My U.S. Infrastructure and Employment Plan 25 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It is a shame China beat the US in announcing a major infrastructure investment plan:
The spending announced today, of which 100 billion yuan is earmarked for this quarter, will cover low-rent housing, infrastructure in the rural areas, as well as roads, railways and airports, the State Council said. The government will also allow tax deductions for purchases of fixed assets such as machinery to stimulate investment, a move that will reduce companies' costs by an estimated 120 billion yuan.
The funds, equivalent to almost a fifth of China's $3.3 trillion gross domestic product last year, will be used by the end of 2010. The US has $14 trillion in GDP, so a $2.5 trillion package would be the equivalent.
US Infrastructure Plan
With a long term US infrastructure plan, the US will see immediate job creation and real wages start to rise again. Corporations will start seeing increases in revenues and profits. This plan will last about 5 years and create millions of jobs a year. Total 5 year cost will be about $2 trillion, or $400 billion a year. This infrastructure plan needs to be diverse so we just don't create construction jobs, but new jobs in every area of the economy. Here are the 5 US infrastructure mandates:
- Renewable energy development
- Power grid enhancements
- Housing redevelopment
- Highway and bridge construction
- Transportation - non oil based US vehicle fleet
This is not busy work or bridges to nowhere. The US has neglected its infrastructure for the past 15 years and is now losing its competitive abilities in a dynamic global economy. These 5 infrastructure projects will create immediate jobs.
Once the first $400 billion is funded and the bids go out the construction and engineering firms like Fluor Corp (FLR), Foster Wheeler (FWLT, GE, CAT, etc. will start creating new teams for these projects. These firms will hire engineers, IT specialists, project managers, project financial analysts, HR personnel etc. They will also need new computers loaded with software such as Auto-CAD, Oracle (ORCL), SAP, Vista, etc.
IT infrastructure orders will go to firms like EMC, Cisco (CSCO), IBM, and HP (HPQ). The US will see new orders for cranes, bulldozers, excavators, road building equipment, specialty tools, etc. These firms will start hiring again, reducing unemployment and increasing real medium wages in the US. Foreclosures will fall, consumer spending will increase, as will consumer sentiment.
The US needs a purpose, a mandate, a direction forward. This direction will be energy independence and leading the world into the renewable energy future. Importing oil from the Middle East must end in 5 years. This huge wealth and job transfer to foreign countries has crippled the US economy. The US can be the leader in solar, wind, bio-fuel and geothermal technologies, then sell these technologies to the rest of the world.
Renewable Energy Plan
I would prefer to see the US set up a per unit pollution taxation system with a 120% decrease in income taxation. This tax shift from income to polluting energy sources would help move the US to free competitive energy markets. With this tax shift the US would be putting the economic incentives in the right place and use much more efficient polluting energy sources and use more renewable sources. Individuals would not try to avoid or hide income. This tax shift program would reduce the federal deficit since we would not need subsidies for renewable energy and by broadening the tax base, allow for more efficient revenue collection for the US.
While the above tax shift would work over time, the US needs more immediate action for job creation. The renewable energy plan would be to convert the top 100 most inefficient, polluting power plants in the US to renewable and clean power plants. These most inefficient power plants should have been decommissioned many years ago.
Here is an informational article on the top 50 most polluting power plants in the US. When the clean air act was passed in 1970, The electric utility industry persuaded congress not to impose strict pollution controls on older power plants, because they promised these plants would be replaced by newer, cleaner plants.
These promises were never realized and now we are still stuck with these inefficient polluters. By converting the top 100 oldest, dirtiest power plants to solar, geothermal, wind, fuel cell, etc., the US would create many high paying jobs, huge investment into renewable and clean technologies and achieve much lower pollution levels.
Solar technology is finally starting to explode. Helped by new thin film solar manufacturing technologies, several solar firms can now produce solar power that is competitive with current utility grid pricing. Here is an article I wrote about solar economics.
Utility Grid Infrastructure
In 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy stated:
There is growing evidence that the U.S. transmission system is in urgent need of modernization. The system has become congested because growth in electricity demand and investment in new generation facilities have not been matched by investment in new transmission facilities. Transmission problems have been compounded by the incomplete transition to fair and efficient competitive wholesale electricity markets. Because the existing transmission system was not designed to meet present demand, daily transmission constraints or `bottlenecks' increase electricity costs to consumers and increase the risk of blackouts.
