CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Agriculture obama budget

Published on February 14th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan

9

Obama’s Budget Proposal a Win for Those Who Care about Clean Air, Clean Water, Livable Climate, & Jobs

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 14th, 2012 by Zachary Shahan 

 
Obama’s budget proposal is out and is a clear win for the environment. It’s not perfect, but it puts us in the right direction. “Once again, clean, renewable energy and environmental sanity are at the heart of the package,” Jeremy Bloom of sister site Red, Green, and Blue writes.

obama budget

Oil and other fossil fuel companies, which have seen tremendous, unprecedented profits in recent years, are the darlings of many Republican political leaders, and their billions/year in subsidies have been protected without hesitation by those politicians (and by some Democrats, to be fair). The wacky idea is that not giving them billions more to stick in the bank and sit on, they would cut jobs and America would suffer—absolute rubbish! What would happen is they wouldn’t see record profits year after year and a continuously expanding savings account.

The good news is that Obama, in his new budget proposal, has included $39 billion of subsidy cuts for the fossil fuel industry over the coming 10 years.

“Repealing fossil fuel tax preferences helps eliminate market distortions, strengthening incentives for investments in clean, renewable, and more energy efficient technologies,” the budget plan states.

Yes, please!

“On the other hand, the budget does include funding for the Department of the Interior to boost oil and gas production, particularly on public lands in the west,” Jeremy notes. “That will be partly balanced out by $450 million to preserve public lands and $28 million for new inspectors to make sure that we don’t have a repeat of the BP Gulf Oil disaster.”

Renewable energy and energy efficiency, of course, continue to get good support from President Obama. This has certainly been his strong suit over the past few years, in my opinion.

The President’s budget calls for:

  • A clean energy standard for electricity production, so that by 2035, 80 percent will be come from low-carbon sources like wind, solar, natural gas and nuclear
  • $2.33 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a 29% increase
  • $5 billion for the Office of Science, a 2.4% increase
  • $1.2 billion for energy efficiency, including clean vehicle technologies
  • $310 million for the  SunShot Initiative for cost-competitive solar energy
  • $95 million for wind energy
  • $65 million for geothermal
  • $350 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) for transformative energy innovation research
  • $770 million to develop small modular reactors
  • Extended renewable energy tax credits
  • NO additional funding for the loan guarantee program for clean energy projects that has been under attack by the GOP since solar company Solyndra failed.

“In light of the tight discretionary spending caps, this increase in funding is significant and a testament to the importance of innovation and clean energy to the country’s economic future,” the budget request says.

“The choice we face as a nation is simple: do we want the clean energy technologies of tomorrow to be invented in America by American innovators, made by American workers and sold around the world, or do we want to concede those jobs to our competitors? We can and must compete for those jobs,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu added.

The EPA doesn’t get axed, but it also doesn’t get a boost.

While the EPA faces a small 2.1% decrease in its budget, that’s a far cry from GOP proposals, which range from “slash it” to “kill it completely”.

Still, it seems like a strange negotiating tactic: When your opponents want to cut something, you don’t START by pre-emptively meeting them halfway. That sure hasn’t worked out in the past, and it’s probably a mistake now.

Cuts include:

  • Money for hazardous waste site cleanup
  • A program to reduce indoor radon exposure
  • A program to monitor beaches to make sure they’re safe enough to swim (maybe they can get BP to volunteer to fund this one?)
  • A program to help states improve infrastructure and drinking water treatment

Increases include

  • $66 million for air quality programs to help states meet new regulations
  • $5 to hire more inspectors for high-risk oil and chemical plants

Transportation proposals please the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and all transit lovers and riders, as well as bicyclists and high-speed train lovers.

“On behalf of the 1,500 members of the American Public Transportation Association, we are pleased that President Barack Obama released a six-year transportation bill that increases funding for public transportation by over 100%,” APTA writes. “We support the efforts of the Administration to move this proposal forward because investing in public transit is essential to creating American jobs and boosting our economy.”

But, as Jeremy aptly notes, GOP politicians aren’t particularly interested in having the economy bounce back while Obama’s president, since their #1 goal (as stated by leaders in the party) is to make Obama a one-term president. So, Jeremy’s statement on this is a little more pessimistic (or realistic, you might say):

Sadly, Obama’s transportation priorities are probably as dead in the water as the GOP’s. He’s once again calling for $47 billion for high-speed rail (down $6 billion from last year’s proposal), but the House and Senate will probably block that completely.

He’s also calling for $50 billion in up-front infrastructure spending to boost jobs creation this year, but improving the economy is also the last thing the GOP wants to do right now.

Overall

“Despite some flaws, the president’s budget is a big net plus for the environment, and we urge Congress to embrace the positive aspects of it,” said Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and a former associate director of the Office of Management and Budget for Natural Resources, Energy and Science, after praising the oil and gas company cuts but lamenting EPA and Farm Bill conservation cuts.

“Look at it this way:  environmental conservation is cheaper than environmental cleanup, just like preventive medicine is cheaper than emergency room treatment. We applaud the President’s support of job-creating, clean energy programs.” Well put. That’s an analogy we should use more often!

