Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Energy Bill Update: Senate Approves Compromise Legislation

December 14, 2007   |   155 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
After the vote, some Democratic Senators said they would revisit both the RPS and tax provisions in the next session of Congress.
155 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 155
December 13, 2007
George, i think you did intend that pun
Comment
2 of 155
December 13, 2007
Scott -
This is beneath you.
The 2000 presidential election is OVER. Had it gone the other way, the other side would have been whining just as long, loud, and often. Get over it, and look ahead.
We need to stop trying to "gore" the other side (no pun intended). Thirteen (or 21) billion in fossil tax credits doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but the
Congressional leadership is so intent on drawing Republican blood that they're losing sight of the bigger picture. On the one hand, they want to maintain the illusion of "pay as you go" government, while padding every bill with more pork(earmarks) than Jimmy Dean sausage.
Which calls to mind the old adage: there's two things you never want to see being made: sausage, and legislation.
Churchill's comment bears repeating: Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, AFTER they've tried everything else.
Comment
3 of 155
December 13, 2007
This is a young industry that wants to partner with the federal government to grow its market share. If there is to be US partner, who will step in? The weak dollar makes every U.S. company 30% cheaper to buy than two years ago. It also makes US produced PV cheaper to sell in Europe. Prediction? European investors buy US PV production companies and ship the product to be installed in Europe. Patents US companies developed will be owned by foreign firms, which will give them an advantage in the future.
Comment
4 of 155
December 13, 2007
We Americans will rally. We won in the House. We lead the Senate by 19 votes. No Veto threat by the Mad; we would be more in line with the world.

What a different world we can live in.

2000 Al Gore: the race was decided by a margin of only 537 votes in Florida. Gore won the popular vote (by half a million more votes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
-
I hope we will rally against this madness.

One thing I didn't like about the HR6: Biofuel /ethanol relief from food crops = More madness that will help globe to warm, will inflate food prices and increase starvation.

When I heard the news today of this temporary defeat my heart sank and I wimped out: What's the Motto: when the going gets tough the tough get going.

Let's see how fast we can buy solar and help a rally for solar.

The final vote was 59 for and 40 against.

Thinking about it, is this democracy?

The world wants green!

Maybe we don't need the tax credits to make this work. FORGET TAX CREDITS! I NEED CONVICTION!
Comment
5 of 155
December 13, 2007
Thanks, George, for the clarification of cloture vs passage voting.

Besides ringing up the Senators again (and again and again), what else can be done to move this forward to a veto-proof passage?
Comment
6 of 155
December 13, 2007
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but the vote was NOT to "pass" the legislation (only 51 votes required to pass), but rather to invoke cloture (60 votes required to end debate), and thereby enable a subsequent vote for passage on the Senate floor.

EVEN IF the cloture vote had been successful, and EVEN IF the bill had subsequently been passed by the Senate by the same 60(59) favoring cloture, the count is still far short of the 67 votes required to override a presidential veto.

Bottom line: this bill is DOA.

Question: Do you really want to ensure defeat for the sake of 13(21) billion dollars in fossil tax credits?

Question: Do you really want to enact a bill which is all but stripped of the necessary incentives for RE?

This bill is not ready for prime time, and cloture(debate cutoff) only ensures defeat. Take your Senators to the woodshed, and then tell them to work through the holiday period to find common ground, and get this done.
Comment
7 of 155
December 13, 2007
Hi Again: Just as a follow-up. WE would all like to think that energy is big in the minds of Americans, but, here we are, 3:37PM EST, check out MSNBC.com, CNBC.com, or take you pick. Go to the US news front pages and try and find a story on this huge issue that everyone here is so disgusted with ...... NOT THERE ..
Comment
8 of 155
December 13, 2007
Hi: As a very solid RE supporter, advocate and solar business person, I have to say, yes is it a HUGE disgrace to say the least, BUT, who bought all those SUV's, who makes ROI the show stopper when deciding to buy into RE over conventional, who buys the products marketed with sex, social affluence and power visually tied to them through the media VS energy conscious products..??.. Take a look in the mirror mainstream USA... How did Forest G. say it.. stupid is as stupid does...
.....Bill
Comment
9 of 155
December 13, 2007
Google has a major interest in this. I understand that they don't generate news but they certainly distribute it. I'll push on that front
Comment
10 of 155
December 13, 2007
"Keep up the fight. This is not over."

Exactly, and remember, revolutions come from the bottom up not the top down. The change we are looking for will continue to gain support with grassroots and state level movements. This is far from settled or over, we are not going anywhere, our sentiments are only growing and the higher the visibility especially with the negative press that will get generated will only fuel the fire in our camp more. Keep up the good fight,

THIS IS NOT THE END, ONLY THE BEGINNING!!!!
Comment
11 of 155
December 13, 2007
So the oil and natural gas industries gets the keep their $13 billion in subsidies (tax credits) for now. And we continue to be held by the balls and by the nuts in middle east.

Preston (#17) the states must continue to legislate incentives and suits. CA won the suit for auto emissions standards. This could be appealed by the auto industry pending votes on a revised CAFE standard.

Keep up the fight. This is not over.
Comment
12 of 155
December 13, 2007
Ok enough complaining, it's obvious we all feel pretty ashamed to have such leadership. The bigger question is: How do we save our interest with out an incentive roadmap. Many of us have customers and investors willing to pour $$$ into the industry but most certainly will not commit with out government partnership.
Comment
13 of 155
December 13, 2007
VOTE GRAVEL 2008!

jb
www.nrgmanager.com
Comment
14 of 155
December 13, 2007
Screw 'em. State and local governments, regional alliances and the free market will make our renewable future happen without these boneheads. They also prove the philosphical and economic irrelevance of the United States and are acclerating the end of the union as we know it. I'm tired of paying for stupid wars, corrupt politicians and getting nothing in return. BTW: I'm shocked one of our Utah senators, Orrin Hatch, actually voted for it. I guess he got my email. But we all know Bennett can't read.
Comment
15 of 155
December 13, 2007
Wishy-washy Feet

Its strange we have a Senate with wishy-washy feet,
Who can't provide the action for our problems to defeat,
Their voting is atrocious and decisions incomplete,
To carve out a path ahead for the fossils to unseat.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
16 of 155
December 13, 2007
It's a sad day to live in Kentucky and be concerned about renewable energy what with our team of "good old boy" party hacks!
Comment
17 of 155
December 13, 2007
Some of the votes seemed nonsensical. The whole southeast is apparently against renewable energy. Those guys are going to have to wake up soon because you can't keep getting your power from hydro damns forever, heck even TX voted no. Amazing.
Comment
18 of 155
December 13, 2007
vote was 59-40 with 1 abstain/absent....

john mccain, arizona.......abstain/absent

1 vote that would have really counted

arizona should be in the solar/renewable energy camp.

mccain wants to be president. instead he takes a pass on showing real leadership.... pandering to the core of the republican party /coal, nukes & oil lobby move by mccain.....he had a chance to stick it to the bushistas....a little payback for the 2000 campaign lies....instead he's in with the surge of bull----

kyl....the other arizona republican voted no

30 years after graduating from the university of arizona and noting the solar potential of the state....it's incredible they're still voting with the coal-nuke-oil team..... disgusting

time for change in the senate.....23 republicans are up for re-election next year....their "no" votes today hopefully starts them on the road to defeat/retirement

it's plain to see the GOP needs new blood/ new heart / new eyes to see beyond their next lobbyists check
Comment
19 of 155
December 13, 2007
The ones who voted against renewable energy should be castrated with a "Dull" knife and sent to Saudia Arabia where they belong! Big Oil is against our wonderful nation and world's future! How stupid do they think the American people are? A second grader can see through their smoke and mirror sideshow.

Fight Back America!
Comment
20 of 155
December 13, 2007
we should cut the senate's salary. This would help off-set the cost to tax payers who want to reduce pollution.
Comment
21 of 155
December 13, 2007
It's another sad day for the World.

Bad grammar due to emotionally holding back what I'd really like to say.

Well what do we expect of a group that has sold and promoted polluting Crud for over 100 years and held us back from using clean energy like solar and wind.

By the way John Lorenzen now 84, was creating his own electricity for his farm back in 1932 from wind; heating his house and barn with solar. In the 70's when there was a gas shortage he used his wind turbine to create hydrogen to run his truck and gets 40mpg.

Watch video: http://www.kobashi.co.uk/environment.shtml
Comment
22 of 155
December 13, 2007
Our executive branch is showing its true colors protecting tax credits for big oil cronies. It's also disappointing that a Senator from perhaps the richest solar sunshine state, Arizona, abstained from making the crucial vote. And you call yourself a "maverick" for energy independence Mr. McCain?

I fear for our children's futures...
Comment
23 of 155
December 13, 2007
+1 Scott!
Comment
24 of 155
December 13, 2007
Shame
Comment
25 of 155
December 13, 2007
Very disappointed in my country!

