Government subsidies in green energy are investment in our future

America is no stranger to government subsidies. Each year, the US government pays out more than $20 billion to keep farm products, such as corn and wheat, selling at a low price. Individual cities also subsidize sports stadiums so that the teams stay in the city. Even back during the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt paid farmers to produce less crops in order to fight disastrous deflation. Though there is much argument as to whether the government should even partake in “corporate welfare” in the first place, one of the industries where the government should certainly increase its presence is the green energy sector.

There is no question that global warming is a huge issue for the world. With the world seeing some of its hottest years on record, and 97 percent of scientists believing in man-caused climate change, this is a huge issue that we, as a people, need to address. Unfortunately, private investment in new industries (such as green energy) can often be risky and deterring for entrepreneurs. Moreover, current costs of green energy can often be seen as too high for the population to embrace. As a result, it falls squarely to the government to promote and fund green energy initiatives in our country. No, not because it may be financially lucrative, because at the beginning green-energy investment may not be. Instead, America needs to make these investments to protect the posterity of our planet.

{mosads}Fortunately, some U.S. states have taken steps to subsidize the green energy industry, and even the federal government has passed initiatives to make green energy more affordable. In 2005, the US passed the Solar Investment Tax Credit, which reimburses those that purchase solar panels by up to 30 percent. This has brought down the barrier of entry for green energy substantially. Unfortunately, the Solar Investment Tax Credit is set to expire at the end of 2016. Without a cooperative Congress and a progressive president, investment in solar energy could plummet if the tax credit expires.

The Vermont senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I) has already lead the charge on making green energy more affordable and accessible to regular Americans. After all, the majority of Americans believe in man-made global warming, but many simply cannot afford to take the steps necessary to combat it. Earlier this year, Sanders introduced legislation, titled the “Low Income Solar Act,” to make solar energy more affordable than ever to those that are least likely able to afford it. The Low Income Solar Act would provide more than $200 million for the Department of Energy to parcel out in the form of loans and grants to low-income families to help offset the upfront costs of “going solar.” This money could also be used to help solar projects for public housing and other community facilities. In theory, selling off excess energy produced with these solar initiatives could be used to fund more loans and grants.

Critics of green-energy subsidies cite the fact that President Obama signed into law more than $100 billion in funding for renewable energy with his 2009 stimulus package, which went to several companies that eventually went out of business. Solar company Solyndra, for example, received more than $500 million in loans from the stimulus, but was unable to pay these loans back after going bankrupt in 2011. In total, nearly three dozen companies that received funding from the government for green energy ended up going bankrupt.

However, these numbers shouldn’t scream “the U.S. shouldn’t invest in green energy.” In fact, it says quite the opposite. There were actually quite a few successes from the stimulus funding. From 2008 to 2010, for example, wind power production increased by 60% in the United States. The stimulus also created 720,000 jobs in the green energy sector. What does this information tell us? Solar investment is risky. So risky, in fact, that most private corporations would not necessarily want to risk investment. Sure, there are wonderful payoffs, but perhaps not enough to pique the interest of the business class. It is paramount to understand that government investment in green energy isn’t necessarily a matter of being profitable, because it won’t necessarily be profitable in the short term. Instead, this is an investment into the future of green energy and the fight against global warming.

The U.S. has quite the history of subsidizing industries to help the entirety of America. Why not move that philosophy into the 21st century?

Pales is a student at Michigan State University and a board member for the National College Students for Bernie Sanders Journalism Committee.