Now add into the picture large wind and solar power coming on-line over the next 10 years, with no grid infrastructure to support efficient distribution of these new power sources. Like funds for renewable energy, every dollar the US invests into the power grid has a large multiplier effect on the economy.
Millions of new high paying jobs will be created, increasing demand for these US industries: steel, natural gas, construction machinery, IT equipment, machine tools, cement, engineering, finance, etc. This huge increased in demand will lead to more jobs and higher wages in all these industries.
Housing Redevelopment
The US infrastructure plan will fund states to redevelop older, deteriorated residential neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have high foreclosure rates, high crime rates, and are causing financial hardships for cities, counties and states around the US. Many options exist with the proper funding.
This would involve converting these neighborhoods to job training centers, industrial parks, recreation facilities, renewable power plants, etc. As these new facilities are developed, local municipalities will finally start receiving tax revenues from these properties and now have the funds to cycle back into the community. This will also create jobs and increase wages.
Highway and Bridge
The 100 approach would work here as well. Replace the lowest rated 100 bridges with new bridges. Redesign and rebuild the 100 weakest metro transportation systems in the US. This work has been neglected for decades. These projects would create demand in the above industries mentioned, but also the construction industry would start hiring again.
Employment up, wages up, US GDP up, and revenues into the US treasury up. This is the way to reduce the federal deficit in the long run. In 5-7 years we could balance the federal budget.
Transportation Vehicle Fleet
Many have heard T. Boone Pickens talk about using natural gas for the US vehicle fleet. "It's cleaner, more efficient, cheaper, and we own it!" My article goes into more detail about implementing T. Boone's plan. In Utah, people are buying natural gas at the pump for under a dollar a gallon. The conversion kits to make your car or truck a natural gas vehicle cost about $1200. In 7 years we could move 50% of our vehicles onto natural gas and stop importing 500 billion dollars a year of foreign oil. This huge wealth transfer out of the US is severely hurting our economy.
A simple mandate could be as follows. By the year 2015, no new vehicles with oil based propulsion systems are sold in the US. By the year 2022, no vehicle oil based fuel at filling stations. During this time, the US could start a vehicle recycling program to help lower income drivers switch to the new vehicles. The first step is to have natural gas available throughout the US.
GM and Ford Reinvestment Plan
The US could save GM (GM) and Ford (F) with the mandate to convert to natural gas and battery technology. GM and Ford would install natural gas filling stations at all their dealerships with US investment. These dealerships would also sell and install the natural gas conversion kits and be certified by the government to do so.
This infrastructure fund would help car owners finance the conversions. The US could help GM and Ford build factories in the US to mass produce new trucks and cars with these new non-oil based propulsion systems.
This above plan would save the US auto firms without wasteful bailouts. This investment in the transition to new technologies would create millions of jobs. As solar and wind power is funded, natural gas would be more available for the transportation industry.
With new shale extraction technologies for natural gas, the US has over 100 years of fuel, even with the increase in demand from the US vehicle fleet. Instead of the US funding foreign countries with oil imports, we would tap into our own massive natural gas reserves creating millions of new high paying jobs in the process.
Infrastructure Blueprint
This is a blueprint for a plan, an infrastructure plan that will move the US forward and out of the current recession. The US infrastructure plan could take many other forms and directions. Now is the time for a national dialog on this subject. This blueprint focuses on energy independence, energy efficiency, middle class job creation and developing the new technologies that create high paying jobs for decades to come.
Disclosure: Author currently does not own any of the above mentioned firms.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 25 comments:
I would also add rail upgrades as well - take more of the trucks off the road and reestablish train travel (bullet trains anyone?) as a major mode of transportation.
I'm still bothered by the batteries though, they just don't seem ready yet. But LNG, absolutely. We've got LOTS of it here.
I hope the Obama team reads this article. A lot of good ideas here.
To really get economy going and insure future growth and worldwide competitiveness we must ad a legitimate energy policy and education-we need engineers, computer experts, people in math and physics related areas to compete in today's job market-this also includes re-education of people in workforce.
