Discussion Question #4

I think the stimulus package means a few positive and negative things for the environment. First of all, its obvious that the package isn't perfect, and it certainly can't wipe away any and all problems we're facing currently. I was reading on the New York Times website what measures the bill included, and there are quite a few that represent some modicum of change in the way we view energy sources. The first is tax credits for energy-efficient improvements in the home (things like new windows, insulation, etc.). Second is the ability for taxpayers to deduct 30% of the cost of solar water heaters, wind turbines, and geothermal pumps. These are both really great incentives, however will only make any real difference for people who can afford these upgrades in the first place, which I think may be a very small percentage of the population. There are multiple investments in clean energy, however this includes funding for carbon sequestration and clean coal, which DOESN'T EXIST. I've researched it...for more info, check out: http://action.thisisreality.org/details. Coal is the dirtiest type of energy, and its the biggest contributor to global warming. There isn't a single plant today in the US that uses clean coal, so dumping millions of dollars into theory alone seems rather useless, especially when it isn't time lined, and could take extremely long to reach commercialization.