And, at a glance from the EDF (note that the EDF is probably the most corporate-friendly green organization in the country):

Good news:

  • $27.2 billion for the Department of Energy, a 3.2 percent increase over what Congress enacted last year:
    • $2.3 billion would go towards research and development for energy efficiency, advanced vehicles and biofuels.
    • $522 million increase in renewable energy sources and an additional $174 million for a revamped industrial technology-advanced manufacturing program.
    • $12 million would go towards multi-year research investments in safer natural gas infrastructure in order to reduce risks associated with hydraulic fracturing in shale formations.
      • Pipeline safety would receive a 70 percent, or $64 million, increase.
  • Approximately $1 billion for energy conservation efforts in the Department of Defense (DOD), which is the world’s largest energy consumer.
    • DOD is increasing its commitment to renewable energy, which now makes up 8.5 percent of its energy production and procurement.
  • $174 million for sustainable fisheries work by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which supports the science and management needed to support the commercial fishing industry that supports 1 million jobs and yields more than $32 billion in income every year.
  • $28 million for the National Catch Share Program, a critical part of the nation’s strategy to return its fisheries to abundance, the same level adopted by the Congress last year.

Bad news:

  • Counterproductive cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency
    • The fiscal 2013 budget seeks $8.3 billion, which is $105 million below the current funding level for the agency.
    • If Congress approves the proposal, it would be the first time since 1994 that the agency’s budget was cut for three consecutive years.
  • Counterproductive cuts to USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service
    • The fiscal 2013 budget seeks to cut funding for Farm Bill conservation programs by about $600 million.
    • Congress already has cut conservation funding by $2.8 billion over the last five years (FY 2008-2012), representing 81 percent of the nearly $3.5 billion in Farm Bill spending cuts during that time period.

Overall, it’s better for the environment than it is bad. Now, we have to support those critical good parts as the Senate and House GOP try to hack them up or incinerate them.

Check out this complete overview of the budget from the White House for more.

Image of Obama via White House

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Bob_Wallace

    Just saw this on line – Sam Brownback, the very conservative Republican governor of Kansas is pushing for subsidies for wind farms.

    http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/daa98f80956e40c18ee9e3d375b9ae3e/KS–Brownback-Kansas-Wind/

    The Republican governor of Wyoming has also been campaigning more support for wind.

    Wind may have crossed the threshold where it is no longer a “greenie” thing. It might now be “big business”.

  • Pingback: U.S. Solar Energy Projects Rose 67% in 4th Quarter - CleanTechnica

  • Lamar Havard

    What gets me is the vast amounts of money the government takes the oil companies for and doesn’t lift a finger to do it.
    Do you know how much per gallon of gas the government get in taxes?
    Close to $.30.
    And how much profit the oil companies get per gallon for 1: Finding the oil, 2: getting it out of the ground, 3: refining it to get the gas and other products and 4: getting it to the service stations? $.08.
    A mighty sweet deal for the Dear Leader and his cronies, wouldn’t you say?
    As much as Obama loves to tax and spend money, I don’t think ‘Big Oil’ is going anywhere any time soon.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Hmm, doesn’t lift a finger?

      You think the trillions we have spent on wars in the Middle East were really about something other than oil?

    • Bob_Wallace

      The federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon.

      I suspect you’re including state and local taxes which do not flow to the federal budget.

      As for the federal government ‘not lifting a finger’, how much do you think we spend to keep our oil supplies operating?

      Don’t forget to include the cost of the two Iraq Wars and the Afgan War. And the cost of Homeland Security, including all that airplane screening/marshal stuff.

      (Step away from the Fox crack pipe. It makes for teh stupid….)

  • Edward Kerr

    Zach,
    It would be nice if the budget proposal wasn’t DOA already. Too many small, self serving and mean spirited minds are stirring the budget soup and I for one have come to realize that the political process is incapable of solving our energy dilemma. And since our entire world civilization is based on energy, our dilemma becomes more than simply one of energy. I don’t know how things are going to pan out in the short term, but any long term solution (if one ever happens) will be in-spite of the politicians rather than as a result of their “leadership” (ouch…I’ve used the term so loosely that my first grade teacher has just materialized from the ether and is striking me smartly about my head and shoulders as a rebuke. She taught me better)
    Ed

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      lol. thanks, Ed.

    • Bob_Wallace

      This budget, yes, most likely dead.

      But we’re in good shape for returning control of Congress to Democrats if we choose to do so. In general voters are disgusted with Republicans and they have very little chance of capturing the White House.

      If we work at it we could see next year’s budget giving renewables and EVs the last push they need.

      The wind industry is saying that they need only four more years of subsidy before they can prosper on their own. Even Republicans are likely to extend support for wind as many conservative/Republican states are enjoying the jobs and tax revenues that wind is bringing them.

      Solar prices are dropping very fast and should be at or below grid parity price for much of the country within a few years. At this point the rest of the world is moving to solar fast enough to keep panel prices falling. Here, in the US, it’s all about installation costs. We need some subsidies to keep volumes up and pull installation costs down.

      EVs, a few more years of subsidy. Battery prices are falling but we need to keep the industry moving along until ranges are up and prices have fallen a bit more.

      But even if the overall budget proposal is hurting, I’m not convinced that the renewable energy part is.

      Within the last couple of days Congressional Republican seem to have shifted their strategy. They seem to have walked away from their efforts to make PBO a one term president (figuring that they don’t have a “real” candidate) by destroying the economy and turned their attention to holding on to their own jobs in November.

      Republicans gave up on blocking tax reduction for working people, even though it’s likely to help the economy and PBO’s reelection effort.

      Will Republicans block renewable/EV subsidies if it promises to put Americans out of work? Possibly not.

Back to Top ↑