Even if all we got was a massive nuclear program, at least that would prep the grid for supporting a shift to plug-in electric hybrids, and eliminating our dependence on hydrocarbon-based fuels.

And yes, I know the tricky aspects to nuke programs, and I don't think Yucca Mountain is the solution. But I do know that we're getting a lot better at safely storing depleted waste, and that there is also potential for using depleted waste in other energy-producing projects.

With that said, the Obama '08 campaign wants to increase federal funding for truly green energy research, with with hope of increasing innovation and competition for domestic solar/wind/geothermal/hydrogen markets. THAT would be a truly Green New Deal, in a manner that keeps us technologically competitive with the European market.

The New Deal had many component parts and agencies, each focused on a variety of projects and objectives, and a far from monolithic enterprise. Parts of it were found unconstitutional and had to be recast after delays.

Most of what you focus on was work done by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). There was the USDA work to prevent farm erosion, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Rural Electrification which lifted millions of farmers out of poverty. It's truly an enormous list of activities and accomplishments.

One distinction today is that we don't have enormous, widespread unemployment providing a ready source of inexpensive labor, and we don't have a universal economic collapse that makes people open to substantial shift in national expenditure and investment policy. Instead we've been investing in the Iraq war, to our long term detriment.

We could certainly emulate many of the New Deal's goals with much less of the difficult work of setting up the programs and gaining political support. Redirecting a few percent of military expenditure could be transformative for many industries and areas of the country, and provide us with far better actual security.
=== author's response follows ===
With aaround 3% of the US urban population in jail and functional unemployment plus "under-employment" far worse than the officially recognized employment stats, an argument can be constructed that increased self esteem and keeping people off the streets by having them perfom work that society benefits from, plus getting folks back in touch with nature, makes for perfect conditions for a new "tree planting army."

I read this article that actually called for a nationally supported communtiy service initiative, and I think a green initiative and community service initiative could go hand and hand. Especially at the level of community gardens and development of community spaces.

the first new deal was such a disaster leading to the imperial presidency and a much longer depression than we would have had otherwise, not sure if a second one would be a good idea.

== authors' response follows ===
Could you please offer a link to a peer reviewed economics study or opinion from an acknowledged expert which supports the idea that the depression was lengthened by the New Deal. A person not associated with a modern day Think Tank would be best.

Anon's post loses all credibility when it refers to the birth of the "imperial presidency". I doubt we will get any clarification on the nonsensical post.

This is something I've thought about, though admittely not in great detail, and I have mixed feelings.

On the surface it seems great: strengthening the economy while simultaneously restoring some of the Earth's natural beauty.

But upon further thought, I don't think it's something I can really get behind.

First of all, I don't want to strengthen the economy (particularly this economy). We live in a different world today than in 1933; in the US alone the population has grown by nearly 250% and our current economy is much more growth-oriented than it was 75 years ago. While there is good to be done by replanting trees, protecting "undeveloped" areas, enacting new programs and new laws to protect natural resources, it seems that those positives will be quickly forgotten once the booming growth economy is re-energized.

Moreover, I actually live in a neighborhood that was, when we moved here, a few hundred acres of nearly-solid pine trees planted by the CCC. Upon first moving here in 1992 the neighborhood was perhaps 80-90% tree-covered, but in the 16 years since almost all trees have been cut down. The entire area probably has roughly a quarter of the original trees. In relation to what I've said above, it appears to me that all of the positive changes that could be made will inevitably be reversed; just as our trees have been cut down, the trees across the nation will follow.

In order to avoid a cyclic rebuilding and collapsing of nature, society, the economy, etc., I think we actually need to crash pretty hard this time around. If we're lucky we'll learn a lesson and stop depleting the land every chance we get; if we're not we'll keep doing what we're doing until eventually Mother Earth says "Enough!" We don't need the economy to thrive; we need to learn a lesson.

With all of that said, I don't expect it to happen, anyways. Being that the world has changed so much since the first Great Depression, and since politics are so different, I simply can't see this being enacted by any US administration. America's hand is stuck in the cookie jar of foreign affairs quite tight, so I don't think anyone will pay much attention until it's far too late. As it is it seems the only in-house issue that's addressed is The Economy™, and I find it deeply depressing that environmentalism is essentially synonymous with Global Warming. At least people are correctly referring to it as climate change nowadays, but still, it's far from being the only issue at hand. If anything I can see a New Deal–like system being implemented at the hands of private organizations, but not by the US government.
=== author's response follows ====
Government is the largest single land holder.

And you seem to have overlooked the green jobs factor.

Economic runaway growth does not have to be incentivized.

"and we don't have a universal economic collapse that makes people open to substantial shift in national expenditure and investment policy."

Not yet, but we're certainly headed down that path with the mortgage crisis and rising fuel costs(due to peak oil?).

Will it get as bad as the Great Depression? That's tough to answer, but the future isn't so bright I gotta wear shades.

tTo disagree with Anonymous's post is to basically say we can "spend beyond our means" to save ourselves.

Their are numerous examples of how this doesn't work in history and economics.

Where does the money for the new deal II come from? Taxes? We already as a nation spend more than we take in in taxes.

So who wants more inflation, raise your hand?

IMHO, Oil price are consistently rising because of a number of factors, mainly Chinese and Indian demand, market uncertainty etc... Because of the exploitation of hitherto uneconomic oil resources (heavy oil, very deep water), Peak-Oil has -for now- been moved back a couple of years (say 2020)

I feel I have to agree with what Tony states above, namely the only way power-drunk America will learn to step out of the viscious cycle it has gotten itself in, is probably by hitting rock bottom. Which isn't far off: Subprime, Alan Greespan and the Neo-Cons strayed so far from economic fundamentals that they've thrown the country into a recession which will probably spiral into depresssion (at least in my opinion) and before the Economy recovers Peak-Oil will be upon us, followed right afterwards by a Climate crisis...
Or maybe i'm just beeing gloomy!

Though the New Deal may have offered "hope,' many economists believe it also extended the great depression for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Conflicting_interpretation_of_the_New_Deal_economic_policies

It also trampled on so many constitutional rights and freedoms, that FDR had to threaten to pack the supreme court to get many of his programs passed.
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c11.html

Would you rather have ten years of economic boom and the preservation of constitutional rights? Or hiking paths?

The articles in Treehugger itself bely a green revolution happening right now without the need of politicized government "help," and that gives me much more hope than a new government program funded with my "voluntary" tax "donations"

After all, who would you rather have running your program, the people who brought you the Iraq War and earmarks? Or the people who brought you the X-prize and Open Source Software?
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

re Coocha

DOE studies have already shown that we have more than enough power capacity at night to replace all cars in the US with electric!

What the US is doesn't have enough of is Peak power - that 1pm hump where all homes and offices have their equipment and air conditioning running full bore.

It turns out that only solar power provides the most energy exactly when we need it most.

Big stand alone PV panel installs are silly because putting them on the roof not only avoids the 7% transmission loss but also, the sun you catch was the sun that was overheading your house in the first place, so you get double duty.

If it was up to me, every *new* roof with solar exposure in AZ/NV/NM/soCal/TX would be required to be solar.