Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund

antifoidulus writes "ABC news is reporting that former President Bill Clinton has announced the creation of a $1 Billion investment fund devoted to renewable energy. This will be an investment fund as opposed to charity, and Clinton has said that 'The Green Fund would focus on reducing dependence on fossil fuels, creating jobs, lessening pollution and helping to reduce global warming, all while making a profit.' Former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn will be managing the fund."

Comments

He went on Fox News to Talk about this...

[macadamia_harold]

Clinton taped an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace about this today, which is scheduled to be aired Sunday. The interview is supposed to be about the energy initiative, and his charitable work; instead, Chris Wallace ambushes him out of left field with some bullshit hardball question about Osama Bin Laden.

It's hilarious, because not only does Clinton attempt a diplomatic answer, but when Chris Wallace won't let it go and birddogs him, Clinton completely pwns Wallace, then goes back on topic.

I'm curious to see if they actually air it.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this...

[macadamia_harold]

Yep. Too bad, once they actually had Bin Laden cornered, Clinton decided not to do anything because he was afraid that it would look like we was trying to distract the nation from his sexual indescretions.

Yeah, Bush's strategy of waiting around until Osama keels over from natural causes was much better.

That makes me want to cry.

[Grendel Drago]

It's like... foreign oil is an abusive boyfriend. And we're its bitch. So back in the 1970s, there was that oil crisis, a big fight. And we went over to our sister's place, and she was all, "honey, you don't need him", and we cried on her shoulder a lot and said we didn't need him; were going to start a new life without him.

But the foreign oil bought us flowers, and said it was sorry, and it was morning in America. And now we're back in the same boat we were thirty years ago, and we're acting like no one could have possibly seen this coming.

You know, Brazil is energy-independent. They followed through on what Carter promised but was voted out before he could deliver on, and the program was plagued by various problems for decades on end... but as of a few years ago, it works. We could have had that. But we didn't.

And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?

Re:That makes me want to cry.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?

There was nothing wrong with the speech; the problem is with our electorate. The US has been overrun by asshats. Haven't you witnessed the last few elections? People in the US think it's their God given right to drive monster trucks with a big flag flapping in the back. Intellectuals are frowned upon. Creationism is on the ascent. We violate the Geneva conventions. Every day, millions of people pay tribute to bigots like Bill O'Reilly. Greedy self-interested Republicans vs. snivelling cowardly Democrats. Yuck.

That's good stuff.

[Grendel Drago]

I doubt it'll actually convince anyone, but it's nice to see someone actually thinking on his feet.

'Course, they'll probably cut it down to:

WALLACE: Blah blah blah bin Laden.

CLINTON: I failed to get bin Laden

And that'll be all.

Mentioned on The Daily Show the other day

[TooMuchToDo]

Clinton was on The Daily Show the other day, chatting with John Stewart about how powerful the internet was for charity (and how much was donated over the Internet for those affected by Hurricane Katrina).

He noted that if every family in America donated $10-20 to a fund/concern devoted to alternative enegery, we'd be rid of using oil in short order. Good to see he actually moved forward with the idea.

Re:Where do I sign up?

[An Onerous Coward]

But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".

As another poster pointed out, the performance differential is in part because green funds are more likely to invest in businesses that are willing to absorb the costs that they could have simply passed on to the rest of society. If we assume that Fidelity and Green Century are run by equally capable and equally lucky groups of people, then the difference between the rates of return is entirely due to the rat-bastardy behavior of the companies that Fidelity is willing to invest in but Green century is not.

If you're willing to sacrifice principles for a slightly higher rate of return, then you never had the former and don't deserve the latter.

Re:Never thought I would say this...

[be-fan]

I think part of the reason was that Europeans understood Clinton. Clinton thought like a Westerner. He was interested in the economy, trade, diplomacy, and understood that all of these things involved compromises between various entities. This sort of pragmatic mindset has been a hallmark of European thinking for literally hundreds of years. American politics, on the other hand, is intensely ideological. Whereas European politicians argue about things like farm subsidies, American politicians argue about highly abstract (and mostly irrelevent) things like the sanctity of this or that. Europeans are interested in what's "good" or "useful", while Americans are interested in what's "right".