Slashdot Mirror
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."
Someone is doing something. But our problem is we rely so much on fossil fuels that large industries are built around it (automotive, gas stations, refineries). Even though fossil fuels may be deemed as evil the working guy/gal at these places would probably like to remain employed.
Moving away from fossil fuels may be for the greater good but we can't forget about the side effects that will have.
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
Besides being a great investment with a likely massive return, something like this would make me feel a lot better about investing in managed accounts. Some of these funds you have no idea what kinds of companies you're gonna end up owning peices of-- and quite honestly, there's a lot of 'em that might have some chance of return (oil company, anyone?) but it just isn't worth the guilt...
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.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Isn't this initiative very anti-American? I mean: it's on the verge of communism! (joking of course) I think the idea and initiative are very good. Let's see what follows from this.
Since when is charity NOT an investment? I think that helping people live longer than 20 years is a great investment, more minds to think shit up! But that's just me.
I do like this idea though, Mr. Clinton!
but I have a new found respect for WJC. Not only is investment (rather than socialism) the correct way to stimulate change, but he handled the ambush quite well. Even though I don't really think he's being completely honest about his motivations, he did handle himself with dignity.
1. Do not fund supposedly "green" fuel ventures based on growing more palm-oil trees in endemically corrupt third-world regimes like Indonesia and Malaysia which scandalously accelerates the rate of cutting down of the last remaining rainforests in places of such extraordinary landscape and wildlife beauty as Borneo.
How typical of a socialist to start pumping money into airy fairy 'long term solutions' instead of letting market forces sort it out.
// hdw
This is actually a good way forward, but only if the cost distribution is handled correctly.
For instance that the cost of using fossile fuels also bear the cost of an equal amount of CO2 reduction.
So that each link in the production, consumption and disposal link carries it's own costs to bring the enviromental impact to neutral.
That's a working market model.
Executive Pope (small) Kallisti Engineering
Clinton seems to have had sex with Argonne Labs Integral Fast Reactor... and next we'll be hearing he didn't have sex with the energy fund. He just created the problem.
...
It was the Clinton Administration that shut down the Argonne Lab's IFR development program in 1994. This reactor design will do more to solve the coming world energy crisis than anything else...and Clinton did have sex with it!
Read the congressional report: Nov. 6, 1997 (Senate) Page S11890-S11891 here: http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Argonne_News/news9 7/crtill.html
Quote:
Unfortunately, this program was canceled just 2 short years before the proof of concept. I assure my colleagues someday our Nation will regret and reverse this shortsighted decision.
If anyone wants to read the PBS interview with Dr. Charles Till - look here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reac tion/interviews/till.html
Quote from the PBS interview:
The Clinton administration, I think, firmed up quite an anti-nuclear power position....
Q: What will be our energy source, then?
A:I think that many engineers would agree that there is limited, additional gain to be had from conservation. After all, what does one mean by "conservation?" One simply means using less and using less more efficiently. And there have been considerable gains wrung out of the energy supply and energy usage over the past couple of decades. We can probably go somewhat further. But you're talking, you know, 10% or 20%. Whereas over the next 50 years, it can be confidently predicted that with the energy growth in this country alone, and much more so around the world, it would be 100%, 200%, or some very large number.
And so what energy source steps in? There is only one. It's fossil fuel. It's coal. It's oil. It's natural gas. Some limited additional use of the more exotic forms of things, like solar and wind. But they are, after all, very limited in what they can do. So it will be fossil.
Now the question, of course, immediately becomes, well, how long can that last? And everyone has a different opinion on that. One thing that is certain, and that is that the increase in the use of fossil fuels will sharply increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Another thing is certain. You will put a lot more pollutants into the atmosphere as well, in addition to carbon dioxide, which one could argue the greenhouse effect exists or doesn't exist.
So it is very clear that the consequences of short sighted anti-nuclear policies of the Clinton Adminitration were well understood in the early 90's. The lack of solutions to the problems we face now are a direct result of Clinton's administration.
----------
Note the Integral Fast Reactor burns nuclear wastes and will extend the existing uranium fuel stockpile (called Depleated Uranium, spent fuel, and nuclear waste) to over 60,000 years for the existing fleet of over 100 reactors in the Gigawatt range.... and this without mining any more uranium.
The IFR burns all actinides and hense there are no long term wastes... only light isotopes with 1/2 lives of a few decades at most, and which are used industrially for things like pipe line xrays.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
When we are in the throws of the worst energy crisis mankind has ever seen, then I want everyone to look and Clinton's contribution to the problem. I think the quote from the congressional report (above) sums it up nicely.