I would like to swear, but we must fight on to change the evil empire: You know who I mean. It's this a another sad day for the World.
Comment
26 of 155
December 13, 2007
Dear Mary Landrieu -

Congratulations! You have been cordially selected to join what is doubtless your true home, the Republican Party! Yes! It's a group you'll surely flourish among, given how much you have in common with its leaders. I'm sure you've grown tired of holding your nose while your associates in the Democratic party debate and encourage such frivolous things as renewable energy, fossil fuel independence, and low carbon energy sources. Alas, you'll need to hear this no more! Enjoy the common ground you hold with such luminaries as Kay Bailey Hutchison and James Inhofe. And if Pete Domenici hasn't called you directly to thank you for your energy vote, I'm sure at the very least he'll send flowers.

Joe Lieberman's example should be instructive as to your next move. Only, spare us the Independent half measure, and go GOP all the way. It's where you belong, and it is the constituency you serve. You are a disgrace to your party, state, country, and planet.
Comment
27 of 155
December 13, 2007
"In years to come, historians writing about this era will find fertile ground in the fact that as the UNFCCC Global Warming conference in Bali wound down with an almost universal commitment to fighting climate change, the U.S. voted, yet again, to fight the rest of the world instead,"

I would add that historians will liken these times to the Dark Ages.
Comment
28 of 155
December 13, 2007
Sorry world...once again party lines have wrapped our rulers in a web of ignorance. The king laughs as the jesters have played the part of clowns to perfection. They say not more tax credit, I say no more taxes...
Comment
29 of 155
December 14, 2007
It is unfortunate that the USA has only extreme right wing parties, neither of which seem to have the best interest of the average citizen in their minds. How did Americans allow this to happen? Having attended many meetings in the US and knowing and liking the hardworking people I met, I can understand they never got upset enough to demand universal medicare. The attitude toward Global Warming and the war in Iraq seem to be a continuation of this lack of concern for the welfare of the american people and the human beings in the rest of the world. As a Canadian, I hope the new president will provide world leadership in these areas, since our president prime minister has become a Bush clone, and is also acting shamefully on Global warming. We all have to press for renewables in every way possible.
Comment
30 of 155
December 14, 2007
Republics are often associated with democracy, which seems natural if one acknowledges the meaning of the expression from which the word "republic" derives. I don't care to win or lose or have an argument over semantics. The mature, healthy dirty business just got financial assistance from your gove and mine and now we will go on without them and be stronger for it. Good luck to you.
Comment
31 of 155
December 14, 2007
Once again Rick, the United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic. In a Republic form of government the citizens elect representatives to manage the government. Ancient Athens was a democracy - and all it took for an individual to lose property or life there was for the majority (the lynch mob) say it so.

I think you are overly impressed by politicians and their words and too willing to take their words as fact. Because TR or FDR called America a democracy only proves ignorance or a willingness to mislead. And we've had many ignorant and deceitful leaders from within both political parties.

Personally, I don't trust politicians because most are snake oil peddlers. And those malefactors of great wealth come from both sides of the aisle. Both parties are in deep with special interests. It's not just Bush or the GOP. In fact many of the DEMs special interest groups are especially vile.

But it appears we both agree on the viability and necessity of renewable energy.
Comment
32 of 155
December 14, 2007
Methane from manure and agriculture waste (organic) cam
be made into methane. Methane can be made into Methanol. Methanol can be reformed into Hydrogen for
the Honda Fuel Cell vehicle. I live in Michigan and
the economy is perhaps in the intensive care unit
but headed to the morgue. Henry Ford must be rolling
in his grave. This person had vision cared about labor
and used renewable materials as well as electric technology long ago. I must give failing marks to the
academic circle and government bureaucrat and the many lawyers that populate centers of power. Use your vote.
Comment
33 of 155
December 14, 2007
Franklin Roosevelt warned that "the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state, itself. That in it's essence, is fascism." http://www.ohvec.org/issues/mountaintop_removal/articles/EIS_social_cultural.pdf.

You are right Richard, not happy w democratic senate caving by offering such a bad bill. All many of us want is no subsidies for the dirty stuff if not true cost penalties for the problems fossil cause, a level playing field.

Robert Kenneddy Jr Book Crimes Against Nature: Am Hrtg Dict: Fascism is "... merging of state and business leadership together with beligerent nationalism."
Comment
34 of 155
December 14, 2007
Teddy Roosevelt often observed that American Democracy is too sturdy to be destroyed by a foriegn enemy. But, he warned, it could easily be destroyed by "malefactors of great wealth" who subverted our political institutions from within. Address at the Pilgrim Memorial Monument, Provincetown, Ma., Aug, 1907
Comment
35 of 155
December 14, 2007
Rick whoa! "Our Facist Gov't?" Are you referring to the Dem controlled Congress?

And Rick, check your facts: the United States is a Republic - not a Democracy. Democracy is just another name for mob rule. Our founding fathers had the sense to choose Rule of Law over a mob rule. Yes the world gets it - more nations now chose capitalism and free markets giving individuals the choice rather than government.

Those "evil" companies(also known as the private sector)meet the needs of American. In fact, many work in fossil fuel and related industries: would you throw them out of work?

Regarding your rant on Bush being evil: you insult American voters with that call. After all, they twice voted Bush into office. And those voters tried to right their mistake by voting a Democrat controlled Congress.

So when you call Bush evil empire, you call those same voters evil. Is that what you mean?
Comment
36 of 155
December 14, 2007
I,m not finished... This is America, now the laughing stock of the world; We can save face by showing what a true Democracy is all about. SCREW Big OIL, Go Solar any way! and VOTE all the bastards out who want to kill our children.
Comment
37 of 155
December 14, 2007
These bums are the ones that killed the RPS and PTC:

Senators Who Blocked a Measure to Rollback Oil Company Giveaways on HR 6
All Republicans.
http://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/Oil_Gas_money_to_Oil_Giveway_Senators.pdf

What the world needs is a combined renewables lobby to pay off these Republicans with a little more money than the oil lobby pays them, on condition that they do OUR bidding. Theres 6 billion of us, against just 5 corporations.
Comment
38 of 155
December 14, 2007
I wont hold back,. You son of a Bitch Mccain! I looked up to you as a kid...now you stabbed us (US) in the back, way to go!
Comment
39 of 155
December 14, 2007
Convert a car/truck to all electric as I did.
Vote the bums out of office. Support renewables and conserve energy. Convert a Prius to plug in and get 100mpg. Let's show the oil companies.
Comment
40 of 155
December 14, 2007
No Jim, most of us aren't whining. In a Democracy majority rules while the minority is protected. A democracy is where we have discussions just like this. W government subsidies come rif raf. Where do the government sudsidies remain? Tell me how the coal and oil industries "deserve" what our leadership rolled over and gave them. Progressive leadership is to blame as much as our fascist government because conservative leadership won again to the detriment of the health of all. Problem is that we have replaced democracy with capitalism. Most of the world community gets it. I know you get it too. Congratulations but we need to have this discussion.Thanks to all for thinking out loud.
Comment
41 of 155
December 14, 2007
I hate to inject REALITY into this discussion, but the current administration has signed and gotten behind more RE legislation that the previous. That would include the administration that Al Gore VP was a pretty integral part of. These decisions are about long term economics and world capital markets getting behind AE. What Al Gore says in Stockholm or Bali is, and always has been largely irrelevant....as he is.
Comment
42 of 155
December 14, 2007
For those who are disappointed in the legislative process (like me!), just remember that oil and coal are dwindling resources and rising in price.

Solar and wind don't diminish and and are falling in price (don't let short term supply imbalances fool you).

Eventually renewables will be cheaper. Until then keep doing the little things that will eventually add up to the big thing.
Comment
43 of 155
December 14, 2007
Whiners many of you. My livlihood is tied to the Solar Industry but I respect the democratic process too. Ultimately, the people get what they deserve, and sometimes what they want. Be grown-up and stop demonizing the opposition!
Comment
44 of 155
December 14, 2007
The U.S. government is actually putting us at a competitive disadvantage by enabling old line coal, low mpg engines and other special interests to get in the way of the true future: Wind, solar, and electric cars.

After some initial upfront investments, long-term, renewable energies end up costing very little (just on-going maintenance) vs. "old" energy, which could puts the U.S. at a serious competitive disadvantage, when other countries end up having cleaner, cheaper power than our coal, etc. I wish our congress would stop selling out and let the Barrons of the past 100 years start to lose out to superior, cheaper, cleaner energy alternatives.
Comment
45 of 155
December 14, 2007
There are some great comments above which have lifted my spirits a little after a bitterly disappointing week (though, let it be said, one should hardly be surprised about the shenanigans in the Senate). Anyway, good REpeople, fight on, for fight on we must ....
Comment
46 of 155
December 14, 2007
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value..."

