Sooooo, the EPA does more than monitor and regulate environmental abuses, superfund sites, enforce the clean air and water acts, and monitor climate change. They also run the Energy Star program.
According to The Washington Post and other sources, a new White House proposal would kill the highly successful ENERGY STAR program. Hoteliers of all political parties should be concerned about this possibility. The ENERGY STAR is clearly a program worth fighting for.
According to Kateri Callahan, President of the Alliance to Save Energy, “ENERGY STAR is a hugely successful program—the most successful public-private partnership we’ve ever had, with more than 16,000 companies and organizations participating. To pull the rug out from under it is just beyond short-sighted. ENERGY STAR is giving American consumers literally billions of dollars in savings on energy bills while significantly cutting pollution. It’s sparking innovation in electronics, appliances, and building construction. It is an incredible success story that should be celebrated, not cast aside.”
Is ENERGY STAR expensive? Certainly not. Energy Star spends about $50 million through the EPA and $7 million through the Department of Energy, one report says. Since its inception, according to ENERGY STAR, it has saved consumers an estimated $430 billion on utility bills and avoided 2.7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. An outstanding return on investment!
It seems the White House proposal to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 24 percent and eliminate 38 of its programs would kill the Energy Star program.
The winners in the current system are the 16,000 partners to the program who often provide high end services and products where Energy Star provides a way to set them apart and enables these companies to make money.
What reason would there be to eliminate a program that costs $50 million and gives back $460 billion, while improving the environment? The tiny bits of money that are gained by slashing the EPA, NEA, NEH, and other programs are so small that the cost of protecting the First Lady as she stays in NYC outweighs all of the cuts together.*
What we need to do, is see who gains from eliminating regulation of the environment (Energy Star provides a very public demonstration of concern, so if we eliminate that…). Oil. Gas. The Koch Brothers… Oh, right, I guess we do know who wins, but almost all of the rest of us lose.
You have congress people. Call them. Lobby them to stop these ridiculous cuts.
- In regards to the First Lady, I am not calling on her to change her choices – kids come first and if she wants him to finish the school year there, good on her. But the hypocrisy of the President to then claim to want to “save money” by cutting these tiny programs…well, then.