed. If you have the income to make such investments as you discussed than an "economic stimulus" would not be beneficial. Essentially you are already willing to spend money and improve our economic status. Tax cuts and further education towards those targeted for the money will result in the greatest payoff. The real goal should be to have individuals invest their $600 in energy effecient products that will stimulate the economy and reduce future costs for those individuals.

by mtnbiker at 10:31 AM on 14 Feb 2008

Chinese Stimulus Package

The $600-$1200 will be spent at WalMart if any is left over from paying utilities or credit card debt.

If they do go down to Walmart and buy the floresent change over bulbs or appliance with a better energy efficiency rating it will help crank up the dirty coal fired chinese economy.

You will get the added pollution and fuel use of having to ship it over here.

You would be challenged trying to buy an American Product to stimulate the economy. Some international corporation, perhaps.

In July when it is evident the stimulus package did not work, watch the markets fall like a brick.

Hey, you might still be able to buy an American Brick, someone needs to research that!

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 11:09 AM on 15 Feb 2008

Chinese coal....

I completely agree with the fact that the stimuli money will inevitably be spent paying off debt, at wally world, or even next months rent... BUT the energy powering all of those fluorescent light bulbs is not from China my friend. It is in your backyard. Coal is burnt here in the U.S. We breathe it, burn it and live like dirty coal consuming gods.... Just wanted to let you know it's here, not there that we gain the majority of our energy.

P.S. It makes more sense to reward people for living more energy efficiently rather than giving them money just for existing in the under 75k income bracket

My 2 cents, a little late

by linz03eli at 8:44 AM on 27 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Thats an easy one

Give a rebate to anyone who has fluorescent lightbulbs now or in the next 6 months.

Give a rebate to anyone who has good quality insulation now or in the next 6 months.

See? Easy. Rewarding those that came early is sometimes discounted as not being "incremental", but I disagree. There are so many different necessary efforts that if you reward the early adopters of improvement X, especially if you make it a social pattern, it will lift up the very important early adoption of improvement Z.

by nedruod at 12:07 PM on 09 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.