Thomas Paine, The Crisis, 1776
Comment
47 of 155
December 14, 2007
Larry -
Does Arizona have a state RE incentive program? I'm in CT, which as you may know offers a generous incentive for PV.
Comment
48 of 155
December 14, 2007
I am a renewable energy dealer in Arizona. I have at least 8 customers that were waiting on this legislation to pass. I don't think they will be buying systems now. What will this mean on my small scale? Less jobs, less economic growth, less national security, more pollutants in the air and water, more wealth for oil and corporations, more utility price increases for everyone, more despair over US politics.

A sad day indeed.
Comment
49 of 155
December 14, 2007
Personally I think Pelosi BLEW it here, she forced an energy bill that had the tax breaks for big oil removed, the president warned them to not put that in the bill and she did it anyway. she sent a bloated energy bill to the senate that they could not pass. they did not have the 60 votes and the president knew it. I just wonder what could have been for OUR ITC if they did not include the 'take away' from big oil. I think this was a calculated mistake, especailly considering the war funding issues, etc.

we have another year to hammer the ITC through...
Comment
50 of 155
December 14, 2007
To George Whiting (#52):

Agree. Higher carbon taxes give every American a vested interest in reducing consumption. And notwithstanding all the hype about this technology or that, at this time efficiency and conservation are the most important methods for reducing our carbon footprint.
The federal government is not very good at picking the best technologies. Let the marketplace do that - but steer the marketplace by building in the external costs
(pollution, war) of our current technologies (fossil generators).

Moreover, tax dollars stay in the US, whereas 60% of our crude dollars go to foreign countries. Make the carbon tax essentially "revenue neutral" by offsetting
carbon taxes with lower income taxes for low & middle
income earners.

Had this been done decades ago with escalating taxes, businesses and consumers would have "seen" the costs, and taken the necessary steps to curtail consumption.
Comment
51 of 155
December 14, 2007
Today across the Midwest a one Million citizens where impacted from a major Ice Storm some may ask is this due to climate change many will debate the issue with those today without power but the impact upon the economy and what a RSP can do a with renewable energy standard can do for a hurting economy would address man made and natural disasters In the Senate & The House with lives at stake with just one VOTE!
What will it take major loss of life , loss of profits with the economy or maybe these politician need come live one day in a home or business without power or see what the increase at the pumps and utilities cost as done to America.
Comment
52 of 155
December 14, 2007
No richard, S was saying that george Bush and dick Cheney are the evil empire, right S? They have replaced all government employees with the cahunas to work in oversight of corporate greed regarding the environment with insiders from oil, coal and nuclear background. The fox is guarding the hen house. you deflect, childishly by saying "red does it, too." they huddle w execs from those very proffitable industries and hammer out policy behind closed doors and have a quick photo op w renewables and name their bill something sweet. They stifle new tech that will usurp their ability to charge energy rent for the rest of time. I agree w most that we should install and execute re for those who will w faith to the future. I am with you S, let's dust off and do the right thing. can't just leave the playground to richard. r and friends love fear, power.
Comment
53 of 155
December 14, 2007
Let me get this straight S.: China and Russia are the 2 worst polluters around and have been fouling the air, the earth, our waterways and oceans for decades and have made little if any effort to reform, yet you think the United States is the evil empire? Well here's an idea: maybe you should vote or better yet - MOVE.

So you know S., The USA has been the leader in renewable energy technology for over 40 years and has some of the best solar, wind and geothermal technoligies available on the global market today. In fact, many of these companies have been among the best investments, because they have been rapidly growing revenues and earnings by selling and installing product around the world. I could go on but I doubt you'd get it. So if you really hate this country that much, then you are free to MOVE - perhaps you should try one of the "RED empires."
Comment
54 of 155
December 14, 2007
Utter failure...to the American people and to the world. Subsidizing corn-based ethanol--arguably the worst of the biofuel solutions--removing the RPS, PTC and ITC is and energy bill? And congress has the gall to "hail the passage of the Bill as a bipartisan success."

Unbelievable. I ask: what planet are these people on?

Undermining what could have been a great national energy bill, the president gives us lumps of COAL for Christmas. How very fitting.

This is shameful and beyond reproach.
Comment
55 of 155
December 14, 2007
Wonderful forum. Current administration has purged the federal government of all who have a passion for the truth on environment (Robert F Kennedy Jr. book, Crimes Against Nature.) Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich are two politicians who have spoken bravely on renewables. Of the candidates running, who would provide true bold leadership? The business problem is that big financial clout comes from those industries bent on renting energy for the rest of time, not individual ownership.
Comment
56 of 155
December 14, 2007
Let me put this bluntly,
This bill was gutted before it hit the floor.
It was a piece of crap.
Let it die.

Consider this...
Rapid growth requires freedom.
RE has lots of freedom, with little regulation.
Let's keep it that way.

We have what we need.
We just need to do it cheaper, faster, bigger.
That's OUR problem.
Many of us are fixing it, as we speak.

Congress can just sit and twiddle their fat, stubby fingers, it makes no difference.

We don't need them, they need us.

We need to grow BEFORE their attention deficit, monosyllabic, bovine brains figure it out.
Comment
57 of 155
December 14, 2007
I think that after the 2008 elections, perhaps we will see this legislation come up again. We will by then have a new president.

St. Theresa of Avila said "God help us for stupid nuns." I think this saying could apply right now to our leaders. They must indeed be blunt in the head to insist in keeping our dependency on fossil fuels by preventing assistance for the development of RE.

A flock of fools is no better than the blind attempting to lead those with eyesight. We have a most backward situation that needs to be fixed.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
58 of 155
December 14, 2007
What can the crew do to Save U.S.S AMERICA?? Mutiny?

Ask Captain and his officers to use their gold to start SLOWLY making sails or, GIVE it to CREW and PASSENGERS to make sails URGENTLY? If they don't?...

WILL U.S.S. AMERICA be dead in the water while ships from other nations pass by(or commandeer US) to avoid the storm of the century?
Our U.S.S."AMERICA" is being misled by greedy Oligarchy.

WE, the R.E. crew, NEED TO LEAD THE PASSENGERS to all starting MAKING PIECES FOR the LARGE SAIL we MUST have to avoid the stormS and regain leadership for the World!
...---... (S.O.S)
LEAD...
Make NOW or find way to make YOUR homes, vehicles, and businesses TOTALLY POWERED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY!
LEAD...
If you can't, SUPPORT those that are trying, educate, write articles in your local papers, talk TODAY at meetings, holiday parties...STAND UP and UNTITED for U.S.S. AMERICA!
Comment
59 of 155
December 14, 2007
Mr. Horsman, YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT! plus most comments supporting that we need new leadership, and...WE ARE IT.

Pardon the ship analogy and please bear with me...

U.S.S. AMERICA
The people of the United States are on a engine powered vessel crusing into rough seas in search of fuel.

Captain & officers are at the helm and ploting our new course to FIND MORE fuel WITHOUT using THEIR gold.

Some of the crew is WARNING leadership of dangers ahead:

"RUNNING LOW ON FUEL, NEED TO BUILD SAILS!"

"PREDICT WHITE SQUALL SOON, CHANGE COURSE!"

"WE MUST SAVE FUEL FOR EMERGENCY MANEUVERS"

Captain discredits warnings, states he knows "what's best for ship, we'll find more cheap fuel before engine quits" and orders us to "stay on present course, can't make into a sailing ship because it will cost too much and is TOP-heavy!" (from gold in top officers quarters)
Comment
60 of 155
December 14, 2007
THE PROBLEM IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT BUT RATHER THE MANUFACTURERS AND FEEDSTOCK SUPPLIERS OF PV. THEIR GREED AND NON CONCERNS FOR US HERE JUST GOES TO SHOW; JUST GO WHERE THE MONEY IS. MAKE PV AFFORDABLE AND WITHOUT INCENTIVES, THAT IS THE KEY. AND WE DO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE. JUST LIKE OIL EXECS, PV EXECS DON'T GIVE A DAMN. FIRST SOLAR ONCE SAID, OUR PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD AT $2 PER WATT. MEANWHILE, THEIR STOCK IS $240 PER SHARE AND THEIR PRODUCT IS NOWHERE NEAR $2 PER WATT.
Comment
61 of 155
December 14, 2007
Again it is most unfortunate tnat the persons who vote or create laws, rules & regulations will never be effected by the the loss of 3 generations of manufacturing jobs, never be effected by a marketplace full of disposable imported plastic landfill mass that I call Junk, never be effected by an education system that takes last place to any culture in the world, and will never be effected by the daily uncontrolled increase of every fuel and consumer good made available to humans.
Every culture on this planet hate Americans for the abuse they are subjected to, by leaders who try to promote themselves as humanatarians.

