Dear EarthTalk: What is the “Green Scissors” campaign, which I understand can help the environment and has support from both liberals and conservatives?—Jeff Nickson, Butte, Mont.

The Green Scissors Campaign was launched in 1994 as a partnership between the environmental group Friends of the Earth (FoE) ad budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) to call attention to subsidies and programs that both harm the environment and waste taxpayer dollars—and which should be cut accordingly. The campaign has been issuing reports since 1996 detailing how Congress can cut specific programs to save money and the environment.

For the most recent report, Green Scissors 2012, the two organizations were joined by free market think tank R Street, which was started by former staffers of the libertarian Heartland Institute (previously a Green Scissors partner). This unlikely trio that spans the political spectrum left to right identifies some $700 billion in wasteful and environmentally harmful programs that could be scrapped over the next decade. Such savings would amount to almost two-thirds of the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts Congress is required to make beginning in 2013 under the terms of last year’s Budget Control Act.

“It is perverse that we are staring down the barrel of budget cuts that will lead to dirtier drinking water as we reward corporations with tens of billions of dollars a year to poison the public,” said Benjamin Schreiber, tax analyst with FoE.  “We need to take the common sense solution of saving money by ending environmentally harmful spending.”

The proposed cuts include $269.78 billion from energy programs, including $158.7 billion of fossil fuel subsidies; $167.09 billion of agricultural subsidies, including $89.82 billion of federal crop insurance disaster aid; $212.02 billion of transportation subsidies, including $125.80 billion of general revenue transfers to the Highway Trust Fund; $101.8 billion of federal flood, crop and nuclear insurance subsidies; and $24.99 billion from wasteful or environmental damaging public lands and water projects. Given the collaborative nature of the Green Scissors campaign, only those programs that FoE, TCS and R Street agreed were both wasteful and environmentally harmful were included on the list of recommended cuts.

“As lawmakers argue over what to do about the enormous deficit and looming automatic budget cuts, we have come together to present them with almost $700 billion in cuts,” said Ryan Alexander, president of TCS. “Whether it’s getting rid of high-risk energy loan guarantees, reining in wasteful crop insurance or ending lucrative oil and gas tax breaks, eliminating wasteful spending that harms the environment just makes sense.”

“Taxpayers want Congress to stop bickering and get cutting,” adds Alexander. “Green Scissors shows them where to start.” Those interested in finding out more specifics can download the entire Green Scissors 2012 report for free in PDF form from the campaign’s website.

CONTACTS: Green Scissors Campaign, www.greenscissors.com; FoE, www.foe.org; TCS, www.taxpayer.net; R Street, www.rstreet.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

7 Comments

1. 1. sethdayal 12:47 PM 9/21/12

   What nuclear insurance subsidy? There is no such thing.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. marclevesque 01:11 PM 9/21/12

   In substance, if owners of a nuclear plant had to pay the full costs of insurance they would not be in the nuclear business.
   
   "Does the US Subsidize Nuclear Power Insurance?"
   http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/papers/briefs/policybrief_jan02.pdf
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Indirect_nuclear_insurance_subsidy

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. MiddleAmericaMS 02:35 PM 9/21/12

   Unfortunately conservatives do NOT support cutting fossil fuel subsidies, despite the industry making record profits.
   
   :(
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jerryd 03:27 PM 9/21/12

   
   Oil gets $600B/yr in military protection and cost of balance of payment costs in our taxes not to mention pollution, etc costs.
   
   Coal kills 30k/yr and 150k hospitalizations plus destroying much air, water, land the taxpayer ends up paying for. Please include these costs in there cost and the other subsidies won't be needed.
   
   On coal tought the damage is getting less because so much less is used now but still costs way too much.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. dwbd in reply to marclevesque 12:13 PM 9/22/12

   Nope, you're wrong. Nuclear is better insured than any industry in the USA. Who paid the >$1 trillion that 9/11 cost? The airlines - Nope. Even the Airbus 380 - basically a flying targetable nuclear bomb has insurance liability of $1 billion. Funny how you have no problem with that. Nuclear has an insurance pool in the USA of $12B, no other industry can claim that. What is the insurance pool on Hydro which has caused the biggest energy disasters in history, in one case killed 230,000 people? Answer Nil - 100% public insured. What is the liability on Carbon Capture and storage, quite capable of wiping out an entire city? Answer Nil - 100% public insured. What is the insurance pool on LNG tankers? Any self-respecting terrorist could hijack one, release the contents into the sewer of a major city and wipe out the entire city.
   
   The facts on Nuclear Insurance:
   
   www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html
   
   atomicinsights.com/2012/01/real-story-about-nuclear-plant-liability-insurance.html
   
   www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html
   
   And tell us marclevesque why does the fossil fuel industries get 100% liability protection on the ~30-50,000 people they kill each year in the USA due to pollution, and ~ 3 million people worldwide each year, and 100% liability protection for all the $trillions in damage for Climate Change effects?
   
   How about a liability credit for Nuclear for all the pollution related deaths, Climate Change effects, Oil War costs & Military costs avoided, Economy Destroying Foreign Job losses benefits due to expensive fossil fuel imports, avoidance of Terrorist funding Oil & Gas imports from the Middle East and Peak Oil worldwide economic catastrophe avoiding benefits?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Jeigh 05:55 PM 9/23/12

   Anytime one reads anything by an environmentalist that says it will save tax payers money, you automatically know it's a lie.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. marclevesque in reply to dwbd 02:44 PM 10/22/12

   I was wondering about @1.Sethdayal's question: "What nuclear insurance subsidy? [the author mentioned in the article] There is no such thing." and I found and posted two links that I think speak to the question.
   
   Did you read the Geoffrey Rothwell's article I linked to? I think he might be agreeing with some parts of your comment on the nuclear industry.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this