The short of it is that its prefectly clear we need alternatives to fossil fuels and the issue is that we needed to start developing these alternatives 15 and 20 years ago. It
I actually can't tell your political bias from the selection of legistlation you've cited. Could you please be more one-sided in the future, so I can know whether or not to give credence to what you've written without having to actually think about it? There's a lot to read out there, and I don't have time to waffle over actual nuance. Thanks in advance for your help.
I'm saying this as a libertarian, someone that hates taxes and big government. But this is exactly where government regulations and taxes should be used, when the free market doesn't value the environment and causes long term damage without intervention.
--- Jimmy Carter, from his televised speech on July 15, 1979.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
the only way for America (and the west in general) will be to obtain cheap (and clean) energy and automate further. Without that, we can not compete.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As soon as I saw the headline I thought "stupid USlAshdot again". I have to trawl down to your comment to find a mention of Branson's $3 billion pledge . So not only does the story not ascribe the cash to it's source, it doesn't even get the figure right.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I guess if George Bush can privatize our government into (worse than) uselessness, then Bill Clinton can make a private charity do the public works we need the government to do.
At what point does America need the charity to bail it out? And can we skip all the nasty bits until then?
--
make install -not war
Virgin's Richard Branson has pledged $3 billion towards this initiative:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5368194.stm
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
... what you were going to say there; it looks like your comment got mangled. Care to complete it?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
'Cause that 9/11 commission report states "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." Which looks pretty definite. Except it continues, "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."
But you refer to "opportunity after opportunity", so you must be talking about something else, right? It's just that the Sudan claim is the one that I see over and over again. Perhaps you could help me wade through all this "extensive documentation".
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Day 1 of this new fund looks like its going in a direction that will NOT abuse this planet more, and IS profitable. My definition of planet abuse is were I am not the victim.
There are 2 areas of investment that hold the greatest reward, but have the the greatest risk; Entertainment, and Energy. The backers of this new Fund have been lucky, and skillful at both. Before you blindly put your money down to invest in such a venture, find out the facts. Do analysis, compare this fund with others that are saying the same thing. Look at the companies that will be invested on and determine if these companies are ACTUALLY doing what they say they are doing.
I hope this is all not a get rich quick scam by a bunch Adam-Henry's who have seen the movie "Boiler Room," and have thought they know how to dodge the bullets.
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?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
A publicity whore and a guy who could find his financial ass with both hands and a map are going to take charge of a billion dollar trust. Hmm, Where are the whore houses going up? Can I apply for one?
'Course, they'll probably cut it down to:
And that'll be all.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The 9/11 commission reported that the Sudan offer wasn't credible. And as for what he could do without a Gitmo, perhaps put him on trial? I know it's old school, but it sometimes actually works.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Moving away from horses and buggies had side effects, too. The truly marvelous thing about humans and humanity is our ability to adapt. In The World is Flat Tom Friedman suggests that getting serious about sustainable energy will improve the U.S. economy and lead to better employment, in much the same way as the space program did in the '60s.
http://www.smartveg.com/
-- Fuck Beta
I hope he is. That is called motivation and unfortunately good things rarely happen without someone being motivated.
His plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and create jobs is this: Generate electicity by hiring a bunch of overweight people to sit on exercise bikes hooked to generators all day. America is overweight in general, so he will also take care of the obesity problem, while generating clean power and reducing unemployment!
This space intentionally left blank.
I saw, it must have been a few years ago, a debate about fuel economy in the Senate, on C-SPAN. I came in about halfway through, seeing a statement being given by Dick Durbin. He spoke eloquently and forcefully about the need to raise fuel economy standards, and the fact that we can do so. He talked about how CAFE standards were raised at the last oil crisis, and American ingenuity was up to the task---and how we can do it again, if only we had the will. Then the Republican senator from I-don't-know-where came up and mumbled some weasel words which said "But it's too haaard!" without actually saying it, looking at his shoes like a cheap Ayn Rand villain. And Durbin's amendment was voted down, and I turned off the television, feeling dirty about myself.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Maybe the post that got modded down was modded down because it was wrong. Clinton was never convicted of perjury. He was held in contempt of court, which is a civil charge, not criminal. So fantasies of chucking Clinton in Leavenworth for five years will have to stay fantasies, alas.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
As Clinton says in both the interview in question and his autobiography, it took time for the US intelligence community to decide it was Bin Laden that was behind the Cole. Of course, the Cole was attacked a mere 2 months before Bush took office. They didn't know it was Bin Laden til just before the inauguration or afterwards.
