SEP 29

Man, we are majorly distracted right now.

It sucks when what's best long-term has to sit on the back burner.

But we ARE thrivers, and I have to believe that a lot is going to change after Nov. 4th, when we elect Obama and a fair number more Dems to Congress.

Can you say conflict of interest?

It seems the glass might actually be half full...

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/bailouts-failure-a-boon-for-renewables/

Something that could hit renewable energy stocks hard is that solar and wind projects generally require significant credit. I know someone that is planning a solar system who may not be able to get the financing, this applies to 4KW or 4MW.

It is a very sad truth that the financial crisis has seriously diverted attention from climate change solutions. It is already showing up in some opinion poles as being a more important issue than the environment. Just as so many countries were starting to grapple with the issues of climate change this comes along. Am I too cynical in thinking it may be conspiracy by old money?

This is sad. I was happy to hear it was going to pass last week. Renewable energy development should have been a strong focus for the past eight years, many jobs would have been created. We need it now more than ever.

:|

I went back to look a T-Bone's numbers regarding what we spend annually on oil for our cars, etc. It is 700 Billion dollars. What is our president's proposed bail-out: 700 Billion dollars.

Putting American's to work and getting us off oil forever seems to me to be a very gutsy and bold means of turning things around, now more then ever.

Does anyone have the balls to make it happen?

The means of financing renewable energy are going to have to change, and that in itself could be enough to prop up the house of cards since renewable generation is a more reliable asset.

hey, without a working financial market, then no corporation in the US will be able to thrive.

It hurts startups in alternative energies the most, since most have yet to make any profits and only ask for more and more money.

So, while a solar bill was put off until perhaps next session, at least we'll have a financial system to be able to have these companies survive.

Like most things, this crisis will pass and America will be much stronger because of it. Then, the money that pours into clean energy will be even greater then we could ever imagine.

We need to stop subsidizing things that don't need it. Corn based ethanol is a sham, and we need to stop subsidizing it. Yes, sugar-based comes from Brazil but for the environment and for our pocketbook we need to embrace it.

Oil we subsidized in the early 80s when it was so cheap that it wasn't profitable. Fine. Now it's profitable beyond most entire countries' wildest dreams. Therefore, we don't need to subsidize it.

Corn we subsidized in the early 2000s and late '90s because the corn industry and bankrupt. Fine. They're hauling in record profits now. So let's stop subsidizing it.

Solar, unlike most green techs, has actually been around awhile already and is hitting the mainstream very soon. Next year at the earliest. Possibly 2010. We don't need to subsidize it for 10 years. We need to subsidize it for about 2 or 3. Then let it go on its own.

Are the renewable energy tax breaks added to the Bailout bill by the Senate, are those the ones that need passing - or are they something else entirely?

And in fact the house had passed these successfully already: because have a huge Democratic majority so they don't need to be "bipartisan" on energy. They can write standalone clean energy bills, and fully fund em. But thats not enough to pass them. Then the Senate must also. Then the Senate version must be agreed to as well.

Only once we get 60 Democrats in the Senate will we be able to pass "clean" clean energy bills.

You actually need 60 to vote-to-vote in the Senate, and theres only 51 Democrats and 3 Republicans who support clean energy: Snowe, Collins and Coleman, (sometimes) Smith. We need more than 51 Democrats in the Senate: we need 60.

So, the Senate has to "reach across the aisle" to pass clean energy bills and thus poison their bills with crap like tar sands tax breaks along with solar and wind production tax credits.

Or put it on the credit card(owe the Saudis)instead of taxing oil companies to fund it and mix it in with unrelated bills (just like you with your wingnut relatives, the only things you can agree on are outside of ecogeek matters:) the Senate Ds and Rs cannot agree on clean energy, so they must attach clean energy legislation inextricably to irrelevant bills to pass it.

Thats why its now part of the Mental Health Parity Act and attached to the bailout bill.

The renewables are the same.

And in fact the house had passed these successfully already: because have a huge Democratic majority so they don't need to be "bipartisan" on energy: They can write standalone clean energy bills, and fully fund em. But thats not enough to pass them. Then the Senate must pass the same legislation or minor mods. Then the Senate version must go back and agreed to in the House as well.

Only once we get 60 Democrats in the Senate will we be able to pass "clean" clean energy bills.Why?

You actually need 60 to vote-to-vote in the Senate, and theres only 51 Democrats and 3 Republicans who support clean energy: Snowe, Collins and Coleman, (sometimes) Smith. We need more than 51 Democrats in the Senate: we need 60.

So, the Senate has to "reach across the aisle" to pass clean energy bills and thus must poison their bills with crap like tar sands tax breaks along with solar and wind production tax credits.

Or put it on the credit card(owe the Saudis)instead of taxing oil companies to fund it and mix it in with unrelated bills (just like you with your wingnut relatives, the only things you can agree on are outside of ecogeek matters:) the Senate Ds and Rs cannot agree on clean energy, so they must attach clean energy legislation inextricably to irrelevant bills to agree to pass it.

Thats why its now a subsidiary of the Mental Health Parity Act and attached to the bailout bill.

Ironic that the most important legislative matter for the planet can only pass the mightiest government in the world in our 200,000 year history, if it's hidden away.

History will certainly laugh at us, if there is any.

You actually need 60 to vote-to-vote in the Senate, and theres only 51 Democrats and 3 Republicans who support clean energy
========================

For one, there's only 50 democrats in the senate. Two, you need 60 to get cloture NOT to actually pass the bill. Unfortunately, republicans do use the no on cloture to force a bill into filibuster which does effectively (and usually) kill the bill.


Fortunately, (and maybe unfortunately), stuck in the pork of the new bailout bill we do have tax break extensions for alternative energy.

So as a fiscally responsible person, I weep. We need to increase taxes or carbon taxes to pay for it (or cut something else... like the tax breaks for oil companies). However as a greenie, I'm very happy.

Thanks for the info. Thank goodness we got the tax break extensions for renewable energy out of this. The ones that were set to expire at the end of the year, correct?

Well, this whole problem will be solved with the help of the authorities in charge. we can't really do something about it. We just have to pray to God!

The new Administration in Washington will hopefully bring about the necessary change to our US energy policy.
Credit Card Calculators