Green Energy

ANOTHER Hostage-Taking Threat To Shut Down Government!

Dave Johnson — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:52:49 -0400

Just weeks after the "debt-ceiling" hostage-taking, forcing trillions to be cut out of the economy, the hostage-takers are at it again. Now they are threatening a government shutdown, demanding even more cuts in the "continuing resolution" that keeps the government operating. This time they even want to cut the disaster-relief spending that helps people hit by wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters.

The current government funding runs out September 30. 48 House Republicans voted Wednesday against a bill to fund the government at levels agreed to in the last hostage deal, demanding even further cuts. So the bill failed to pass. Then Thursday night (Friday morning in DC) the House passed a new version of the bill bill that is insulting and unacceptable to Senate Democrats. In particular it cuts disaster spending and green-energy efforts. Furthermore, this budget resolution only funds the government through November 18, setting up for another hostage-taking in November.

Leading up to the Thursday night follow-up vote, TPM reported, GOP Ups Ante Big Time In Government Shutdown Fight,

Instead of cutting a deal with Democrats to keep the government funded, and re-up FEMA's disaster aid fund, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is trying to build support by dangling carrots before reluctant Republicans and whacking Democrats with sticks.

[...] If the CR passes tonight, Senate Democrats will have to decide whether to dig in, as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised, or to fold. Senate Dems want more disaster aid than the House bill provides, and they don't want to help Republicans establish a precedent of using disasters as leverage to force partisan budget cuts. But they don't want a shutdown either.

Thursday Night's Vote

The House voted again Thursday night, passing the bill, but Republicans added language intended to embarrass the Obama administration and insult Democrats in an effort to make them vote against it so they can later claim Democrats are responsible for any shutdown. Now the bill must be passed by the Senate, and then any differences between the House and Senate must be resolved before funding runs out September 30, so Republicans feel they have hostage-taking leverage once again. The Senate wants a "clean" bill, with no poison-pill additions like the ones the House added. The House version, with cuts that go even beyond the results of the last hostage-taking, remains very far from what the Senate can pass.

So this will come down to the wire. Again. And the public's faith in government will be further eroded. And the economy will take yet another hit as our government's paralysis is even more apparent.

A NY Times story written before the final vote, For Restless Lawmakers, Accord Proves Elusive, explains,

A small but determined group of conservative Republicans on Wednesday again defied their leaders and brought down a bill to keep the federal lights on after Sept. 30 because it did not meet their demands to make deeper spending cuts.

House Democrats fed up by the Republicans’ past refusal to compromise and outraged over the handling of disaster aid (something some Republicans also did not like) responded with their own hard-line tactics, refusing to supply Republican leaders with the votes they needed to pass the must-pass measure, leaving the government on the brink of yet another shutdown.

Earlier Marketplace ran a segment, On the brink of government shutdown -- again, explaining,

This has already played out -- and been narrowly averted -- twice this year. Now, lawmakers are paralyzed over how to pay for disaster relief. Congress is on recess next week. So if there's no agreement over this weekend, the federal lights go out on October 1st. Which has businesses wondering and worrying anew whether total government dysfunction is now the new normal.

A Los Angeles Times editorial, Government by brinkmanship, says, "House Republican leaders are managing the budget process in a way that sets up one artificial crisis after another. That's no way to govern."

So ... we'll see. One more hostage-taking, more money taken out of the economy, more government employees laid off, more paralysis as the world economic crisis deepens, all so the Republicans will be able to point to a bad economy in the next election.

The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal

Dave Johnson — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:07:02 -0400

Well here's a surprise: conservatives and oil interests are pushing deceptive and destructive stories about President Obama and clean energy. Imagine that! Their intent (as always) is to turn people against President Obama, clean energy, national energy policy, stimulus to help the economy, and government in general. It's what they do. Here is some information to help you push back on the latest whipped-up, anti-green, anti-government, anti-Obama "scandal."

Solyndra

Solyndra was a startup solar-power equipment manufacturer based in Fremont, California that went bankrupt at the end of August. The company's solar collectors used a special tubular internal design that let it collect light from all directions, and were made with a copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin film that avoided using then-expensive silicon. It was one of several companies that received assistance from the government, in an attempt to push back on China's strategic targeting of green-energy manufacturing.

The company, partly backed by the conservative Walton family had received a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan, which was originally pushed by the Bush administration, was 1.3% of the DOE portfolio.

The economy tanked and cut demand, and at the same time Solyndra could not compete with subsidized companies located in China as they rapidly scaled up. So Solyndra ran out of money. Conservatives and oil interests are using the bankruptcy as a platform to attack green energy and the idea of green jobs in general, solar power in particular, President Obama as always, stimulus funding and the idea of developing a national strategic industrial policy to push back on China and others who have their own national policies to win this key industry of the future.

