Where is the Money Going?
Concern is now being raised for the foreign “cashing in” by other countries with Stimulus money. Nationalistic concerns must be compromised with nods to best expertise in areas like high speed transit and wind power equipment, solar technology and other equipment. European countries without surplus fuel and natural gas resources have had to ramp up alternate methods of energy development in advance of American industries.
The Stimulus and Recovery funds have now become distributed to various state governments and the American people are asking where the money is going. A large part has been funded to federal agencies whose aging project list has been awaiting funding overdue for decades. The projected spending for energy and sustainable development could be as high as $40 of the total Stimulus $787 billion. But as the local governments are rolling out implementation of their Stimulus funded programs, diverse trade impacts are yet to be felt.
The Environmental Protection Agency has published its Superfund list of sites for cleanup, recognition of well-performing companies and areas, civic programs and engineering for upgrades and equipment updates has been concentrated around environmental crisis and water and air quality emergency. Continued analysis of local and state projects for improved environmental health and sustainable industrial commerce will evolve as long as Stimulus and recovery funding continues.
Yet as the alternative energy development projects take shape, a disturbing trend has emerged. Since many of the research and development phases of alt fuels and clean energy have actually been accelerated by foreign countries, significant expenditure for Stimulus related equipment and services may be focused abroad. While many industrialists a decade ago invested in sustainable energy growth resources, American commerce lagged behind. Now native technologies abroad are poised to gain from the formidable Stimulus investment taking place at the present time all over the United States.
Rewarding the impetus for green energy investment abroad and sustainable power technology development, many are asking why domestic limitations should not be put on purchasing and project provisioning for Stimulus funded activities. With putative spending in the billions of dollars, Americans enjoying a recessive economy and domestic joblessness question the sourcing of materials from foreign manufacturers when the focus of the Stimulus funds was intended to spur domestic growth and currency flow.
A full third of the estimated alternative energy method and sustainable power creation, harvesting and re-generation comes from geothermal energy farming for wind power, hydroelectric stations, improved nuclear facilities, and solar energy technical equipment and researched materials usage. Assessments of best use efficiencies and highest benefit materials are a categorical index of foreign produced materials and alternate energy equipment, technology development, and services.
Many of this type of supply come from European vendors and countries better developed in alternate fuels and synthetic energy creation. France has pioneered some sophisticated nuclear plants, and Spain is poised to capitalize on other types of geothermal technology export. Americans concerned about the effect of foreign expenditure versus domestic stimulus effect have raised questions about using “American made” technology for the Recovery related spending projects.
While American goodwill abroad is a valuable currency, the American taxpayer already bears the brunt of foreign spending, loan programs abroad, financing forbearance, and varied international subsidies and trade deficits. The Stimulus and Recovery funds are arguably not intended to drive those dynamics of global finance further. But if foreign development equipment for ongoing sustainable living and energy development is the best available, American projects and programs planning are constrained by best practices to choose those materials.
