November 19th, 2008 
Tushar Mathur [It is very likely that over the next few years America will need to invest between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, and perhaps even greater amounts to revive the economy. The question is where this money will come from? Already the American economy is deeply indebted and likely to be more so in the coming years. There is a deep aversion to increased taxes in the United States and as such the willingness of foreigners to continue to underwrite the US debt will be severely tested in the coming years.
President-elect Obama has reaffirmed his commitment to a cap and trade system in the US and many leaders in Congress and elsewhere are calling for a “green” stimulus package. We know from past experience that ICT and broadband can have a direct and measurable impact on GDP growth of between 2-3% and that a number of studies have indicated that “true” broadband (ie symmetrical bandwidth in excess of 100 Mbps) can increase GDP by as much as 5%.
Investing in IT and Broadband would play to America’s strengths (where surprisingly it lags the rest of the world). IT and Broadband have a very small carbon footprint, with the potential to even become zero carbon, but whose economic leverage in terms of job creation and wealth and more importantly reducing CO2 emissions (up to 15%) is significantly greater than any other industry sector or green initiative such as alternate energy, public transportation etc
Cap and trade or carbon taxes/rewards has the potential of generating trillions dollars of revenue, based on the analysis of the Stern report in the UK. This is not money conjured out of the air or borrowed from international lenders – rather it is money that normally would be sent to oil rich states around the world and/or spent on wasted energy consumption. This money could easily cover the costs of a national broadband program, health care and other important social initiatives. And with carbon rewards consumers could see a direct benefit of cap and trade (or carbon tax) as traditional economic stimulus for these initiatives as opposed to the money flowing through government.
. Excerpts from an article in the Globe and Mail—BSA]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wgreen19/BNStory/National/home
Saving the economy and saving the planet at the same time were once considered two mutually incompatible goals. But not any longer.
A chorus of proposals from [..]think tanks and conservation organizations is suggesting that the best way to revive the faltering economy would be to finance solutions to pressing environmental problems.
Supporters are calling the idea “green stimulus.” They argue that directing new government expenditures to wind farms, solar panels, gas-sipping cars and mass-transit infrastructure, among other items, would give a far bigger boost to the economy than tax cuts or government rebates.
The environmental funding would have the side benefit of helping solve such problems as global warming by spurring the development of less-polluting energy sources and increased energy efficiency.
Those arguing for green spending contend that these programs are superior to tax rebates or tax cuts for consumers, the benefits of which tend to leak out of a country because some of the money is spent on imports.
Related Articles:
Posted in 
