Gallery: New Congress Majority Plans $100 Billion in Budget Cuts, Slash...


The United States House Appropriations Committee — a committee that helps determine government spending — emerged from a closed door meeting yesterday with a proposed $100 billion in government spending cuts, much of which would slash spending in renewable energy technology at a time when the President believes it is the key to a prosperous future. The cuts focus a large amount of their ire on green energy, slashing 20% of the Department of Energy budget, 35% from the budget for Efficiency and renewable energy technology programs, one fifth of the budget for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability — which manages our grid systems — and 18% from the Office of Science, the largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States.

Read the rest of this entry »


or your inhabitat account below


  1. caeman February 11, 2011 at 9:23 am

    WBrooke, the cuts are only considered “not shared” because of a bias in the reporting of the cuts. This web site is about green tech, renewables, etc. Any reporting here is going to have that slant. Thus why I stated that any area is going to feel that their cut is inappropriate, or unfair.

    You should read up on how international corporations work. Those are the richest companies you are thinking of, and they are taxed based on the Headquarters. Guess where they prefer to have their official headquarters? Countries with no corporate tax. That is the way international law works.

  2. chris f February 11, 2011 at 1:07 am

    of course subsidies for fossil fuels is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as spending hundreds of billions of dollars and institute economy-crippling laws in order to theoretically reduce carbon from the atmosphere which will accomplish NOTHING. anybody with half a brain can see it’s a total scam, “bu bu but, it’s for the right reasons” bs, if they spent a tenth of that money preserving habitat it would be the best thing to happen to the environment since amino acids

  3. WBrooke February 10, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    I don’t quite understand your arguement, caeman. The story indicates that funding cuts were not shared across the board. Renewable energy and “green” tech took the highest hit while fossil fuels continue to be subsidized.

    If you are arguing for a levelized playing field then wouldn’t eliminating tax breaks for the richest corporations on the planet (oil/gas/coal companies) do just that? And wouldn’t the tax revenue generated go further to paying off the debt than eliminating renewable energy projects?

    And if rich people start buying *American* electric cars then that is good for the economy, not bad.

    I think this policy locks America into old technology.

  4. caeman February 10, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    In every area where money gets cut, the same complaints will happen, “But my area is important!” The cuts need to be shared across the board for real cost reductions. When the economy has fully recovered and the debt under control, then we can increase funds for helping rich people buy electric cars.d

get the free Inhabitat newsletter

Submit this form
popular today
all time
most commented
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Federated Media Publishing - Home