The better question, and the one Clinton asks the interviewer, is what did Bush do after being briefed?
Here's a hint: it won't take you any time at all to tell us. Literally. No time at all.
I always get the shakes before a drop.
Is it a Renewable $1 Billion Energy Fund? Or a $1 Billion Fund for Renewable Energy?
http://www.whynot.net/ideas/2195
Deleted
What could Clinton have done about the Cole bombing? As history shows, trying to root out Al Queda and hunt down bin Laden is a non-trivial military operation. The USS Cole bombing happend in mid October, and it wasn't until well after the elections that it was clear that Al Queda was responsible. That places the earliest possible military operation sometime in late November.
For multiple reasons, a military action in that time frame was impossible. Even under normal circumstances, a President starting a major military operation in the last month of this term is unthinkable. In 2000, the situation was even trickier. Not only was Clinton a lame duck President, but his party had lost a very heated, very bitter, and very controversial election. Any military action at that point would've been viewed by the Republicans, who remember at this time are still isolationist and care nothing about terrorism, as a cheap trick to throw a wrench into Bush's presidency early-on. It would've been viewed by everybody as petty retaliation for the results of the election. Moreover, it would've been terribly ineffective anyway. Transitions are complicated, and switching administrations right in the middle would've been a massive handicap to any potential operation.
Clinton did exactly what he should've done in his position, that was to give his successor the information he had and let him deal with the problem.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
GE is mainly expanding its foreign labor wind turbine manufacturing. What you thought they'd go and hire all those steel and line workers the big 3 are laying off? Naw. Everyone knows American labor is overpriced and underskilled.
Everyone except, say, Gamesa, Suzlon, and Clipper Wind and all the other foreign-owned companies from other industries who seem to have no problem at all opening plants in the U.S. like say Toyota. They seem to be able to turn a profit off American employees. Go figure. Maybe it's U.S. corporate management that is overpriced and underskilled.
Someone had to do it.
We'll have to license the patents from them. Damn Clinton and her bitch of a husband.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The Prius, though known and marketed for its fuel economy, is also marketed for its "Near Zero Emmissions" rating.
It's only "zero emissions" as long as you're not counting CO2, in which case it's no better than any other vehicle that gets ~50 miles per gallon of gasoline.
Thank you, Bill Clinton.
_ investing
For the rest of you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_responsible
and some brief googling led to...
http://seas.stanford.edu/fund/funds.html
but this also jogged my memory of an investment firm called "Working Assets" many years ago. The name now graces a wireless company with a credit card (purportedly socially responsible).
http://www.workingassets.com/
and the folks behind the original investment company I recalled started this:
http://www.visioncapitalinvestment.com/who.htm
while the stanford link (above) mentions the original firm now goes by 'Citizen' here:
http://www.efund.com/
Seems to me that any investment company worth it's marketing department would have 'socially responisble' investment options.
Google is our friend!
My other sig is a Porsche!
Damn. Sorry... Hydrogen:Carbon ratio of liquid fuels is about 2:1. This is important. This is why we have a huge shortage of hydrogen for tar sands operations. Fischer-trophe grabs the hydrogen from water and marries carbon to the oxygen in place of the hydrogen. The result is CO2 going up the smoke stack where the O2 part of the CO2 comes from two of the H2O's.
The thing is if we want to use Fischer-Trophe to produce the hydrogen we need then when we get to 5 million barrels of liquid synthetic crude per day, we will also produce as a by product a stream of liquid CO2 measured in the millions of barrels per day as well. This CO2 has value and can be used for miscable floods of old oil fields. It can be transported via old gas pipelines because it is liquid at room temperature at a pressue of about 800 PSI.
You are 100% correct on these points. But it happened a long time ago. During the last 35 years the nuclear industry almost ground to a standstill. No alternatives were put into place to phase out fossil fuels as a source of energy.
... that they can increase production for the next 35 years?
Now look what we have:
COAL. The dirty beast. Nobody wants a coal fired plant. The power utilities have decided to go with the flow.... coal is not politically correct. NIMBY Rotating blackouts are becomming common.