Conservative Attacks

Conservative are accusing the Obama administration of corruption in choosing Solyndra to receive a government loan guarantee. The typical conservative-outlet story follows a template of Glenn-Beckian accusations that someone "connected to" Obama has "ties" to something. When you hear the phrasing "has ties to" you should understand this as code-speak for "has nothing to do with but can be made to appear to have some sinister involvement if you twist the wording a certain way."

Example template story: Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin,

A solar energy company that intends to file for bankruptcy received $535 million in backing from the federal government and has a cozy history with Democrats and the Obama administration, campaign finance records show.

Shareholders and executives of Solyndra, a green energy company producing solar panels, fundraised for and donated to the Obama administration to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama backer who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the president’s election campaign, is one of Solyndra’s primary investors. Kaiser himself donated $53,500 to Obama’s 2008 election campaign, split between the DSCC and Obama For America. Kaiser also made several visits to the White House and appeared at some White House events next to Obama officials.

Campaign finance records show Kaiser and Solyndra executives and board members donated $87,050 total to Obama’s election campaign.

And now, just two years after securing a half-billion-dollar federal loan, Solyndra has said that it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

(Hold on to this part about Tulsa billionaire Kaiser as an investor for later.)

Another: Big Government, Sweethearts: Bankrupt Solar Power Firm Well Connected to White House, "Obama’s stimulus money handouts carry the stench of political favoritism."

Another: Hot Air: How did Solyndra get a sweetheart interest rate?

FOX News has been promoting this "scandal" story heavily. (It should be noted here that Fox's parent company News Corp's 2nd-largest shareholder is oil billionaire Saudi Prince al-Waleed - an "oil interest" if ever there was one.) For example, FOX News, a template story with the ever-hopeful conservative headline: Obama's Pet Billionaire at Solyndra May Take White House Down,

A high profile, politically well-connected California solar energy company that had won a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama Administration declared bankruptcy earlier this month and closed its doors sending 1100 workers to the unemployment line. The demise of Solyndra has already sparked an FBI investigation, congressional hearings, and raised numerous questions of political cronyism and corruption connected to the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

... One of the company's largest investors, George B. Kaiser of Tulsa, reportedly contributed $53,500 personally and bundled large amounts more for Obama in 2008. Kaiser is a billionaire with banking and oil and gas interests that rank him among the wealthiest people in the world. Kaiser also visited the White House 16 times between 2009 and 2011.

FOX News: RNC Uses Solyndra Investigation to Question New White House Jobs Proposal

FOX News: Could Solyndra Probe Mean Legal Trouble for White House?

FOX News: House GOP Widens Scope of Solyndra Investigation.

Etc., the story is repeated with various twists and added allegations throughout the conservative misinformation engine.

Jumps To "Mainstream"

As so often happens with the conservative machine, the story as spun by the right is jumping to "mainstream" news outlets. For example, this ABC story by Mathew Mosk, formerly of the Washington Times, and others, Emails: Obama White House Monitored Huge Loan to 'Connected' Firm pushes the conservative line, calling the firm "politically connected" and, reminiscent of Clinton-era Whitewater reporting, uses "investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee" -- in other words, conservative operatives -- as a source. The story claims the White House "closely monitored" Solyndra but offers no evidence of "close monitoring," says the company is the "subject of a criminal investigation" without explaining that the investigation is into whether the company misled the government about its financial status which would mean that administration officials did not knowingly provide a loan to a failing company, claims that a prominent Obama donor is "an investor" even though the donor's family foundation is the investor, which means the donor had nothing to gain, and to further the appearance of a sinister scheme by the Obama administration to hand money to political allies leaves out the financial involvement of the conservative Walton family. From ABC,

Newly uncovered emails show the White House closely monitored the Energy Department's deliberations over a $535 million government loan to Solyndra, the politically-connected solar energy firm that recently went bankrupt and is now the subject of a criminal investigation.

The company's solar panel factory was heralded as a centerpiece of the president's green energy plan -- billed as a way to jump start a promising new industry. And internal emails uncovered by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee that were shared exclusively with ABC News show the Obama administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved.

Background Of Corruption Allegations

Before looking at whether the Obama administration really had "ties to" people who had "ties to" Solyndra who somehow "benefited from" government loan guarantees, let's have a bit of a refresher on our recent history.