Cost of all this: Many added trillions to our national debt to do these things right-terrible inflation-lower living standard. But this is an investment in our future and will pay huge dividends-otherwise we become a third rate banana republic.
Natural gas, like hydrogen, is a blind alley for transportation. Neither solves the problems we have with oil. Convert to natural gas and in fifteen years we'll have to convert again. Convert to hydrogen and all you're doing is generating electricity and then wasting some of it making hydrogen. Pickens is only promoting the natural gas angle so much because he owns a load of companies in that sector, as Californian voters thankfully saw when they voted down props 7 and 10.
Electric cars are the future and all these stopgap measures do is keep the current oil infrastructure happy. It's a short term measure that will give us the same problems further down the road. Investing in electric trains and cars will be a far better longterm use of the cash.
The rest of it, I strongly agree with.
I'd also be watching PWR since someone has to do the transmission work....and ABB since someone has to supply the power grid equipment.
> ...There's a similar investment
> needed to build infrastructure for electric cars but the difference
> is that electricity is not dependent on a resource that could run
> out.
Some nice ideas in the article. I agree that electric is preferable to gas for passenger vehicles. The one area where a natural gas conversion might be useful would be for commercial and industrial vehicles. Currently, there simply aren't EV systems that will drive things like bulldozers, big trucks, cranes, etc. In fact, to his credit, I saw an interview Pickens did in which he basically conceded this point ... use electric for passenger fleet, but natural gas for commercial/industrial. The industrial vehicles don't need the same kind of fuel distribution system, so the infrastructure obstacles should be less (although commercial truck transport would, but to a lesser extent than passenger vehicles). It does not solve the problem long term, but buys some time using cleaner burning, more plentiful, and more locally produced fuel until an alternative (probably electricity-based?) solution can be developed to power the commercial/industrial transportation and construction sectors (and agriculture for that matter).
I would also echo those who suggest rail infrastructure improvements and expansion. Further, I would add light rail, trolley, subway, and other electrified rail transports, plus a major investment in develpment and use of electric bus systems. Without cheap oil, or wide-spread PHEV availability and adoption, suburban life and commutes become increasingly problematic. Some infrastructure money will need to be spent providing other commuting options. Could be electric rail, electric bus, etc., but something needs to be done or the cost to commute from suburbia will become prohibitive and will kill any long-term recovery.
As is now being advocated by Gordon Brown, UK, we need a global round of income tax cuts on workers and employers!!
Just imagine letting workers keep more of their own earned money, let them decide to pay of debt, let them make their mortgage payments, let them save for kids college and their own retirement.
Sorry, but thats where the economy needs to be turned, we can repair bridges, build new power stations, invent new fuels after the worlds economic crisis begins to fade.
The private sector is a much better place to leave their own income, rather than give more money to gov, the ones who steered the global economy off a cliff.
We need a global round of income tax cuts on all workers and employers, UK, USA, EU and Asia should all line up behind the solution that worked for 3 American Presidents, JF Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all used tax cuts to end economic downturns.
All the suggested infrastructure improvements require a heavy up-front investment in engineering. Speaking as a semi-retired engineer, I can attest that the US has an acute shortage of qualified engineers (plenty of lawyers and pseudo-environmentalis... though). The lead time to train and develop a qualified engineer is 10-15 years -- if you can find and motivate qualified candidates. What is our esteemed Congress doing to open up the H1B program so we can import more engineers?
Solar power at utility scale is a wacko idea, except maybe in the SW. Peak solar generation is near noon, while peak demand is after sunset. Likewise wind is OK when it blows, but the least capacity is near sunset. There are no viable technologies to store large amounts of off-peak energy for use at the time of peak demand. Sure, there are a few viable applications for solar or wind in remote off-grid areas at low power, but not for economic residential or industrial use.
As for replacing oil -- 80% of petroleum consumed in the US is for transportation - primarily passenger cars, but also trucks, trains, planes, etc. There are 200 million cars on the road in the US, and in a good year we have the capacity to produce and sell about 15 million. Given an optimistic lead time of 5 years to develop a car with new technology, we're looking at about 20 years to replace the US fleet - we'll need oil at near current volume for much of this time.
