Future Infrastructure budget cuts are inevitable – We must locate other means of investment to rebuild and innovate



Download 1.29 Mb.
Page14/32
Date19.10.2016
Size1.29 Mb.
#4191
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   32

Adv: Oil

Smart infrastructure is key to reducing energy dependence – the impact is military and economic leadership


Energy Security Leadership Council 2011 “Transportation Policies for America’s Future Strengthening Energy Security and Promoting Economic Growth” February 2011, General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.) 28th commandant, u.s. marine corps, Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president & ceo, fedex corporation.

Hostile state actors, insurgents, and terrorists have made clear their intention to use oil as a strategic weapon against the United States. Steadily rising global oil prices add to the danger by exacerbating tensions among consuming and producing nations. Even in the absence of fullblown geopolitical crises, oil dependence, with its incumbent exporting of American wealth, exacts a tremendous financial toll on our country. Excessive reliance on oil also constrains the totality of U.S. foreign policy and burdens a U.S. military that stands constantly ready as the protector of last resort for the vital arteries of the global oil economy. The Energy Security Leadership Council believes that America’s energy security can be fundamentally improved through major reductions in oil demand. More stringent fuel efficiency standards and the rapid expansion in the use of alternative fuels are just two critical components of an overall strategy. The third is our surface transportation infrastructure itself. Our transportation network exists almost in a vacuum, with virtually no connection between how it is designed, how it is funded, and how American families and businesses use it every day. The result is an inefficient system in which system needs are out of alignment with investment, cost is out of alignment with usage, and congestion is threatening to undermine the potential gains associated with recent improvements in vehicle technology and fuel diversification. We require a system based more closely on a true supply and demand model, in which assets are allocated based on needs, and costs are aligned with use, helping to restore the mobility upon which our dynamic economy depends.

Oil shocks empirically collapse growth—Kill consumption and spike inflation


Roubini and Setser 2004

(Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Business, Brad Setser, Research Associate, Global Economic Governance Programme, University College, Oxford, August 2004, online)



Oil prices shocks have a stagflationary effect on the macroeconomy of an oil importing country: they slow down the rate of growth (and may even reduce the level of output – i.e. cause a recession) and they lead to an increase in the price level and potentially an increase in the inflation rate. An oil price hike acts like a tax on consumption and, for a net oil importer like the United States, the benefits of the tax go to major oil producers rather than the U.S. government. The impact on growth and prices of an oil shock depends on many factors: - The size of the shock, both in terms of the new real price of oil and the percentage increase in oil prices. At its close of $43 a barrel on July 30, 2004, the current real price of oil is high – well above the levels during the 1990 and 2000 oil minishocks, but it remains well below the peak real oil price of $82 in 1980, and equal to the post 73 real price of $43. The recent 65% increase in oil prices (since the 2002 average price) 3 is comparable to the increase in 2000 (60%, but from a very low starting point, as oil prices had fallen to a low of around $15 in 1999), higher than the increase in 1990 (40%), but much smaller than the increases in 1973 (210%) and 1979-80 (135%). - The shock’s persistence. This will depend on many things, many as much political as economic, since the current high oil price reflects both booming Asian demand (China alone is expected to account for roughly 40% of the increase in demand for oil in 2004) and geopolitical risk in the Middle East (the “fear premium” estimated to add between $4 and $8 to current prices). - The dependency of the economy on oil and energy. The U.S. economy is much less energy intensive than it was in the 1970s, but it also much bigger and produces comparatively less domestic oil. Net oil imports of 1.2% of GDP in 2003 are higher than net oil imports of 0.9% of GDP in 1970. - The policy response of monetary and fiscal authorities These effects are not trivial: oil shocks have caused and/or contributed to each one of the US and global recessions of the last thirty years. Yet while recent recessions have all been linked to an increase in the price of oil, not all oil price spikes lead to a recession. The 2003 spike associated with the invasion of Iraq is a good example.

Ext:

An IB would ensure energy independence projects are funded.


McConaghy and Kessler 2011

Ryan, Policy Director at Whitehouse and Jim, professor Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, A National Infrastructure Bank, Third Way, January 2011, http://www.bernardlschwartz.com/political-initiatives/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_A_National_Infrastructure_Bank-1.pdf



America’s infrastructure policy has been signi!cantly hampered by the lack of a national strategy rooted in clear, overarching objectives used to evaluate the merit of specific projects. The politicization and lack of coordination of the process has weakened public faith in the ability of government to effectively meet infrastructure challenges. In polling, 94% of respondents expressed concern about America’s infrastructure and over 80% supported increased federal and state investment. However, 61% indicated that improved accountability should be the top policy goal and only 22% felt that the federal government was effective in addressing infrastructure challenges. 36 As a stand-alone entity, the NIB would address these concerns by selecting projects for funding across sectors based on broadly demonstrated need and ability to meet defined policy goals, such as economic bene!t, transportation based energy independence, improved health and safety, ef!ciency, and return on investment

An infrastructure bank is key to greentek


Joyce Miller, partner with Kaminski Partners LLC, a newly formed merchant bank and advisory, where she is Managing Director for Infrastructure and Energy. “The Sad Story Of The National Infrastructure Bank” December 01, 2011, http://www.sallan.org/Snapshot/2011/12/the_sad_story_of_the_national_infrastructure_bank_1.php

The infrastructure bank's ability to provide a long-term source of capital at a lower interest rate than commercial loans, reducing the average cost of capital for the projects and the amount of their periodic debt service payments thereby increases their feasibility. The revenue streams from infrastructure projects, which are used to cover debt service and operating costs, are usually derived from user fees such as tolls, fares and charges for use and these must be kept affordable. Infrastructure projects generally cannot support a high cost of capital because they cannot generate sufficient revenues to cover high debt service payments and still be affordable to users. The bank would be an innovative way to incentivize private investment in new infrastructure projects, especially for new alternative energy and energy efficiency projects. It would blast away the sector silos created by existing legislation and agency priorities, which erect major barriers to creative alternative energy infrastructure projects because they force projects into narrowly defined sectors such as energy, water, transportation and agriculture. In turn, this would facilitate cross-sector projects - for example conversion of municipal solid waste into biodiesel fuel which could reduce reliance on fossil fuel for transportation or generating electricity, or the use of agricultural water reservoirs to generate power for local use by covering them with microfiber covers embedded with photovoltaic cells (PV) which could generate solar power as well as conserve water by reducing evaporation. Covering reservoirs with PV generators would also cut the distance over which power is transmitted, increasing available power, and reduce costs and demand on the grid.


More efficient transportation sector will save 1.9 billion gallons of fuel


Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers 2012, “A New Economic Analysis Of Infrastructure Investment” Department Of The Treasury With The Council Of Economic Advisers. MARCH 23, 2012 = http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/news/Pages/03232012-infrastructure.aspx

A more efficient transportation infrastructure system will reduce our dependence on oil, saving families time and money. Traffic congestion on our roads results in 1.9 billion gallons of gas wasted per year, and costs drivers over $100 billion in wasted fuel and lost time. More efficient air traffic control systems would save three billion gallons of jet fuel a year, translating into lower costs for consumers. Finally, new research indicates that Americans who were able to live in “location efficient” housing were able to save $200 per month in lower costs, including paying less at the pump, over the past decade.




Download 1.29 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   32




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page