Email
Bookmark
Print
Feed
Share
Sign up for our free e-Newsletters
Moving Renewables Beyond Cap and Trade
As cap and trade falls into the political abyss, a new report from the Clean Energy Group calls on the government and industry to practice pragmatism.
Washington, D.C. -- Let's face it: A major push to pass a Renewable Energy Standard or a Cap and Trade program is very unlikely this year, or even into next. But that doesn't mean clean energy has to suffer. A new report out from the Clean Energy Group (CEG) highlights a number of steps that can be taken to maximize existing federal policies toward renewables. Report author and CEG President, Lewis Milford, calls it “Clean Energy Pragmatism.” Rather than wait on a sweeping piece of legislation, Lewis outlines five key short-term strategies that could have a substantial impact on the industry. The recommendations call for a creative re-positioning of funds already available from the government. Lewis' ideas primarily focus on funding early-stage technologies. Providing more money for up-and-coming technologies is certainly a good thing – but it doesn't necessarily address the problems of mature, capital-intensive technologies like hydropower, geothermal and wind. (The main policy issue these industries face is a lack of long-term tax credits or a federal renewable energy target). Even so, the proposals offer good food for thought. Here are some of the ideas from the report, as written by the Clean Energy Group:
It seems the Obama Administration is already thinking about how to re-deploy some government funds. Last week, the administration proposed taking money from the slow-moving loan guarantee program and putting it toward investment tax credits, which have been far more effective in getting projects moving. The Clean Energy Group sent a letter to the President with the above recommendations this week. Since the administration is already in the mood to reconsider certain policies, perhaps these ideas will have some traction. 
Bioenergy,
Geothermal Energy,
Green Power,
Hydropower,
Hydrogen - Fuel Cells,
Ocean Energy,
Other,
Solar Energy,
Wind Power,
Energy Efficiency
4 Reader Comments
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. 
|
REW.com Editors
Recent News |
1 of 4
I doubt that the executives of GM would want to put up too much fight against the a 60% shareholder.
When GM makes all of their vehicles flex fuel, I think you will see a distinct change in GM marketing policy concerning flex fuel vehicles. When that happens, I think you will see other manufacturers follow suit. No one will want to be left off the bandwagon. You might even see the Fiat Siena Tetrafuel technology introduced to the US by Chrysler dealers now that Fiat owns Chrysler.
With an ever growing market of consumers able to use ethanol and natural gas available----you will see a rapid increase in filling stations willing to increase sales possibilities.
No laws need to be passed. No one needs to be forced to use anything---consumers will simply fill up on the fuel of their choice. The cost is minimal. If consumers want to continue to use petroleum, fine, they can. If they want to use ethanol or natural gas instead, fine, they can----any time they choose.
Let consumers have a choice of what fuel to put in their vehicle and let consumers decide what fuels they want to use.