$719K to cut greenhouse gases, and $714K for roads to burn more greenhouse gases....

Well put, Paul D.!

And a big THANK YOU to all the working people who are (un)willingly reducing your paychecks through taxation to pay for all this stimulation.

I agree. Well put Paul D. I say turn down the money and send it back to Washington to pay off the debt.

Um, the 3 versions of Paul D all realize that better roads cut down on emissions, right?

I think it's an interesting point, because our idea of stimulating the economy comes with increased greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in this paradox.

The New Yorker just ran a great commentary about it here:
Web Link

Here's a representative quote from it that kind of speaks to Paul D's point:

"...the world’s principal source of man-made greenhouse gases has always been prosperity. The recession makes that relationship easy to see: shuttered factories don’t spew carbon dioxide; the unemployed drive fewer miles and turn down their furnaces, air-conditioners, and swimming-pool heaters; struggling corporations and families cut back on air travel; even affluent people buy less throwaway junk. Gasoline consumption in the United States fell almost six per cent in 2008. That was the result not of a sudden greening of the American consciousness but of the rapid rise in the price of oil during the first half of the year, followed by the full efflorescence of the current economic mess."

At the same time, Don, improving technology, legislating emissions controls, etc, are to a large degree (for lack of a better word) luxuries. The Obama administration has-- unfortunately but appropriately-- toned down their environmental agenda for obvious reasons. In tough times, people are less likely to retire the old emission-belching car in favor of a cleaner-burning car-- as we know, even the SUV of today dumps less crud in the air than its predecessor of 10 years past.

True, an idle factory spews no pollution. But a struggling factory is less likely to upgrade equipment.

I have a hard time accepting the premise that there isnt a greater potential environmental benefit to a strong economy.

Why doesn't Mountain View try synchronizing the traffic lights, like they do in New York City? The less often cars have to stop, the less gas they burn.

Unfortunately, but predictably, the Obama administration is throwing massive amounts of taxpayer money to increase the size of government. Instead of increasing general expenses, that money could have been used for investments in infrastructure assets that would have a lasting value and could even generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. Money spent now on wind and solar farms, geothermal, and other green energy sources would create good, long-term, living-wage, union construction jobs. It is a win-win for the economy, for workers, and for the environment.

I agree, though, that spending money that we don't have just to replace existing equipment with the same but slightly greener equipment is not a big win and is not likely to happen now.