Are passenger trains a viable replacement for cars? Not until the US population changes the way it chooses to live. As long as our ideal is a place in the suburbs with an acre or two of lawn, or until we do much more tele-commuting, train service will continue to depend on heavy subsidies - even in the cities.
Hopefully we as a country (not just the powers in Washington, but also industry and the public at large) can evolve a plan that starts us on a path to energy independence. This goal will not be achieved in five years or even 10, and crash infrastructure programs without adequate engineering preparation will only waste resources and prolong the recession - just like what happened in the 1930s.
1) Renewable energy development
This one always sounds great - like it did in the Carter years. However, alternative energy just isn't economical yet. As an engineer I've studied some of these alternative energy projects and once you calculate the cost and efficiency of the entire plant it turns out to be more expensive than traditional sources of power. As for a polution tax, that will encourage the use of cleaner power but we'd just end up paying for it with higher power bills. How many energy intensive industries will chosse to remain in the U.S. when ultra-cheap coal power is available in China and elsewhere? How will that create "lots of high paying jobs". To initiate and maintain high levels R&D is a good thing, but a solar, wind, and geothermal infrastructure build-out is premature.
2) Power grid enhancements
An absolutely essential task. Our current electricity grid is stretched to the limit. This is truely a massive problem and needs immediate attention.
3) Housing redevelopment
After the worlds biggest residential building binge the idea of redeveloping neighborhoods in the inner city while entire tracks of houses sit vacant in the suburbs sounds crazy. Maybe all the suburbanites who lost thier homes because they couldn't pay thier mortgages will move back to these new redeveloped neighborhoods and buy these houses. Right..... The solution to a hangover is not another binge.
4) Highway and bridge construction
Here's another piece of badly undermaintained infrastructure. The amounts of money we should be spending here are in themselves a "stimulus package". The American Society of Civil Engineers estimate that to maintain our exististing transportation infrastructure and expand it to meet future demands will require $300B per year... for the next 50 years!
5) Transportation - non oil based US vehicle fleet
This is another good one, but the rapid change to non-oil based is going to take a long time. The electric part will probably happen first, but trying to choose which fuel should replace oil is just a little too statist for me. So is the idea of banning oil altogether. Perhaps the best way would be to develop an engine technology (for example a gas turbine engine) that could burn any type of gaseous or liquid fuel. That way we will never be at the mercy of a monopolistic transport fuel like we are with oil today.
6) Ford and GM Reinvestment Plan
Why don't we just merge Ford, GM, and Chrysler and call it "The Federal Department of Automobile Design and Manufacture", since this plan would essentially nationalize them. Now some of you "sticklers' will say that it's not actually nationalization, but let's get real. How "private" is an enterprise when the government funds it, tells it what to produce, and manages it's labor relations. When no one wants to buy these government mandated cars and trucks we just add it to the federal budget deficit. Problem solved! Meanwhile Honda, Toyota, and BMW, and others will come out with their own versions which people will actually want to buy, while the govenment will be subsidising these obsolete companies for years.
Thanks for the input. I also see the fast recharge electric engine as better than NG engines. NG would be the 10 year bridge to auto battery technology. The well to wheel efficiency is the best with electric.
Many others have seen solar, and wind as too expensive. This is not true. CSP(thermal) and new thin film CIGS solar technology are now at grid parity. Do your own due diligence, but this in not science fiction - but science fact.
Go to the NREL's web site to see some of the new technologies being developed as we speak. Also once we have cap n trade or pollution taxation - solar and wind will be the cheapest sources of grid electricity.
This plan is just a starting point for discussion. Many variations exist. These infra projects can only be done by the government. When it comes to the public good, or negative externalities - only the US can come in and help create free efficient markets.
Let keep the dialog going - send this plan or your version of an infrastructure plan to Obama's economic team. Ideas from the ground up seem to be the most powerful!
Right now we have to "bridge" ourselves to other energy sources, and it's a great idea to continue heavily funding research into alternative energy sources, something that past admininstrations failed to do. Wind and solar are not ready for primetime without subsidies. So rather than pick the winners why not open the field to all competitors? If biofuels can do it, go with biofuels, if nuclear can do it, go with nuclear, if tidal power is the answer, go with that. All will have thier benefits and their problems and each solution may be different depending on their location and environment. For right now we need to back the fastest things that will get us off oil, because if you think the last oil spike was bad just wait for the next one.
