Amy Taylor — Mar 04, 2010
In response to the global economic downturn, many world leaders have introduced significant economic stimulus packages in an effort to ramp up economic development. Seizing the opportunity to kick-start a green economy, forward-thinking governments are getting double-duty out of these plans by dedicating a significant chunk of stimulus spending towards renewable energy and efficiencies. Canada? Not so much.
It's hard to understand since it's well documented that
money spent on renewable energy and energy efficiencies creates jobs and pays
back returns. A report
by the SEF Alliance borne out of the United Nations Environment Programme,
found that "there is a strong positive relationship between clean energy/
energy efficiency/ environmental investments and economic prosperity and job
growth." Countries you might not expect to go green are seeing the economic
benefits of green spending. Over 30 million Chinese households are equipped
with solar water heaters under the country's Golden Sun stimulus program, while
the government is ag
gressively moving towards reaching 30 gigawatts of wind
power capacity by 2020. China's now surpassed the United States, Denmark,
Germany and Spain to become the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines,
solar panels and solar water heaters. Putting renewable energy into China's economic plan has
resulted in 1.12 million jobs in the industry, growing at a rate of 100,000 per
year. Linking economic stimulus packages to green investments may seem like a
visionary move but really, it's a no brainer. It's common sense.
So what about Canada? Where is our green stimulus vision?
Where is our common sense? Truth be told, it seems to be lacking. Canada's
stimulus spending, which amounted to over $22 billion in 2009, dedicated just
$2 billion to green spending. By contrast, green stimulus spending in the
United States totalled $112 billion with 29 per cent of
that going to renewable
energy investments and 32 per cent targeted at energy efficiency improvements.
Similarly, Britain just unveiled their Pay
as You Save scheme that will see 29 per cent of emissions from the UK's
homes reduced by 2020. Of the $2 billion green stimulus spending in Canada, $1
billion was aimed at green infrastructure and another $1 billion was tagged for
clean energy - at the end of the day, $1.5 billion of our green stimulus
spending was directed to nuclear
power and carbon
capture and storage for coal - both are costly and don't provide the
economic returns and environmental benefits as other options, like wind power. Smart investments from our
government would instead see increased, more diverse and strategic green
spending. This government's current stimulus plan - visionary? I think not.








Janet — May 05, 2010 - 06:37 PM MT
Just for the record, nuclear energy is NOT green; itis the most dangerous and resource heavy form of energy there is. As helen Caldicott said in her "Nuclear Power is not the Answer", using nuclear is a really expensive way to boil water, when there are obvious simpler [and cheaper] solutions.
Roger Gagne — Mar 04, 2010 - 10:08 PM MT
Well said, Amy. I share your dissappointment. I'm astonished, in fact, at the determination of our federal government to keep its head firmly entrenched in the sand.
Post new comment