Do what is right for all mankind, your rewards will not be of the place we call earth.
Comment
62 of 155
December 14, 2007
with 13 billon in subsidies, this is not nough of a level playing field to say, "buy what is cheaper." Don;t forget all of the dept. of defense money that was are spoending for access to the oil in the first place. There are issues such as zoning, solar rights, etc., that need to be addressed by the gov't for many to have access to gain energy from their own roof tops or the air moving above their homes.

Everyone is on the oil company bandwagon, what about the power companies. I think they playing a mojor role in getting the votes to lean in their favor.

All is not lost, some day there will not be enough water in the southeast or southwest to cool the coal or nuclear plants and they will have to come up with a solution. hey look, one already exists!
Comment
63 of 155
December 14, 2007
This is VERY disappointing. The American consumers were not even given a chance to vote for what they need and want. Very very disappointing!!
Comment
64 of 155
December 14, 2007
I'm not a fan of raising CAFE standards because I don't think they work. Improving the fuel efficiency of cars makes them cheaper to drive. Ultimately people drive more. A carbon tax on the other hand gives people an incentive to switch to more fuel-efficient cars.

If people are going to save money by buying insulation and renewable fuels, then they'll do it. They'll also buy the ones that make the most sense, not necessarily the ones that have the best lobbyists in DC. I believe all renewable energy technologies (wind, solar, biomass, hydrogen, etc) are part of our future (they have to be), and we can get there without partisanship and wrangling if the disincentives are in place for the non-renewable alternatives.
Comment
65 of 155
December 14, 2007
Why lament? This should be great news for solar since trick IRS bookkeeping has never really been what solar has needed. Government can only hurt what appears to now be unstoppable solar energy inertia that CAN thrive despite government. Instead, international shaming (EU disenfranchisement and potential boycotting), international investing (from China, Japan, Germany, Spain, etc.), venture capital investing (as in Googling), state leadership and oil profit greed ARE driving a new solar age. AND, A very angry Gaia is helping, and may soon destroy Cold War overhang idiocy and reform US politics as we know it for the long run and therefore much for the better.

Solar can stand on and probably always could have stood on its own two feet were it not for the false promises of government and the sense of dependency they promoted!

Just make it Beautiful. Let's Reach for the sun!

George Reynoldson
Comment
66 of 155
December 14, 2007
The best way for RE to succeed is to raise the price of non-renewable fuels so that the cost of their cost includes their environmental costs, not just the extraction, refining, transportation, and marketing costs.

The best way to accomplish this is with a CARBON TAX. Overall, taxes can stay the same by lowering other taxes. This makes people who drive big cars and live in big houses pay for the environmental costs of that lifestyle, and also gives them an incentive to change.
Comment
67 of 155
December 14, 2007
cont.. heavier, we will make trucks but we got them to be licensed as cars (Gee, how did they do that?) Come on people wake up!!!! All that it takes is hundreds of millions of dollars for high power marketing and billions of dollars to have the product ready when the sales hit!!! easy, right.. yes if you are the oil companies with hundreds of billions... its not a democracy its a dollarocracy, and that's what mainstream wanted, so there can be "A" lists and "B" lists and red carpets and the right and wrong side of the tracks... If you think I am wrong, take a stroll up to RI and walk along the ocean front cliffs and see what is celebrated....
Comment
68 of 155
December 14, 2007
Hi Again, again: You know the choir here, as it was put, I am sure most are old enough to remember 1973 and the major sweeping impact it had on ALL, ALL, ALL Americans. That was a unified hit on the public which had V8 Olds and Cady's sitting as used cars for chump change. Everybody got the message. Car companies downsized their models and cried, "we get the best mileage, No, we do, we do", blah, blah, blah. Just 20 years later using high power print and TV marketing, the auto companies were able to convince allot of THOSE SAME PEOPLE, "hay, that was just a fluke, its OK to be glutinous with energy, bigger, bigger, heavier, cont..
Comment
69 of 155
December 14, 2007
Also, to those who produce and invest in RE technologies and energy saving devices. If RE can be produced and sold near cost, perhaps people will purchase and use these technologies in numbers that will put a dent in the fuel economy that is in place now. Not only will these companies gain revenue through increased sales, but also the government may begin to become unsettled knowing that the people are revolting against them just as they revolt against us.
Promoters of RE; instead of investing money to convince the government to push RE, use the money to install and push RE. It is only when the public sees these technologies in their own backyard that they will begin to catch on. Same goes for all these RE trade shows that go on. Why pay hundreds of dollars to hear someone speak about RE and pay for hotels and airfare? Take that money and buy yourself and install a system so your neighbors can see that this technology is here and can be working for you and everyone today.
Comment
70 of 155
December 14, 2007
Matthew -
Shell Oil and BP both bought PV manufacturers. Lacking
expertise, they were struggling. Shell recently sold off its PV company; BP soon will.

Oil Profits? Huge of late. But in the 90s, in the face of OPEC dumping($10.- 12.00/bbl), the industry laid off thousands. Companies went bankrupt or consolidated in order to survive.
P.S. Profits are taxed twice: once before, and again after distribution to shareholders.

OPEC controls ~80% of the world's known conventional resources. And outside the Middle East, there are no cheap easy barrels left.

Prices too high? Not high enough, judging by society's reticence to really change its ways. It's the high prices which are spurring interest in alternatives. If prices collapse, we will repeat the SUV-crazed era we're trying to put behind us.
Speaking of which: Used SUVs are being shipped abroad, where in oil-producing countries like Kuwait and Venezuela, subsidized gas sells for pennies a gallon.
Comment
71 of 155
December 14, 2007
Well maybe it is time to take the government out of the loop. These energy technologies are availabe to the public and it is up to them to choose to use these technologies. We do not need the government to tell us it is okay to use them and we should not look to them for support in these issues. We all know that they are all out to make money, not save us citizens money. Maybe it is time for another American revolution. One in which the people of the country take over instead of letting these 300 or so congressmen make decisions for us millions of people. Stop paying your taxes and giving these incumbants our money to play with and begin investing in ourselves and doing what is right with our own money. Maybe then there will be peace and rightousness in the world.
Comment
72 of 155
December 14, 2007
This should not be a surprise to anyone. To quantify the overall power of big oil is next to impossible. They're reach encompasses mankind on all economic levels, especially when it comes to politicians.
($=POWER=DECISIONS BASED ON $)
Why put ourselves in such a situation?
Greed is the only answer I can come up with!
To go ahead and base our energy policy on this seems dangerous to future generation.
This is going to be quite an uphill war, and like others have said before we must no rely on the "good noblemen" of high office for such changes, so many of them are behind the times or are part of the "ball and chain".

I myself see a bright future for these industries, I myself am working on higher education in this field and am finding many more ways to produce, save, and store energy than I ever thought possible.
Comment
73 of 155
December 14, 2007
Its a disgrace how oil companies can lobby the republicans to vote against it. Time to remember the republicans who voted against it and make sure they dont come to power...
Comment
74 of 155
December 14, 2007
I thought there was a baseline stupidity level you had to be above in order to run a political campaign and get into office. This is one of the easiest political 'no brainers' i've ever seen in my life - every country on earth (except the US) is on board, US population is clearly on board, California has a solar gold rush going on due to state level action, and general disgust with control of lobbyists in DC...

I guess the takeaway is that big oil lobbyists truly have a greater grip on votes than i even contemplated.
Comment
75 of 155
December 14, 2007
Indeed, we are running out or time (see Scott Ballard posting above). For further proof, read Tom Friedman's "The World is Flat." Demand for oil will continue to go ballistic even if the US conserves aggressively. China and India will assure that. We need a post-Sputnic "land on the moon" comittment to pursue renewables. With gov't incentives, the private sector will get it done.

Unfortunately, we believers are preaching to the choir. How do we rally the silent majority grassroots US population to push in the right direction?
Comment
76 of 155
December 14, 2007
Hi George Messier

I agree we have to look forward.
I'm looking forward to the end of the Bush Administration.

Nice for some to coddle Crude, but the fact is we are running out of time.

2015 is critical mass: see video: Shrinking Polar Ice Sheets Changes to the ice extent, as well as the shrinking of ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic, is the subject of a panel discussion sponsored by the American Meteorological Society. http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Energy&ShowVidNum=15&Rot_Cat_CD=Energy&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=365&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365#

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7142694.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1109_041109_polar_ice.html
Comment
77 of 155
December 14, 2007
Comparing and issues of labor and saving dwindling jobs (Unions) and obscene profits by oil companies (capital) is comparing apples and oranges. I have a friend who is a labor organizer and is working to change labor's attitudes towards CAFE standards, electric vehicles etc. to convince them that these are not threats to job security – how many oil industry people are working to support any of these changes? They aren't fighting for their jobs - only the right to make ridiculous profits and resist change.
Comment
78 of 155
December 14, 2007
part 2
Fossil fuels will continue to provide the lion's share of energy to this nation, AND the world, for decades to come. EVEN IF the 15% RPS in 2020 standard is workable, it means fully 85% would be from fossil generators. And because the US population is forecast to grow from 300 to 400 million by 2050, demand will be even greater, especially when we shift much of the transportation load to electricity (plug-in hybrids).