Under President Bush, conservative movement partners as well as companies and people with financial ties to Bush administration figures regularly received lucrative contracts under less-than-transparent circumstances that had every direct appearance of (forget "ties to") of corruption and cronyism. For example, Koch Submits Winning Bid To Supply Additional Oil to Strategic Reserve,

Koch Supply & Trading, LP, one of the world's largest crude oil trading companies, will become the newest supplier of crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) under President Bush's plan, announced last November, to fill the nation's emergency oil stockpile to its full capacity by 2005.

Example, Fired Army Whistleblower Receives $970K for Exposing Halliburton No-Bid Contract in Iraq,

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, the former chief oversight official of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, has reached a $970,000 settlement six years after she was demoted for publicly criticizing a multi-billion-dollar, no-bid contract to Halliburton—the company formerly headed by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. Greenhouse had accused the Pentagon of unfairly awarding the contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. Testifying before Congress in June 2005, she called the contract the worst case of government abuse she had ever witnessed in her 20-year career.

Example, Bush's Housing Secretary was caught awarding contracts based on party affiliation: Probe Finds Jackson Urged Favoritism in HUD Contracts,

An inspector general's report charges that top U.S. housing official Alphonso Jackson urged staff members to favor friends of President Bush when awarding Department of Housing and Urban Development contracts.

Attacking Green Manufacturing

The Solyndra accusations are really just one part of an ongoing conservative and oil-interests-funded anti-green-manufacturing campaign drumbeat. Long before Solyndra's bankruptcy the Heritage Foundation was running stories like 2008's Green Jobs Are Con Jobs, 2009's The Green Job Myth Exposed, and this year's Obama’s “Green Jobs” Pipe Dream, The Green Jobs Story Obama Doesn’t Want You to Hear, Are “Green Jobs” the Answer?, Are Green Jobs ‘Gone with the Wind’?...

Media Matters had previously exposed the nature of this ongoing effort, in Heritage Foundation Green Jobs Panel - Bought and Paid For By ExxonMobil,

Instead of showcasing the views of unbiased academics and economists, the Heritage Foundation put forth a panel of individuals financially connected to ExxonMobil.

... The ENTIRE PANEL Received Money From ExxonMobil.

More conservative-outlet examples include the ever-malignant Fox News: Solyndra Investigation Begins Critical Look at Federally Funded Green Ventures.

Other conservative outlets continue the drumbeat, Obama’s green dream hurting U.S. taxpayers by Linda Chavez.

Another: Obama Green Jobs Con Job and the Ill Wind That Blows from Spain,

Obama has become tiresome. He is over-exposed. He has overstayed his welcome. We can hear the clichés that will be laced through his speech even before he speaks -- the opposite of an echo. The promises will be there -- what else can he sell? Certainly not his record on the economy.

He has always been a snake oil salesman; such people always tempt the needy with promises of great things to come. So we will once more hear him tout his policies as creating legions of new "green jobs" while making America the world leader in green energy. We have heard it before. He must either think we are stuck on stupid or he is the one stuck on stupid. This policy has clearly been one giant Green Jobs Con Job.

Another: Reason: Obama's Green Jobs Failures and Obama's Green-Jobs Fantasy and The Green Jobs Delusion and The Unseen Consequences of "Green Jobs": Will investing in clean energy harm the economy?...

NewsMax: Green Jobs Spending Is a Waste of Greenbacks, "If the congressional “supercommittee” wants to cut wasteful spending, the green-jobs agenda is a great place to start."

And more and more and more and more...

What Really Happened

A very good summary of the whole story, as well as a look into the details of the investment can be found in the Time/Swampland Michael Grunwald story, Big Name Investors Behind Obama’s Failed Green Tech Bet First in Line to Recoup Losses, summary: (read the whole thing)

This is sure to play out as a scandal, but based on what we know so far, it shouldn’t be. Private loans go south all the time. ... The Obama administration has made bets on hundreds of clean-energy companies in dozens of clean-energy sectors; some of those bets in its portfolio are bound to go bad, just as Richard Branson picks an occasional lemon. It’s legitimate to question whether the government should have made this particular bet, or whether it overplayed a weak hand, or whether it should be making bets in the first place. But if we’re going to have a clean energy industry in this country, this kind of thing is going to happen. It doesn’t mean anyone cheated.

Background of the company's failure, from the Swampland piece,

Solyndra’s loan, the first approved under a clean-energy program that was launched during the Bush administration and expanded by Obama’s stimulus bill, was supposed to finance a new state-of-the-art factory for the company’s unique cylindrical solar cells. At the time, Solyndra was an exciting startup; according to the public filings, it attracted big money from bigtime financiers, including $35 million from Richard Branson’s Virgin Green Fund, $57 million from U.S. Venture Partners, and even $2 million from affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

... [later] The biggest problem was obvious; in an industry where prices were plummeting, Solyndra’s product was too expensive. It desperately needed to finish its new factory, which would increase volume and decrease costs. And it needed more sales.

