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

Finally...

[HoosierPeschke]

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.

Re:Finally...

[MichaelSmith]

Someone is doing something

There has been a lot of talk here in .au about our prime minister sucking to to GWB, particularly on environmental issues. Now there is talk of even GWB doing a U turn on energy policy. John Howard is going to look soooo stupid. I hope.

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.

Re:Why?

[hdw]

How typical of a socialist to start pumping money into airy fairy 'long term solutions' instead of letting market forces sort it out.

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.

// hdw

Re:Where do I sign up?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common ... poor returns.

I call bullshit. The very first green fund I found via searching google for performance green "mutual fund" was the Winslow Green Growth fund (WGGFX) which has outperformed the S&P and DOW indices by over 30%. Since most managed funds (at least 80% of them) fail to even match market indices, clearly not ALL green funds have poor returns.

Jimmy Carter

[Stalyn]

Actually the only President who tried to do anything about our dependence on foreign oil was Jimmy Carter. But of course everyone hates Jimmy Carter.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. ...

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

            --- Jimmy Carter, from his televised speech on July 15, 1979.

He did?

[Grendel Drago]

Of course, you're a real fool when the independent commission already came out and had documentation of opportunity after opportunity where bin Laden was offered up to the US Government, but Clinton just wanted it to go away.

He did? Is this about that guy from the Sudan who offered bin Laden to the US in 1996, which turned out not to be credible?

'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".

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.

The Sudan offer wasn't credible.

[Grendel Drago]

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.

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:Pwned? Put down that crack pipe, buddy

[OoSync]

And if you don't think Clinton ignored bin Laden, why don't you tell us all what Clinton's response to the attack on the USS Cole was?

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.

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".