Are we ready to power all the factories associated with wind and solar, using just wind and solar energy inputs? Good. Now try convincing the factories.

Even if you can imagine it, you still have to SELL it. Try convincing a grocery chain to rely on wind/PV to power their refers 24/7. Been there guys, and it's no sale - not on the merits of RE, and certainly not with an eye on roof engineering challenges in northern climes.
It's said that "getting there is half the fun". Are we having fun yet?
Comment
79 of 155
December 14, 2007
Part 1
As discussed earlier in this thread, the vote in question was simply to invoke cloture, and thus end debate. THAT would have ensured defeat(veto).
Fortunately, the cloture vote failed(59-40 w/1 abstention), so they debated into the evening, and ultimately passed the bill 86-8, after deleting the tax issues as they pertain to fossil generators. After joint action to iron out differences between the Senate and House versions, the bill will be signed into law by President Bush.
It's a step forward.
Keep your eye on the ball, which is RE, and NOT just
skewering Bush and the Republicans. For what it's worth, one of the biggest obstacles to higher CAFE standards was a Democrat - Dingell - beholden to the auto unions. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.....
It makes no sense whatsoever to "punish" an entire industry, along with their stockholders, when in fact we will continue to rely on them for generations to come.
Comment
80 of 155
December 14, 2007
Although it's good to read all your reactions, the bad news is that outside the USA the vote will again re-inforce the impression of America as a purely selfish power hungry (literally and politically) country.

Both in Europe and travelling around the world, I encounter that Americans are being hated (and this is not too strongly worded) for what your government did the past years in the name of "liberty". For more than two centuries America has been an example to many abroad, because citizens rather than autocrats determine their own future. The power politics of the past years have further eroded this ideal of liberty and citizenship as opposed to state authority. The world not only loses at the climate front, but with it the case for civil rights and liberty suffers.

Reynier Funke (Dutchman who lives in Germany now after some 4 years in the USA)
Comment
81 of 155
December 14, 2007
Sorry about the typos-forgot to spell check i.e. Less money redirected to ruin renewables
Comment
82 of 155
December 14, 2007
We need to thank all the Rs & Ds that voted YES, but challenge them for not making it happen.
We don't want Reid & Pelosi to avoid the fight next year. We want their commitment that they'll try harder knowing that's it's inevitable.

If SEIA or someone could keep track of the various reps' attitudes & influences so we can hammer the borderline ones in our state or demand our rep to encourage a particular borderliner in another state.

This is going to come up again next year, we need to prepare now.

Don't give money to the opponents: Big Oil. If you have to drive on gas, buy Venezuela oil at CITGO. Less money redirected to reining renewables.
Comment
83 of 155
December 14, 2007
The fact that there was a close vote shows how popular this legislation was. We just need to sustain, strengthen & sharpen our efforts. I plan to call my reps and other state reps and ask what happened; who was borerline that you could have tried harder to pursuade; we'll help; I thought Chuck Hagel being one of the saner republicans regarding the war would make the connection between war & oil.

You know Landreu is dependent on oil/gas, but maybe she could be turned. The carrot /stick attitude is good to use for all these folks.
Comment
84 of 155
December 14, 2007
The 2005 bill wasn't as threatening to Big Oil as this one. It snuck in under the radar. This one was a major line-in-the-sand of who's side are you on. I actually think it's encouraging that several Republicans voted for it. We all know how the system works- Legal Bribery- from the richest. Look at Open Secrets to see who is funded by whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/.
Comment
85 of 155
December 14, 2007
they will eventually hang themselves.

I just hope that the actions of the RE industry in its hast, does not do something that will "open the door" for the established energy providers of this country and allow them to start mining undersea methane hydrate deposits, because that would truly be a sad day for the RE industry!
Comment
86 of 155
December 14, 2007
59 yeas
40 noes
1 absent

Sen. McCain has been talking the talk for renewables, but he didn't show up for the vote. His would have been the vote needed to pass this measure. Talk's cheap, his vote is expensive.
And,
how can America call itself a democracy, when a measure can be defeated after it gets 59% of the vote? That's not democracty, its rule by the the special interest dominated Republican party.
Comment
87 of 155
December 14, 2007
I once was impressed by renewable energies. I viewed photovoltaics in particular as a way for me to get away from, what I call the "fat cats", the coal fired and nuclear fired electricity providers.

I went more then 20 years without any electricity what so every before I installed the PV system on my offgrid home. So when the PV system was installed it was payed for, by me, without any government assistance what so every.

It would appear to me the RE industry has become just another "fat cat" wanting to sleep with the politicians.

Just goes to show you, if you give someone enough rope.....
Comment
88 of 155
December 14, 2007
This is a sad day for our country. GB is bringing this country to its knees. The only way to describe the current administration is simply evil. At this point its obvious that they don't care about our country or our children's future. I say "support our troops drive a hybrid." They say more guns, more bombs, more planes, and more ships.

The world leaders of tomorrow are NOT the military leaders of today. The world leaders of tomorrow will be the most educated the most technological country with the best health care. China puts out 8 engineers to our 1, India puts out 5 doctors to our 1. Germany has 54% of the world's solar electric generation, and has as much sun as Michigan. I could be mistaken but I think we rank 34th in health care, world wide. Some thing has to give because what we are doing now is not working.
Comment
89 of 155
December 14, 2007
Thank you Renewableenergyaccess for listing HOW the senators voted. Usually I have to do several searches to find this information.

Oh and like most of you I'm very sad that so many of our elected "leaders" can't see how important it is that they support renewables.
Comment
90 of 155
December 15, 2007
When we had the tax credits back in the late 70's we were on the road, with our Model A, look how aircraft has evolved in 37 years, We can only wonder where we be, had we been able to continue. Interestingly the technology hasn't changed that much. We used tracking parabolic collectors then for domestic hot water. Evacuated tubes were new, but on the horizon. But because of the infinite wisdom of the government who pulled the plug on the 30% tax credit, people lost the incentive to buy. Development stopped, here we are now with a serious problem regarding fuel and the environment, again the government wants to pull the plug. When are we going to take control out of the hands of the lobbist and paid political pupits.
Comment
91 of 155
December 15, 2007
Several things crossed my mind while speaking with our Reps and Senators. What else can be done since the current administration had stated the bill would be vetoed. RE can stand on it's own and we as consumers can see that it happens.
I found a great book that has gotten little press about Alternative Energy. It is written by Congressman Jay Inslee. It is a wonderful collection of companies and individuals accross the country working to me RE available to the masses.
More info can be seen at the wbsite:http://www.apollosfire.net/

Companies like First Solar and Citizenre are making headway and letting everyone know we are available.

Thanks,
D Miller
Comment
92 of 155
December 15, 2007
Actually as I mentioned, the fish part was specifically from that book I was pointing at.

Oh certainly ICELAND had plenty of evidence of fishing.

GREENLAND however had no archological evidence.
No fish bones, no hooks, no nothing.

Considering how certain you are of yourself, I find it suprising you haven't provided a single source yet.

Is that because you can't?

_

Heh, and then you go off into a big rant about politics and rhetoric.
Comment
93 of 155
December 15, 2007
Re: Vikes from recent arch finds and in college history from over 30 years ago - text books and required source reading. Their method was mostly line fishing near the coast with some inland - fresh water fishing too.

Wikipedia & surface temp reconstuctions? Please.

But your're not being objective - admit you're prejudiced and your opinion on GW is mostly about politics. Unfortunately, it seems to be all about politics for GW advocates - all about hating Bush, GOP, and Corporations. You love the ambulance chasers and big trial lawyers but hate job/wealth creating capitalism.
Comment
94 of 155
December 15, 2007
<b>==Also, electric cars are not SUVs.==</b>

Why not?

<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/truck2">http://greyfalcon.net/truck2</a>
Comment
95 of 155
December 15, 2007
George, buying up a PV manufacturer to make a "savvy" investment and then doing little to advance the technology to me is not as beneficial as the groundbreaking work that many startups have done in this country with precious help from this administration. The oil companies don't need to be subsidized &ndash; they've squandered their good fortune just to maintain power and control. Read the story of the takeover of Texaco and I think you'll see it was more than OPEC that caused consolidation in the oil industry. I never said prices were too high, I was merely claiming that a person protecting their job and a corporation that has shown bad behavior to maintain profits can't really be compared. Also, electric cars are not SUVs.
Comment
96 of 155
December 15, 2007
Tom i agree. We ignore other environmental damage - earth, rivers and oceans because of the focus on C02.