On Nov 11 01:59 PM kertch wrote:
> Interesting, but I've heard all these things before. There are some
> good ideas and some "less good" ideas.
>
> 1) Renewable energy development
> This one always sounds great - like it did in the Carter years. However,
> alternative energy just isn't economical yet. As an engineer I've
> studied some of these alternative energy projects and once you calculate
> the cost and efficiency of the entire plant it turns out to be more
> expensive than traditional sources of power. As for a polution tax,
> that will encourage the use of cleaner power but we'd just end up
> paying for it with higher power bills. How many energy intensive
> industries will chosse to remain in the U.S. when ultra-cheap coal
> power is available in China and elsewhere? How will that create "lots
> of high paying jobs". To initiate and maintain high levels R&D
> is a good thing, but a solar, wind, and geothermal infrastructure
> build-out is premature.
>
> 2) Power grid enhancements
> An absolutely essential task. Our current electricity grid is stretched
> to the limit. This is truely a massive problem and needs immediate
> attention.
>
> 3) Housing redevelopment
> After the worlds biggest residential building binge the idea of redeveloping
> neighborhoods in the inner city while entire tracks of houses sit
> vacant in the suburbs sounds crazy. Maybe all the suburbanites who
> lost thier homes because they couldn't pay thier mortgages will move
> back to these new redeveloped neighborhoods and buy these houses.
> Right..... The solution to a hangover is not another binge.
>
> 4) Highway and bridge construction
> Here's another piece of badly undermaintained infrastructure. The
> amounts of money we should be spending here are in themselves a "stimulus
> package". The American Society of Civil Engineers estimate that to
> maintain our exististing transportation infrastructure and expand
> it to meet future demands will require $300B per year... for the
> next 50 years!
>
> 5) Transportation - non oil based US vehicle fleet
> This is another good one, but the rapid change to non-oil based is
> going to take a long time. The electric part will probably happen
> first, but trying to choose which fuel should replace oil is just
> a little too statist for me. So is the idea of banning oil altogether.
> Perhaps the best way would be to develop an engine technology (for
> example a gas turbine engine) that could burn any type of gaseous
> or liquid fuel. That way we will never be at the mercy of a monopolistic
> transport fuel like we are with oil today.
>
> 6) Ford and GM Reinvestment Plan
> Why don't we just merge Ford, GM, and Chrysler and call it "The Federal
> Department of Automobile Design and Manufacture", since this plan
> would essentially nationalize them. Now some of you "sticklers' will
> say that it's not actually nationalization, but let's get real. How
> "private" is an enterprise when the government funds it, tells it
> what to produce, and manages it's labor relations. When no one wants
> to buy these government mandated cars and trucks we just add it to
> the federal budget deficit. Problem solved! Meanwhile Honda, Toyota,
> and BMW, and others will come out with their own versions which people
> will actually want to buy, while the govenment will be subsidising
> these obsolete companies for years.
Yes - exactly. The problem with "big solution" programs is that the powers that be become too attached to them. If they don't perform as expected there are too many careers, egos and dollars invested to pull the plug. Look what happened with the ethanol program. We also see this in the defense department. Billions spent on systems that never work, with billions more spent on trying to salvage them before someone finnally pulls the plug. Deciding on winners before the contest has begun is a costly but all too common mistake.
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have to read this. This seems to be right up his ally.
On Nov 11 08:44 AM buyitcheap wrote:
> A-@#($@*#-MEN!!!! Since we're going to have one regardless This is
> exactly the kind of WPA type program we need- first thing I would
> do though is replace all the transmission lines with composites which
> would yield an immediate 10-15% in available electrical supply previously
> lost to friction. China recognizes this and is deploying this material
> now.
>
> I would also add rail upgrades as well - take more of the trucks
> off the road and reestablish train travel (bullet trains anyone?)
> as a major mode of transportation.
>
> I'm still bothered by the batteries though, they just don't seem
> ready yet. But LNG, absolutely. We've got LOTS of it here.
>
> I hope the Obama team reads this article. A lot of good ideas here.