Natural Gas... The darling. We get about 2x as much energy from natural gas per carbon atom as we do from anything else. We had a natural gas bubble for decades. Companies like Calpine (NYSE:CPN) decided to put the coal fired electricty sector out of business. By 2000 they had more co-gen's on order than Germany, Japan and the USA could supply. Gas Turbines were the ANSWER. CPN shares were trading at $45 bux and I for one was asking where they were planning on getting their gas from (and telling them I was going to short them into the toilet). They were planning on burning most of the North American natural gas supply. Roll the film forward to 2006. Calpine is trading on the pinks: (CPNLQ.PK). Their share price is about 35 cents. North American natural gas supplies peaked January 2001. There is a mini-gas-relief for now. There is breathing space for companies like Calpine. Personally, I bought some shares at 30 cents on the pinks because I think I'll make a little loose change.
Oil... Prices climbed from the 1998 low of about $10 bux per barrel to over $70 bux. Supplies are sufficient for now. We hear production will be increased. We don't see production increase significantly.
Solar, Wind and alternative green solutions... This will save our bacon we are told.
------------
In 1970 when Carter was killing the nuclear program, what would Texas oil have been worth had a viable and cheap nuclear power industry develop? I think it is ironic that it was a Democrate that killed nuclear. Nuclear would have made Texas oil dirt cheap. Now it seems it is Texas Oil money funding the Republican President. One might laugh and conclude that both Carter's and Clinton's policies were short sighted in ways they didn't anticipate.
-------------
2006 rolls in. We see the second gulf war with talk of expansion into Iran. We have a war on terror. One of the principle objectives of Bin Ladin is to get oil prices over $100 bux per barrel. Oil hovers in the $70 bux range. Saudi Arabia says no problem... they'll boost production. OPEC production is flat or in decline (for now).
-------------
In 1970, there were arguably 35 years of grace. We had quite a nice cushion here in North America. Fossil fuels were abundant and we had our choice of Coal, Oil, Natural Gas. Nobody was thinking about turning corn into ethanol other than to make wiskey.
In 2006 what cushion do we have? Does anyone thing the Natural Gas supply can be grown for the next 35 years? What of the oil supply? Does anyone think that Saudi Arabia for instance can double production to 20 million barrels of oil per day?
In 1970, the USA was just passing peak production. Does anyone think that the USA can grow their oil production past the 1970 levels? (Well, a few pollies do - when they are asking for votes).
We do have coal. We can replace our oil and natural gas production with coal and we can use it and heavy oils and bitumin to produce liguid and gaseous fuels and we can do it for the next 35 years. However, we can only do this if we are willing to create a river of liquid CO2 measured in the millions of barrels per day (Via Fischer-Trophe) and we can only do it if we install massive infrastructure that will cost trillions and take decades to build... and we don't have decades.
Sitting in the background is the nuclear industry... with solutions... the public is still being lied to. The public is still being told
FWEEET! Red flag, non sequitur. Twenty yard penalty, still first down!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, I can tell the difference between "Brazil isn't Saudi Arabia's bitch because they planned ahead" and "Brazil is a model nation in all possible ways which we should try to be like in all respects", and you, apparently, can't.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Remember the Japanese automakers kicking our asses in the 1980s? None of this is new. And we're acting all surprised again. I saw this coming, and I wasn't even walking upright back then.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Mod parent up, it mentions Australia!
First of all: Clinton did not lie. Starr wanted to use a definition of "sexual relations" that was so broad that merely brushing past someone in a bus or airplane aisle could be considered "sex". Clinton rightfully complained that this was crazy, and the judge agreed, basically defining "sexual relations" to mean sexual intercourse, as in penis in vagina. In fact, if he would have said "yes I had sexual relations with that woman" at that point it would have been a lie.
Secondly, lying under oath != perjury. For it to be perjury, it not only has to be a lie, it has to be relevant to the case at hand. If Clinton's attorney had asked Paula Jones how much she weighed that particular day, and she answered 140 lbs when she knew she was 155, that would not have been perjury because it was batshit irrelevant to the case at hand. Similarily, wether or not Clinton had consensual sex with Monica is completely irrelevant to wether or not he harrased Paula. So, not perjury. Deal with it.
I wonder if you get as bent out of shape about Bush saying that no one could have predicted terrorists flying planes into buildings or that the levees would fail in New Orleans. You know, bald-face lies about things that actually matter. I bet not. No, the impeachment of Clinton was nothing more than a partisan Inquisition, and if there were any justice a good number of Republicans would have been sent to jail for malicious prosecution.
Why is this marked Funny?
Pro-environmental policies and market systems can indeed be compatible, and we'll all be better off by realizing that. A good source for this sort of thinking is the Environmental Economics blog.