I don't know about the climate change part, but I see serious damage all around as developers today bulldoze every living thing, leaving no natural trees or vegetation. The result is runoff and drought becuase rainwater runs off into streams, rivers and out to sea rather than soaking down into the tree roots and then down into the water table. Our real threat is in the loss of our underground water.

We've learned nothing from the dust bowl era where trees and natural vege were removed for farming. We have far more trees today than seventy plus years ago yet we're going backwards. My home Atlanta used to be nothing but trees now it's asphalt, roof shingles and concrete. And we're having a serous drought with little underground water in reserve.

It seems we never learn from our past.
Comment
97 of 155
December 15, 2007
<b>==diets of Vikings in Greenland forced to eat more fish==</b>

Please quote your source.

First off the Vikings on Greenland never ate fish, ever. There were zero achelogical findings of fish being eaten there by the Norse settlers. (Which archelogists certainly thought was rather odd.) (This is cited from this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed)

The only reason they went there in the first place was because Erik the Red killed a bunch of people and was banished there.
And they barely eeked out a meager existance there.

And while the medieval period was relatively warm, and they may have been locally warm at greenland, according to the US National Academy of Sciences,
<a href="http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3">"none of the large-scale surface temperature reconstructions show medieval temperatures as warm as the last few decades of the 20th century."</a> (i.e. On a global scale.)
Comment
98 of 155
December 15, 2007
<b>==we really need to work with "FACTS" not opinions from either side.==</b>

Correct.

But then why do you keep trumping up petitions, a long list of website opinions, and interviews.

_

A paper published in Nature now thats on the right track, but lets see if it can stand up to open review.
(Which will be a while considering it hasn't even been published yet)

_

But frankly I do believe that this is where the real debate has moved.

It's not whether it's happening, or whether we are predominantly causing it. The argument has shifted to what exact outcome will occur, where and when because of it.
Comment
99 of 155
December 15, 2007
David let's consider the archaeological record then.

The Arch record shows active farming in Greenland by Viking settlers up to the end of the medieval warming period. Then temperatures became too cold to farm.

Prior to the temp decline, diets of Vikings in Greenland were rich in fruits and veges up to the end of the medieval warming period. Then temp change forced the Vikings to eat more fish.

Prior to the cold, the greater portion of their diet came from foods grown with fish added for a mix of 70% vege and 30% fish. This flip flopped as temps fell and reduced farming activity, forcing a diet change to 70-80% fish with the balance in veges.

The amount of farming in Greenland today is consistent with the end of the midieval warming period - extremely limited due to harshly cold temps. Unfortunately, GW advocates and "experts" seldom if ever mention these or similar facts because they tend to prefer believing that GW is anthropogenic.
Comment
100 of 155
December 15, 2007
I've ben in the alternative energy business since the late 70's (Bio-Mass) and what I can tell you from personal experience is that any time the Government or its agencies get involved in environmental issues, all facts go out the window to be replaced by politically correct opinions.

I particularily like the second link below. In reading many of the comments posted today, it's plain to see that we really need to work with "FACTS" not opinions from either side.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1212globalwarming,0,267191.story?coll=sfla-news-miami
Comment
101 of 155
December 15, 2007
<b>==And for you Tom, when I was in college, the scientific community was not at all concerned about GW but were convinced another ice age was imminent.==</b>

Thats not a true statement.

The media might have been, but frankly you shouldn't get your hard science from magazines and newspapers.

The actual scientists said that there was no conclusive evidence.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/lindzencooling.png">http://greyfalcon.net/lindzencooling.png</a>

Including a consensus report put out by the US National Academy of Sciences on that exact subject. Which said that the evidence for an ice age was far too ambigous.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/cooling">http://greyfalcon.net/cooling</a>
Comment
102 of 155
December 15, 2007
Regarding global warming, I feel I've learned as much or more by reading those who are either skeptical, or who want to acknowledge uncertainties and limitations. A more critical review arms one to better counter the nay-sayers and can be an antidote for "group think".

Check out the Climate Science blog by Roger Pielke Sr., a retired professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State and a senior research scientist at U Colorado, Boulder. http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/

Also read his interview with Eco World. I'm particularly concerned that CO2 is emphasized too much while ignoring man made land use changes that negatively affect both climate and ecological health.

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445
Comment
103 of 155
December 15, 2007
And for you Tom, when I was in college, the scientific community was not at all concerned about GW but were convinced another ice age was imminent.

Of course this changed when the NEW batch of "experts" warned of GW. It's hard for me to trust "experts" when they've been so wrong, so many times throughout history. Just consider Galileo, Copernicus and others going against the "expert concensus." The experts are too often wrong or change their mind.

Too often ideology gets mixed with science (modern experts) as does special & political interests. So science has proven itself imperfect and not God afterall.

Personally, I've my doubts about the anthropogenic nature of GW but I'm open to that possibility. But I do see the critical importance of our developing RE. But then that's what we're doing right now in USA and at a pace never before seen in this country - thanks to our capitalism.
Comment
104 of 155
December 15, 2007
<b>==It would appear that the facts may well be on the side of the mentioned scientists.==</b>

And what are those facts?
#1 And where are they quoted from in peer reviewed physical science journal papers? (And not a medical journal, or a social science journal, or even worse)

#2 And if they've gotten that far (Which is rare), have those papers stood up to further review.
_

Much of the "facts" I'm assuming your citing don't even pass #1. Or they've long since failed #2, and are being raised from the dead.

For instance here's a few of the common false statements being spread.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3</a>

_

Besides which, does this sound familiar?
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/tobacco">http://greyfalcon.net/tobacco</a>
Comment
105 of 155
December 15, 2007
Again Rick, America actually is a Republic. These other nations you mentioned have different forms of gov't. China is communist: its citizens have no representation - like you and I have in the USA. And the same for USSR, which no longer exists by the way, and for the typical Islamic Republic - no representation. Do you understand these facts?

And like it or not - America is capitalist and another reason I consider this the greatest of all nations. But it sounds like you'd prefer socialism or communism maybe?

And if you don't understand the simple facts of America's form of gov't, how can you understand a complex subject like GW?

No Tim, I too read about those 100 dissenters. But try and suggest GW is not man made - you'll hear "99% of all scientist believe GW is man made." Which in effect state's there's no alternative explanation for GW even though historical and scientific evidence suggests otherwise.
Comment
106 of 155
December 15, 2007
Tom; You hit the nail on the head in bringing out the job aspect of renewable energy etc. Frankly that's plays alot into my main point. Lets approach alternative energy for what it is and can be relative to all its beneifts, not just the global warming side of the equation, which is such a politicaly charged topic.
Comment
107 of 155
December 15, 2007
cont'd
Also, it would be nice to separate out transportation related energy, i.e., oil, from building and industry related energy in these energy bills and in the mindset of the people. Oil will in some ways take care of itself -- it's going away and will get prohibitively expensive. Sad we can't kick the oil habit sooner though.

Renewable energy for building and industrial use is powered largely by coal and natural gas which aren't in as short supply as oil. Coal is particularly nasty, not just big CO2 emitter, from how it's mined to electric genearation. Wind and solar (along with geothermal, emerging ocean, etc.) energy are more expensive, but they're cleaner, AND they create jobs here in the good ol USA.

Money and jobs is the message that the states get and the R's in Washington will eventually listen too. My magic wand is broken. But I guess if we all rise up. They'll have to listen. Can we be civilized about it though?
Comment
108 of 155
December 15, 2007
Re Washington Pol's: send Mr. Smith back and send the rest of them packing. We have the best politicians money can buy. Both parties are woefully broken and captives of special interests. In this case, the R's are the particularly bad ones at the whim of oil industry. But I do drive more than I'd like, so how much can I really complain?

The states have been passing Renewable Portfolio Standards with Republican governors and strong bipartisan support. They get it. It's not just about reducing GHG's and protecting the environment, it's about creating new 21st century jobs. Germany gets that in a big way.
Comment
109 of 155
December 15, 2007
I think you need to check the facts more closely. It would appear that the facts may well be on the side of the mentioned scientists.

In any case I'm certainly not saying global worming may not be occuring. I'm simply stating that many well qualified scientists are stating that it's a natural ocurance not man made. The self serving aspect cuts both ways. Their position doesn't negate the need for alternate fuel sources. It does however make a case for more accurately basing our need for alternative energy as the prime source of removing our dependence on Mid East sources for much of our energy. We just need to bring a "non political" mind set to the table. Putting all our eggs in The "Al Gore scenario" could come back to haunt us if the facts don't ultimately weigh in on his side.