By last November, the company was running out of cash; according to a January 2011 government document, it had “a very high probability” of bankruptcy and liquidation. This was a big problem, not only because the company had drawn down $460 million of its loan, but because its new factory wasn’t even completed, which meant liquidation would be a fire sale. ...

The other option was restructuring. Kaiser’s Argonaut Ventures and the Walton family’s Madrone Partners would put up an additional $75 million, which would take the first position in case of a liquidation; the government would still be paid first if the company managed to emerge from bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy ... ultimately concluded it did have a potentially viable business. The new factory was on time and on budget. Sales were increasing steadily. And even if Solyndra failed, it would be much more valuable with a completed high-tech plant than with an empty box in Fremont, California.

... “The restructuring gave Solyndra a fighting chance for success,” that same official says. “But then everything fell off a cliff.”

In the summer of 2011, solar panel prices plummeted again. The investors had been poised to inject another $75 million, but this time, they decided not to throw good money after bad. Solyndra shut down and laid off its 1,100 employees.

Investors

The conservatives make the accusation that an Obama donor named George Kaiser is a major investor in Solyndra, and Solyndra received the loan guarantee as a result of Kaiser's (and others) campaign contributions, in order to personally profit. The problem with this is that George Kaiser was not an investor in Solyndra, the Kaiser Family Foundation was. According to Tulsa World,

In an emailed statement to the Tulsa World, a representative of the George Kaiser Family Foundation said the organization made the investment through Argonaut.

"George Kaiser is not an investor in Solyndra and did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan," the statement said. "GKFF invests in a globally diversified portfolio across many different asset classes."

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a philanthropic organization, which means Kaiser (or anyone else) could not personally profit from a successful investment by the foundation. One of the areas of focus of the foundation is the National Energy Policy Institute, so Solyndra was a natural investment for the Foundation:

National Energy Policy Institute (NEPI) is a GKFF effort to establish a rational energy policy that will effectively reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. American political leaders have espoused energy independence for decades. NEPI's goal is to move beyond total oil dependence and to supplant consumption of imported oil through increased domestic energy supply, reduced foreign oil and gas demand and lower carbon emissions to include enhancement of traditional sources of domestic oil, gas and coal.

The conservative Wal-Mart Walton Family, however, were private investors through their Madrone Capital, and at the time that the Bush administration started pushing the Solyndra loan were in a position to peronally profit from this investment. If any accusation of an expectation of personal enrichment obtained from political connections should be investigated, it is this one. Will the Republican House look into the connections between the Walton family and Bush administration officials, and the Bush administrations efforts to provide loans to Solyndra?

The Government Didn't Lose

Even though Solyndra went into bankruptcy the government didn't "lose." The purpose of the government's involvement was to help trigger the development of green-energy manufacturing in the United States, not to help individual companies. This was not a direct investment in a company with the expectation of a profit for the government. In the bigger picture of promoting American leadership in the emerging green-energy industry the government's loan guarantee was a success. Even though Solyndra's investors lost out our country retains the trained skilled employees, the intellectual property, the innovators funded, the suppliers, and the factory. As components of a national effort to trigger a key strategic industry, those are all still there and in the US.

It isn't the government's job to make sure the investors make money, the government's job is to work to keep all of these components of an industry here and to grow new ones here, and this is what has been accomplished. When a VC makes an investment, a company failing just goes on the books as a loss. But our government has succeeded even if Solyndra's investors lost money because the country as a whole benefits. All these employees are trained, all the researchers can take what they know to other solar companies, the IP is going to be sold -- and it should be part of the conditions that it be sold to an American company. So while Solyndra's for-profit investors lost money, America's larger effort to nurture a solar-power industry continues toward its goal with assets enabled by this loan guarantee.

Facts:

The loan program started under President Bush (note - see above, Walton family.) From the San Jose Mercury News, October, 2008:

In late 2007, Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed eligible for $4 billion worth of loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley electric carmaker, and Oakland's BrightSource Energy, a builder of solar-thermal plants, also made that list.

The effort to fund Solyndra in particular started under Bush (note - see above, Walton family.) DOE: A Competition Worth Winning, (PS look at the chart in this post to understand why loan guarantees and other government assistance are so important!!!)

This loan guarantee was pursued by both the Bush and Obama Administrations. Private sector investors – who put more than $1 billion of their own money on the line – also saw great potential in the company.