I will add that the main problem with a carbon tax or "tax shift" as Mr. Ellard advocates to compel a shift away from oil is that in the short term all this does is return gaspump prices to last summer and beyond to $5-6 per gallon and more. Arguably high pump prices triggered the subprime meltdown as overextended borrowers could not absorb the additional $300/month cost of filling up their car with $4/gallon gas to get to work.
40 million low income Americans already pay no income taxes so replacing income tax with a carbon tax is not revenue neutral to these people. Poor workers would have to be exempted or compensated and pretty soon you have 69000 pages of "carbon tax breaks" instead of 69000 pages of IRS tax code.
A carbon tax high enough to actually reduce oil use would have to be painful, and it could be 10 years or more before most people could convert to new non-oil energy sources, so a carbon tax will either be political poison or it will be rendered ineffective by the inevitable multitude of exemptions.
The same political problems arise while converting from cheap coal-fired power to more expensive alternatives. Assuming wind and solar eventually become technically viable (and without some major technological breakthroughs they will not, in the short to medium term, be viable at utilities scale, as rrbatch notes), either taxes (to fund subsidies) or electricity prices will have to increase to cover the increased power generation costs. Then we become California with rolling brownouts because consumers refuse to accept higher prices so politicians legislate below-cost pricing and suppliers don't build new plant so you run out of electricity.
Coal gasification, or 'clean coal', converts coal to a fuel that performs much like natural gas. The technology is ready for industrial scale commercialization but it costs more to build and run a clean coal plant vs regular coal, so without some kind of help like subsidies, or some kind of threat like a carbon tax, nobody is going to build clean coal instead of regular coal. In the short term clean coal electricity is viable where solar and wind are not, and the cost premium for clean vs regular coal is not large.
rrbatch also points out there aren't enough engineers available to rapidly ramp up infrastructure construction and rejuvenation. Nor can infrastructure builders like road, bridge and electrical grid contractors rapidly scale up their operations due to the lack of a pool of unemployed skilled labor and heavy equipment.
These factors all put limits on available supply so rapidly increasing demand would create a boom in this sector and contract bid prices would go ballistic. So infrastructure spending is necessary but it won't be a quick fix job. You're really talking about converting the US from a service economy back to a production economy, and that is a very big deal that will not happen overnight.
Tomas Martin points out that if America switches from gasoline to natural gas for the transportation fleet "peak natural gas" will happen sooner rather than later, though this conversion will help as an interim measure. Existing cars can be converted to natural gas or hybrid gasoline/electric in the short term as these cars live out their economic lifespan.
bmerson points out that EV does not work for large vehicles like trucks and heavy equipment. Even if the passenger fleet wholly converts to electric there will still be a need for diesel to fuel ships, trucks and other heavy transport. Diesel and aviation fuel are made from oil so the need for oil is not going to go away. But once the passenger fleet is off gasoline US domestic supplies of oil will probably be sufficient to fuel the aviation and heavy transport sectors.
Electric cars are almost certainly the future and I have high hopes that Detroit can become a world leader in this technology. A century ago gasoline fueled internal combustion beat out steam, electric and diesel to become the dominant engine technology. Henry Ford figured out how to make it affordable and mass produce it. We need Henry v.2.0 electric to lead the way again.
Derryl:
Thanks for your thoughts. The above is not correct - it is hard to give my full view in a small article. Here is more of my tax shift from my article I wrote for seekingalpha on the Pickens plan:
"To offset the regressive nature of consumption taxes, the US could change the wage tax structure. Currently, low income earners pay 15.3% SS wage tax, and since the tax stops at around 100K, high wage earners pay a much smaller %. A new structure could be the first 12K of w-2 with a zero SS tax rate, then 15% up to 150K of w-2 income. With the above consumption tax revenue, the income tax rates could be lower at all levels."
I also am not in favor of a carbon tax - but a tax on NOx, SOx, and mercury. Here is an article about the REAL cost to us citizens from pollution:
"The study, which examined the costs of air pollution in two areas with the worst levels in the country, also said meeting federal ozone and fine particulate standards could save $28 billion annually in health care costs, school absences, missed work and lost income potential from premature deaths."
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20...
Here is a link to a open letter to Obama published in the WSJ. Gives more detail on what can be done for roads.
betterusroads.com