A clean safe environment for the sake of a clean environment is a worthy cause and we should all work to achieve that.
Comment
110 of 155
December 15, 2007
==By the way am I the only one who noted yesterdays news headlines from over 100 top scientists who said mankind isn't the cause of global warming?==
<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/100-discredited-self-interested-and-or-deluded-scientists-question-climate-change">http://www.desmogblog.com/100-discredited-self-interested-and-or-deluded-scientists-question-climate-change</a>

Just because you can get 100 people to sign a piece of paper doesn't mean that they've actually given any peer reviewed scientific evidence to back themselves up.
Comment
111 of 155
December 15, 2007
Tim, global warming is a natural thing, it is the fact that today, global warming is happening at a much faster rate than ever before. Don't let those 100 scientist, who probably work for the govenment, lead you down the wrong path. Just like 4 out of 5 dentist recommend trident to reduce cavities, all of whom work in the trident labs. You should wonder why the fifth dentist doesn't agree.
Comment
112 of 155
December 15, 2007
Tim, Many of us look at the war in Iraq and oil and gas company subsidies as "pork barrell" politics. Your "real facts, well thought out and economically sensible," come straight out of conservative think tanks. Those 100 scientists work for these corporations/this admin. to cast doubt on the real science put out by the National Academy of Sciences in response to Bush Admin question. You continue the doubt through your efforts, with those 100 non-pier reviewed "scientists" to keep the public confused and immobilized. I pledge to apply pressure to my progressive lawmakers if you will do the same to those on your side of the isle.
Comment
113 of 155
December 15, 2007
Hello friends,

The decision by some of our leaders to not back the renewable bill should not frustrate our efforts to build clean energy. We should redouble our efforts. network with each other, build our capacity and lead by example. We are bringing clean energy to the Caribbean too - the US third border - so sustainable energy drives development which will allow for folks there to make a decentg living. We are doing the same here at home. Anyone interested in teaching PV installation to a group in the Maryland area or the Caribbean (Dominica) contact me at gabrielchn@aol.com. See www.renewableenergy21.com
Comment
114 of 155
December 15, 2007
I think we all need to look at what the proposed legislation included and why President Bush said he'd veto it. As is usually the case the "devil is inthe details" the real problem is "Pork Barrel" politics. Until we hold our politicians accountable for their lack of integrity, we'll continue to pay the price.

By the way am I the only one who noted yesterdays news headlines from over 100 top scientists who said mankind isn't the cause of global warming? It's a natural occurrence and we can't do anything about it. It would be nice if we had policies based on real facts, well thought out and economically sensible
Comment
115 of 155
December 15, 2007
Technolgy comes from many places, Germany, Japan and California who are kicking your proud bum (and mine)because of leadership, political will and also a lack of arogance. You got me started yesterday when you told somebody, in a sence, "like it or leave it" and that's where I am not impressed. We discent to make OUR country better, it happens to be your country too so we won't make you move. ps. have you hugged your corporation today?
Comment
116 of 155
December 15, 2007
You've got your Chinese Republic and your Islamic Republic and your USSR... so what? Sometimes a corporation has people on payrolls who invent technology and often inventions happen seperate from corporations that get bought up by corporations who control patents on inventions for massive proffits when, if set free, they could help many more folks without contributing to inflation. You are proud of your country and your corporations and force me to play devils advocat. They are great because they have taken the best and the brightest from divergent other countries who are free to go back in the future if they choose.
Comment
117 of 155
December 15, 2007
Like i said before, USA has been the leader in RE technology for over 4 decades. Today American corp design, produce and install some of the best RE systems the world over. And none of this would've been possible without help from our gov't(NASA, Military, etc) and our private enterprise(all those evil profiteering companies).

And the USA is far cleaner than emerging market nations like Russia, China and India who the worst polluters of rivers, air and oceans.

But our Federal government has swelled to enormous proportions and does almost nothing well. If you want it done, it will take private enterprise - not government. Stop whining because American solar, wind and geothermal businesses already make it happen. First Solar, SunPower, Evergreen Solar, Emcore, AST, World Water and Solar, Oramat & GE, etc - even big oil designs and produce wind and solar power systems.
Comment
118 of 155
December 15, 2007
Rick,
Great word, fascism. No one seems to agree exactly what that means. One definition of a fascist tactic is to marginalize the character of a group of people until they have no legitimate voice. Republicans do it all the time. Just say the word "liberal" and you've completely ruined yourself in some circles. That's because fascist tacticts have been employed by Republicans for decades to marginalize anyone who associates themselves with a "liberal" cause. Evidently, Renewables are a liberal cause.

Take the high road. Don't recipricate.
(With those bovine brained syncophants...)
Comment
119 of 155
December 15, 2007
Where is our solar and wind battery the size of a hot tub? They don't need radioactive refueling?
Comment
120 of 155
December 15, 2007
The article reads- From "Business Week" Magazine with MON and blue corn on the front page! Nuclear "batteris" arenothingnew.Energy from a fist-size lumpof plutonium has powered the Voyager spacecraft for 25 years. kept pacemakers ticking too. Hyperion Power Generation is developing a nuclear battery the size of a hot tub.25mgwts for 5yrs.Run 25,000homes.Los Alamos National Lab Santa Fe NM startup's battery runs on uranium hydride as fuel, to prevent a meltdown? No moving parts.HPG's batteries buried in earth remove to refuel no need to do on site radioactive materials. Not connected to grid.Ready in Six years.
Comment
121 of 155
December 15, 2007
I read that the clean NUKE BIG Battery is something they think is better than what we clean environment and water and earth people want. They say you can put it in the ground and fill it up with nuke every 5 years and it will last 5 years and not have a meltdown? I know it will spew and do other nonenvironmental things, Meltdown isnt the only thing to lookfor when it comes to clean energy. They just don't seem to have the patience or sence to do the proper thing for the planet.
Comment
122 of 155
December 15, 2007
How do the coal and oil lobbies compare to the wind lobby in terms of Dollars expended?

How many Senators are backed by the coal and oil lobby?

How much subsidies do the coal and oil industry enjoy each year?

No contest! Wind is a loser!
Comment
123 of 155
December 16, 2007
It's time to stop buying extras like ski boats, bass boats, Star Bucks $4.00 coffee, and many other wants and put the money in RE (solar,small wind,home-made biodiesel). Let's join together EVERYONE and make a change for OURSELVES! We need the Tax Credits but if they want to wage war on us, we can wage war back! BUY RE instead of the EXTRAS! Think about your purchase when you reach for the next store counter. Boycott the big corporations and invest in US! Just to spite them, I'm planning a new Solar Hot Water System to be installed soon! No Starbucks for me! :-)

Happy Holidays!
Comment
124 of 155
December 16, 2007
Great comments, F. Berry. Let's do it. David, It's not their salary as much as the lobby money on the side.
Comment
125 of 155
December 16, 2007
Here, here Marcus! I believe the only thing left to do, in order to get the senate to vote the will of the people, is to remind them who they work for. A reduction in salary would wake those idiots up.
Comment
126 of 155
December 16, 2007
I've said it before and I'll say it here, and say it for the next two or three years; "we're not bleeding enough yet economically and our government is run by the lobbyists (oil companies).

As long as money "effectively runs our nation" ie oil, and energy companies, we will NEED to take action ourselves as citizens. Many people have harolded this notion with 'like' commentary above. We will need to have a "Boston Tea Party" in order to break away. Only,..this time, it will be against our own government.
We should love America,...but figure out how to take action on our own, inside of each state in the US.

All the Best
Comment
127 of 155
December 16, 2007
So much effort to protect primal investments elsewhere I'm sure. As the world, as shown in Bali, sits by perplexed by this smoking, chattering machine called America. A sad day indead.
Comment
128 of 155
December 16, 2007
This is really shameful. The USA should be leading the world in protecting the environment and instead is protecting the profits of polluters, (politicians protecting their cronies' interests.)

I think this is a good example that democracy under party system with lobbyists, fails to represent the will of the people.

With modern technology it is easy and almost without cost to conduct votes. (I get the proxy voting for directors of companies I have shares in and other questions to the shareholders for the AGM and its all online - you get a control number for voting and its all secure and easy over the internet.) Similarly, referendums on questions such as "Should renewable energy producers receive a tax credit for production?" are easy to do and cheap to do.

I believe they (the politicians) don't do this because then they couldn't run their own little fiefdom.

Protecting profits to pillage the planet.
Comment
129 of 155
December 16, 2007
Hrmm

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213152600.htm">Study says Coral Reefs are dying due to acidification</a>
Comment
130 of 155
December 16, 2007
Lets not kid ourselves.

We aren't going to get where we want to merely by individual belt tightening. What we need is institutional changes.

_

Anyways, for those who still don't believe in Global Warming, how about Ocean Acidification due to carbon dioxide mixing with water?