Also, from the DOE post, the reason it is important for government to do this:

Our loan program catalyzes American innovation and private sector investment behind promising companies -- so that American workers have a chance to compete against China and other countries that much more heavily subsidize clean energy companies.

The loan was 1.3% of the DOE portfolio.

Feds Refused to Bail Out Solyndra,

One day after the federal government refused to bail out Solyndra, the Fremont-based solar company announced it was filing for bankruptcy and shedding most of its 1,100 workers.

According to a memo released Monday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, officials with the Department of Energy and Solyndra entered into negotiations "in the first few weeks of August" over a proposed financial restructuring agreement, but were never able to reach an agreement.

Resources

Think Progress has an excellent timeline of the Solyndra loan guarantee: Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story

Grist has a good story laying out how conservatives are attacking green energy. See The conservative game plan on energy subsidies

Grist also looks into the Bush adminsitration's efforts on behalf of Solyndra, in,Bush admin pushed Solyndra loan guarantee for two years.

On Redistribution, Or, “Afghanistan Peace Dividend Stimulus Lotto? OK!”

fake consultant — Thu, 12 May 2011 06:46:32 -0400

They tell us we’re dropping about $10 billion a month in Afghanistan so we can catch that Bin Laden guy...but eventually, we’re gonna catch him, and as soon as we do you can imagine that folks will be wondering why we’re still over there – and I gotta tell ya, I’m one of those people.

I mean, we’re over here talking about how we're so broke that we have no choice but to cut a couple of billion from heat assistance for the poor, and a billion-and-a-half from the Social Security operations budget, and money from food stamps and childcare assistance and tornado forecasting in Alabama…but every single month, just as regular as clockwork, we seem to be able to find another $10 billion to spend in Afghanistan, even as we have an economy that could badly use another round of truly productive stimulus.

And I don’t think y’all even realize just how much money $10 billion really is – but today we’re gonna see if we can’t fix that with a bit of a thought exercise.

Imagine if we set up a program that took that Afghanistan money and spent it right here at home for a year or two – and it was spent in the form of a lottery, where we stimulate the larger economy, help fix the mortgage crisis, and create a more energy-independent nation, all at the same time.

I got all we need except a catchy name; with that in mind let’s move on to the description of how the Happy Super Fun Day Peace Lotto Stimulus Thingy works.

...In this world, the two cities – the earthly and the heavenly – are commingled; but hereafter the predestinate and the reprobate will be separated. In this life we cannot know who, even among our seeming enemies, are to be found ultimately among the elect...

--Bertrand Russell, explaining St. Augustine, in the book “A History of Western Philosophy”

So it couldn’t be any simpler: what I have in mind, to illustrate our point, is a giant national lottery, and it wouldn’t cost a dime to enter.

First prize would be directed toward cleaning up the mortgage crisis by either getting folks out from “under water”, lowering their current monthly payments, or converting them from renters into homeowners: if you’re one of the 10,000 first place winners, you get $250,000 to spend on either paying down your mortgage or to buy a house of your choice if you don’t have one now.

Second prize involves “greening” America’s homes; the idea being that if we cut America’s heating, air conditioning, and hot water bills, we free up billions of newly productive dollars to create long-term self-sustaining consumer demand – and that means you can take some of that power bill money and go out and have a nice dinner with the kids again.

10,000 winners would each get $50,000, and with that you could easily replace a whole lot of windows with better-insulated ones…or you could get some solar panels, or put up that rooftop wind generator you’ve been thinking about, and you could pay for the electrical connections to get you in the business of selling power back to your utility. Don’t own your house? That’s OK, we’ll “green” it up anyway, with the owner’s permission – and if that can’t be arranged, then maybe we’ll have to just award you third prize instead.

The idea behind our third prize is to lower the amount of money we spend every year on imported oil; to that end we would give 50,000 third place winners $40,000 to spend on a vehicle that gets 40 MPG or better – and because we don’t want to “disincentive” inexpensive green cars, if you can arrange to buy two cars for $40,000, we’ll do that, too. (And hey, just to be fair: if you were “bumped down” from second place, let’s make your “car credit” $50,000.)

That’s 70,000 winners, folks, who could end up with a new house, or a new car, or a newly energy-efficient home – and that doesn’t give a complete picture of just how much we’re really spending right now blowing up Afghanistan.

You see, we’re spending so much right now that we could give away all this stuff every single month of the year with all the money we’re dumping “Over There” instead – and even that doesn’t tell the whole story, because all that stuff...all the houses and all the cars and all the energy improvements...represents only 50% of what we’re spending every month Over There.

And all that money doesn’t even include what we’re spending on our other wars, overt and covert, in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, the Philippines, Yemen, Iran, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, and, of course, the one we fight right here in the good ol’ USA: The War On Drugs.

So whaddaya think, America?

Should we continue the endless war and keep on looking for those last 100 or so Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, to the tune of $100 million a month for each guy, for the next decade or so…or would you rather do a giant lottery for a couple of years, for half the cost of what we’re spending every month over there now, that creates lots and lots of jobs and permanently lowers our national energy bill?

I think I know which one you want – and that’s just too bad, because we aren’t gonna get it anytime soon, now are we?

National Clean Energy Summit Calls For Government Action To Create Green Jobs

Dave Johnson — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:47:37 -0400

I am attending the National Clean Energy Summit 3.0: Investing in American Jobs conference in Last Vegas, hosted by Senator Harry Reid (who is spending the day here hosting this). The Summit is put on by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. This is a quick post, because I'm typing during the lunch break.

This morning's panel, Connecting Capital with Ideas, included a number of business and investment leaders. Naturally, since they are here at the conference, they are going to be enthusiastic about clean energy, but over and over the leaders and investors repeated that green energy is the next big industry, and will be transformative on a scale at least that of the Internet. The problem for us is that other countries have a huge head start. We have let our own approach stagnate for decades while other countries have seen this as a major opportunity and have done what they need to do to stimulate domestic industries.

Senator Reid was literally begging the Senate to pass the energy bill that has been held up by filibuster, saying,
"This is the future of our recovery here and the world. [Venture Capitalist] John Doer told me government needs to set guidelines, so private industry can invest. ... Trillions of private capital are sitting on sideline. We need to get the private sector involved in creating these industry jobs."

Venture capitalist John Doerr (Compaq, Netscape, Amazon, Google, Genentech) said, "the numbers are compelling, The Internet is $1 trillion. Energy is $6 trillion, 4 or 5 times as large. Innovation in energy is a really big deal."

Summarizing what Doerr said, from my notes:

30% of our country's energy is from overseas. We ship about a billion dollars a day outside US for energy.

Of the top 10 alt energy companies in wind, solar, and geothermal, how many are from the US? Only 4 out of 30! In the worldwide race for leadership our country is barely in the race. China is now the world leader in solar, advanced batteries, a few years ago they had 2% of the market, now over 50%. We are behind.

Total amount the government spends on clean energy r&d is around $5B. Americans spend more on potato chips than we spend on clean energy r&d!

We must get our private markets incentivized. More money flows through private capital markets in a day than all governments in a year. To do this we MUST put a price on carbon, this is the most important thing we could do. That would be the signal to the markets that these are the investments that will be rewarded.

Next is government energy efficiency standards and incentives. The way to create jobs fast.
.
In California the fastest growing part of economy is new green jobs. (California has a renewable energy standard and is implementing cap-and-trade.) 12,000 new clean energy companies just in CA. The payoff is all around country. If we fail, we put planet in jepordy but also the future of American economy. Green tech is the next great global industry.

Quickly summarizing the rest of the speakers, there was consensus that we need to put a price on carbon. This can be done with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. It takes government to set standards and guidelines before investors will feel that there is a sustainable market. Government rules create certainty, and this lowers the risk for investors.

Government has to create "home demand" as other countries have done. Other countries have set a price on carbon and have set renewable energy standards, and this has created in-country demand so clean-tech industries can grow up and then go out to compete in world markets.

Over and over again this was stressed. At a minimum, we as a country absolutely need a Renewable Energy Standard (also called Renewable Portfolio Standard), requiring that some percentage of the electricity produced in the US be from non-carbon sources, and then a US clean-tech industry will thrive.

This is a quick summary, stressing that we need that government policy that is being blocked in the Senate, to trigger investment that will begin to create a clean energy industry here -- and all of the jobs that brings with it. While we hesitate and allow our legislation to be blocked by representatives of Big Oil and Big Coal, other countries are taking the industries of the future away from us.

OK back for the afternoon sessions.

The Missing Link In Clean-Energy Policy

Andrea Buffa — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:15:41 -0400

There was a certain irony in the U.S. decision to hold the recent G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to show off the former steel town’s success at creating green jobs. Pittsburgh transformed itself from a polluted and declining industrial metropolis into a clean and booming green one by crafting deliberate economic development policies to support the growth of clean-energy industries. The irony is that the United States—unlike most other G-20 members—still needs a comprehensive national clean-energy economic development policy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act could be considered a step toward a national economic development policy to promote a clean-energy economy. But the Recovery Act was merely a short-term approach designed to lift the U.S. economy out of recession.

What would it look like if the U.S. had a long-term national economic development policy to grow the clean-energy economy?

Most proposals for a national clean-energy economic development policy start with the need for federal policies that increase demand for clean energy. These might include putting a price on carbon (through a carbon tax or “cap and trade” program), adopting a national renewable energy standard, implementing national building and appliance energy efficiency standards, or encouraging small-scale renewable energy projects through a national feed-in tariff.

National energy policies should not only send a strong signal that the U.S. economy is set to embrace cleaner technologies; they should also be long term. Brian Sager, co-founder of Nanosolar, a solar power technology company, believes current U.S. clean-energy policies have created a difficult environment for businesses: “One thing we’ve been lacking in the U.S. is stable policy. In Germany, feed-in tariffs have been very stable. In the U.S. there is a lack of harmony from year to year, so there’s inherently a higher level of risk. The warranty for a solar panel is 25 years; that’s the kind of time-frame we’re talking about.”

Many experts believe the federal government should offer incentives to persuade clean-energy companies to set up facilities in the United States, a practice that is commonplace in other parts of the world. “Many countries offer financial investment incentives … but in the U.S., we don’t,” said Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute and a former Reagan administration trade and investment counselor. “The issue of investment incentives is very important. I think we should try to negotiate some international discipline on investment subsidies (as we’ve already done on trade subsidies). I also think we should have a war chest and use our war chest to match the incentives that are being offered by others to move their production facilities elsewhere in the world.”

Another policy often described as essential to a clean-energy economic development policy designed to support a domestic clean-energy manufacturing industry is a local content requirement. Without such a requirement—also called a “Buy American” policy—most clean-energy manufacturing companies will likely locate overseas.

“First and foremost, we actually have to put a serious buy-American/domestic-content policy in place,” said Bob Baugh, executive director of the AFL-CIO’s Industrial Union Council. “It matters where you make things. In the case of wind turbines and solar, 70 to 80 percent of the cost itself is in the product, not the installation. That means you have to have a strategy and a policy that says you’ll do it here.”

Leo Hindery, chair of the Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation, also emphasizes the need for a buy American policy, but argues that it could begin with federal government purchases: “We need a buy-American policy that mirrors China’s,” Hindery said. “We have a GDP in this country of about $14 billion. Twenty percent of that comes from federal purchases. We should simply say that the federal government will buy domestically produced goods and services if they’re available. If they’re not available, then you’re allowed to buy them overseas.”

Other policy recommendations to promote clean-energy domestic manufacturing include programs to help U.S. manufacturers become more productive—and thus competitive, and programs to help reconcile supply chain challenges. Susan Helper, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University, argues that Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers should be given additional funds to help small and medium-sized manufacturers become more productive. Helper cites a 1999 study by Roland Jarmin showing that productivity at firms that received assistance from a partnership center center rose in the range of 3.4 percent to 16 percent more between 1987 and 1992 than productivity at firms that received no assistance.

As Congress debates comprehensive clean-energy and climate legislation, and the issue of green jobs becomes increasingly important, perhaps it’s time for a comprehensive U.S. economic development policy to promote the clean-energy economy. From lithium-ion battery producers to wind turbine component manufacturers, the industries of the clean-energy future need clear direction—and support—from the U.S. government if they are going to be able to compete and thrive in a low-carbon global economy.

This blog post is an excerpt from a longer article, which can be found on the Apollo Alliance website.

Andrea Buffa is a senior writer and policy associate at the Apollo Alliance.

Carl Davidson

Carl Davidson — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:33:50 -0500

Carl Davidson is a public speaker and writer, currently a field organizer and web site editor for the Solidarity Economy Network, ussen.org, 'Progressives for Obama', and Western PA Peace Action. When not on the road, he resides in Beaver County, PA, near Pittsburgh and Wheeling, West Virginia.

Davidson was a founder of Networking for Democracy, a group of grassroots activists working for the past 12 years around the digital divide and other issues raised by the impact of technology on society. He taught computer repair to low-income women, prisoners, ex-offenders, and inner city youth in community technology centers, high schools and after-school programs. He was also a leader in Chicago's peace movement over many years.

He is also the school technology specialist for the Small Schools Workshop at the University of Illinois in Chicago and has worked as a part-time computer science instructor at Jones College Prep High School, the YWCA Women’s Literacy Program and Malcolm X College in Chicago.

Carl was a three-year national board member of CTCNET, a nationwide federation of 1500 community technology centers, and a founder of CTCNET-Chicago. He is also a board member of the Prison Action Committee, and a current national committee member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

From 1961 to 1967, Carl studied philosophy at Penn State University and the University of Nebraska. In those years, he was a freedom marcher in Mississippi and a national leader of the Students for a Democratic Society.

In the past 15 years, Carl owned a small computer consultancy specializing in the information technology needs of trade unions, nonprofits and public interest groups. He is the managing editor of cy.Rev: A Journal of Cybernetic Revolution, produced by the Chicago Third Wave Study Group.
His work is available for review at www.carldavidson.blogspot.com

Sierra Club Director On T. Boone Pickens and Energy Obstructionism

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:01:45 -0400

The Sierra Club's executive director, Carl Pope, discusses how progressives should respond to Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' plan for energy independence and political obstruction on energy issues in Washington. Pope also explains harmful natural gas policies that need to be corrected by the next administration. Pope was interviewed after a forum at The Big Tent in Denver during the Democratic National Convention. (Flip Video courtesy of the Voter Genome Project.)

howard stern

howard stern — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:24:18 -0400

DoomsDay Antithesis; Instructions for Saving Our World

Denise Lawrence — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:41:16 -0400

Now World Order…A Doomsday Antithes
An ametuer video of this prose can be seen by entering "Doomsday Cancled" at youtube or google video

I was taken aback when I heard the news..
of some dooms day clock, I said “NO!” this isn’t right
We’ve got to choose.

There IS NO doomsday can’t you see…
A new worlds here for you and me
To love to hold to reinforce
To set aright its natural course
Say “I will not let you take from me
My right to live and to be free”

Stand up I say to planet earth
Let no doomsayers negate your birth
Your valuable life, your passionate work,
Take up the cause - you know your worth.

You mustn’t stand idly by
Don’t let the lunatics decide
The change you’re feeling isn’t true,
Look …The sky above—It is NOT RED…by God …. IT’S BLUE

Now there are warnings, it’s getting’ pretty hot,
You’ve been told it’s hell, but hell it’s not.
Heed inconvenient truths told by men such as Gore,
New diseases, loosing species and more resistant spores
Neglect not your duty heretofore.

Niger, Darfur, New Orleans,
Are you saying you are comfortable?
With such horrible scense?
Go ahead be frustrated but do more than take pity
I know of solutions and plans -
how to build great new cities.

My fellow Earth Keepers you must say
“I will not let you take away
my life in useless genocide
with devastations you’ve contrived.´
I will devote the time I’ve been given
and participate in Earths Revision
to build, evolve, to love and embrace, not just my own, but the entire human race.

How dare you think you can take that from me?
This planet will survive –you’ll see
We will unite. We will be free.

Of poverty, bigotry, hunger and more…
you’ll see how much more there is in store
for those who’ll choose to come and see
new ideas of science and technology.

Cities that think, don’t pollute, and provide all our needs
Seems like a distant dream.
The technology is there, we have the know – NOW –
don’t let them tell you “they’ve not been told how,”
We can elevate ourselves to the TRUE status called FREE
ALL you’ve got to do is take responsibility,
Redirected vision, a bold new direction for ALL humanity.

There have been the faithful, who’ve stayed in the trenches,
While the rest of us sat on our laurels on benches.
I thank all of you that have done so much for so long,
The time has now come for all to join in your song
That with EACH of us doing just one little part
is the catalyst of change and is a HUGE start.

I do my part to love the earth and raise awareness of all its worth,
of you and me -Let not one say—you may not have another day.
OK, let’s get together I know there’s work to be done,
and all it takes is the power of ONE!

--.Denise Baraka Lawrence

This is not just a limerick in outrage. This is an urgent call to Gaias Guardians. If you resonated and are awakened to the call to action, please contact us at the Imagination Manifest-Station, through www.deniselawrence.com, where we have formed alliances with powerful provocative creators with plans, designs and opportunities to build tomorrow, today!

The doomsday Antithesis is based on fact and not fiction. We find that people are inherently good, all have survival instinct and basically want what is good for the planet but they’ve only been told in drips and drabs, and the masses don’t know what REAL choices are available to them, which will TRULY make a difference. We have solutions that will TRULY turn back the hands of devastation. That is the ACTION!

We find the vibration given from THIS clock will Guide the Vibration of the “other Clock” When the hands on the I AM CREATION clock move forward it’s vibration pushes the OTHER CLOCK Down. That is the Love!

This clock is powered on Action, Love, and Prayer

Sources of Action: - Recycling, Legislation, Annihilation of Weaponry (this is not impossible), Education, Change in desires, Using financial resources to participate in the Action of building new cities as mentioned in this poem

Sources of Love – YOU

Prayer – If you pray or when you meditate the simple communication between you and your God/Self should simply be to “have the courage to take action” – see above.

We have not claimed and ultimately have not saved our world, because we claim the things it gives us—that is our only desire. ALL of us…When we use and consume it’s treasures, not only will there be none left for our children….we ourselves will not have any….