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213152600.htm
">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213152600.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/03/nfish03.xml">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/03/nfish03.xml</a>
Comment
131 of 155
December 16, 2007
I think everyone should put their money where their mouth is. I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination but I'm trying to be a good steward of the earth. I use a geo-thermal heating system and have a 12 K.W. solar array so my electric bill is almost net zero. Extremely long term paybacks but I feel good for doing it. I keep e-mailing my congress reps. and give them my opinions and every chance I get I try to convince people on the benefits of R.E. I only wish everybody would do the same!!!!!
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts!!!! Mike
Comment
132 of 155
.......and it would not hurt to read Rommey's 'faith' speech, no matter where you stand on ANY issue... R 'Smiley' Settlemyre
Comment
133 of 155
Someone mentioned that we (the U S) are not a democracy, but rather, a republic... I ask: Then what is this FEDERAL group between the republic and the people? Please forget "government partnering with people"...Think, act, live and buy 'green'... put your cash to work for YOUR OWN future. VOTE the scoundrels out. Take our country back! R.'Smiley'Settlemyre
Comment
134 of 155
December 17, 2007
Shaun, I am sceptical too but george and dick have been close to criminal in replacing anybody who really cares about the cost to health over the cost to business w blatant corporate insiders. They had forty meetings w oil, coal, gas and nuclear, zipped up policy, then had a half hour photo shoot w some renewable folks. So far my dems have only signed off on admin policy, so there is something wrong with the system.
Comment
135 of 155
December 17, 2007
Would things really change if we get a Democratic President in 2009? The influence of corporations in govt., especially that of oil and coal, is so intrenched an deep rooted that nothing is likely to change, unless something forces its hand (for instance, peak oil springs to mind). Call me a cinic? Perhaps. But I won't be holding my breath....

Look how Al Gore, latter-day champion of climate change, argued against CO2 emission controls during the Kyoto conference when he was VP in the late 90s. Was he batting for Earth or Corporate America?
Comment
136 of 155
December 17, 2007
Gas prices in my area change by 20-30 cents in the course of a few months. I would hardly notice a 7 cent increase.

And the $13 billion would be an investment in the RE industry.
Comment
137 of 155
December 17, 2007
If you've read this far, here's a bit of economics regarding the failure of the transfer of the $13 billion in tax incentives from oil and natural gas to RE. The claim raised by some Senators was that the $13 billion would result in a significant rise in the price of fuel at a time when it is already very high. Based on the Department of Energy estimated vehicle fuel consumption from 2003 to 2005, a simple trend analysis shows how the price per gallon of diesel and gas would rise if all of the $13 billion in tax incentives were passed directly to the consumer. The estimated total gasoline and diesel consumption less consumption of biodiesel, gasahol, and MTBE in 2008 is based on a linear trend between the years 2003 and 2005. This amounts to about 184 billion gallons. The $13 billion would result in a 7 cent per gallon increase. Here's the DOE numbers. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/atftables/afvtrans_c1.xls
Comment
138 of 155
December 17, 2007
David, I was merely responding to the earlier comment about SUVs, which have generically become associated with gas guzzlers and even more recently with faux hybrids. I know there is nothing technical blocking mass production of electric SUVs as evidenced by the many small productions around the country and in Europe. If the Air Quality Board in California hadn't caved from their original position in the mid nineties, electric vehicles would be more widespread by now. Thanks for the YouTube clip though. It was one I hadn't seen.
Comment
139 of 155
December 18, 2007
Curt - well done for committing to solar for your home. If only our so-called "leaders" had the same vision as yourself. Make sure that your friends and neighbors see how your solar home works, so as to help spread the word.
Comment
140 of 155
December 18, 2007
I have just commited to solar power for my home, this is a large investment for me.
I want to thank the politicans for thier stupid decision for their do nothing attitude, which is business as usual.
Solar power is here to stay, so how can we wake up these politicans to work for a clean environment.
Comment
141 of 155
December 19, 2007
In a very recent new article reported American today are paying for the winter heating & electrical bills with there credit cards at a alarming rate.
The Abramoffs and Tom Delays scandals must be revisited
to connect the ties of over the many years lobby for policies that worked against the America public welling being for years and they include the energy sectors from the Oil to the Utilities Industry enjoyed receiving from the America public free tax subsidizes that held the market place hostage to a growing corporate monopoly. These politicain made a big mistake
and when they are voted out it maybe be to late.
Comment
142 of 155
December 19, 2007
The small Solar provider can alliance with an energy specialist to provide the renewable supply energy to the heats and lights system.

So, why do need a subsidy for Renewable Energy?
Could it be the Venture Capitalists wanting to reduce risk?
Comment
143 of 155
December 19, 2007
The RE industry needs to expand its business plan to include the consumer. The residential consumer who wants a clean energy system for heats and lights will focus on first cost and annual operating expense including investment in demand reduction.

In California, there are energy system contractors providing first cost system bids plus guaranteed annual energy expense for specified performance and term. These bids succeed when thermal envelop construction exceed code Air CHanges per Hour requirement and efficient equipment is selected to reduce demand. Integration with architects/engineers and equipment vendors provides opportunities for renewable energy. Changing from Rule Based to Performance based Codes, worker training and 21st century equipment designs needs modest investment to achieve economic solutions.
Comment
144 of 155
December 19, 2007
where are all the bleeding harts that cry out for saving the planet from pollution, please remember their names at the polls.
Comment
145 of 155
December 19, 2007
I think a lot of people were off-topic about this one - more political and less RE. RE has only to develop technology that is equivalent to $30/barrel oil, coal at its present price, and solar at$3/watt installed, to change everything; but if they don't do that there will be no widespread support for RE. We are not in the RE age yet, and will never be as long as we cling to expensive technologies that require government support to be competitive. Get real and get cost-effective, and the game will be over.
Comment
146 of 155
December 19, 2007
For the first time, ever, I wrote a letter to my republican sentor here in Colorado regarding the energy bill and my disapointment.

It was not a form letter with my name attached (I've done this a number of times) It was heart felt and honest.

And though it did mention the influence of the petrochemical companies and profits and polution and shifting of jobs and shifting of wealth. The bottom line that needs to be submitted to our representatives is the effect on our offspring if we DO NOT develope and implement alternative energy.

I don't know how many will read this but if we all take the time to write to our representatives (personally)and keep writing maybe we can get the point across that this is not just about money and partisonship it is about our progeny.

Thomas Fenner
Comment
147 of 155
December 19, 2007
The federal government is entirely useless. What will it take to open their eyes that indeed we have a problem to solve. Continued tax credits to BIG OIL? Absurd!!!

Where is our knight in shining armor (an independent) such as Ralph Nader. God, if only I had been astute enough in the past 2 elections. Both parties are corrupt. I'm totally discusted with this country. Wake up America.
Comment
148 of 155
December 19, 2007
We just will have to wait renewable energy corporations to be potent enough to buy more senators (or presidents) than the oil/coal corporations.

Obviously buying politicians is the "thing" in USA.
Comment
149 of 155
December 19, 2007
If this is what $100 a barrel oil will buy, I just can't wait to see what $200 a barrel will purchase!
Comment
150 of 155
December 21, 2007
And RE: REWARD, Your 100% correct! OIL does get Billions in incentives for all kinds of stuff like drilling off shore and such,. all we the Solar nation and intelligent middle class America wants is a taste of the pie,a small give us a chance to be free and produce our own electricity with the same backing and blessings of our government.They also give millions to utility co's and require they implement REs to in exchange for those perks. So why not Solar and Wind? An I am sick and tired of people excluding the global connection here...
Comment
151 of 155
December 21, 2007
Any relation to Boss HOGG? the crooked politician from the TV series Dukes of Hazard?
Comment
152 of 155
December 21, 2007
Hey Rich Hogg, Just how many OIL rigs do you own? and how often you have dinner at the the Bushes house?...You have got to be kidding.....
Comment
153 of 155
December 21, 2007
Why is it that renewable energy is expected to justify its existence "free of subsidies"? The oil industry certainly is attached to its "production credits", to such a point that decreasing these credits is actually called an oil "tax increase".
Is it not one of the generic goals of the government to bias the free enterprise system, so it will respond in a more desirable (to the governmnet) and reasonably predictable manner? Is not planning to increase renewable energy a much more desirable long term energy goal than increasing oil usage?
Comment
154 of 155
January 6, 2008
You are all too hard on the senate.&nbsp; They realized that with Bush in the White House, there was no possibility of getting a worthwhile bill through so they practiced the art of the possible.&nbsp; Wait till you have a Democratic president and watch the paragdime shift occur.&nbsp; Pity Arnie can't run for president.
Comment
155 of 155
January 15, 2008
<h3>Jubak's Journal<span class="timestamp">1/15/2008 12:01 AM ET</span></h3><h1>Out of the spotlight, solar will thrive</h1><p>http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50843</p>
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

AWS Truepower, LLC Nextek Power Systems, Inc. AREDAY Rittal Corporation Richardson RFPD, Inc. Endurance Wind Power Solectria Renewables LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters