Rachel Maddow: A pantheon of pregnant pauses & Why we need the department Perry cant remember he wants to cut
The Politics of Climate Change
- Solar Stunner: America is a $1.9 Billion Exporter of Solar Products | ThinkProgress
- U.S. solar industry was net exporter in 2010 | Reuters
- Energy Efficiency Parts 1 & 2 from Peter Sinclair (greenman3610)
The Other Stuff (Misc. Politics,News, Opinion, etc.)
- A Riddle that Brings Joy to Mega Rich Hearts | NationofChange.
- Dim Michele Bachmann Wants To Drill Everglades For Oil That Isn’t There.
- Baiting Westboro | Unreasonable Faith
- Fact Checking the Tea Party Debate | Dispatches from the Culture Wars
- Limbaugh’s Blatant Hypocrisy | Dispatches from the Culture Wars
- Herman Cain Claims He Doesn’t Want to Compromise the Confidentiality of His Economic Advisers | Video Cafe
- Chris Hayes Show Asks “Where Are The Democratic Reps On The Sunday Shows?” | Crooks and Liars.
- Daily Kos: The tea party death cult
- Hunter unloads on the Teaparty death cult | The Zingularity
- Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured
- Daily Kos: Letting them die
More on the Bachmann Anti-Vax Kerfuffle and the Anti-Vax Craziness in General
Our government, both the Bush and Obama administrations, pushed ahead with the Solyndra loan guarantees in the hopes that Solyndra with its new and radically different (but perhaps high-risk) technology (copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin film) that uses less polysilicon than standard panels could help US companies gain a toehold in the solar energy collection equipment industry which is absolutely dominated by the Chinese.
It was thought at the time that given the relative high cost of polysilicon that this could be a disruptive technology and really put the U.S. on the solar energy technology map.
The short sound bite version of what happened was the price for silicon dropped around 80% over a three year period, the Chinese banks were dumping huge amounts of cash subsidies into their solar panel industry and essentially with the price for solar panels falling precipitously as Solyndra was just getting started the revenues they needed just weren’t there and they ran out of money. This chart illustrates just how much backing the Chinese are giving their solar panel companies vs. the U.S. American and European solar companies are faced with an extremely aggressive foe in the global market for solar collection panels.
Solyndra also relied on the idea that the installation of their product would cost less than the more standard solar panel installations but that just didn’t come to pass.
Daniel Poneman, the deputy secretary of Energy, in an op-ed for USA Today wrote:
”…Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers.
Unfortunately, expanding production has coincided with short-term softening demand, a product of the banking crisis in Europe and its wider economic effects. The combination has had a dramatic effect on the price of solar cells, which has plummeted 42% in the past nine months. This has taken a serious toll on solar manufacturers everywhere, including the U.S…
…It underwent years of rigorous internal and external review before being approved — before the perfect storm of deteriorating market conditions.”
The idea that the failure of just one company with a new technology is good reason to concede and surrender the solar market to the Chinese just doesn’t wash with me.
My own take is the government should have taken a more cautious, more rigorous in their approach to reviewing the company’s business model instead of betting on it like a horse in the Kentucky Derby.
Zip, nadda, nothing here changes anything about the seriousness of the problems we face due to global warming.
Is what happend at or in Solyndra a federal crime? Was there real fraud on the part of Solyndra’s executives and backers. I tend to doubt that at this point, I think it was just a risky bet and the track got muddy (the price for silicon dropped) and the Chinese horses Solyndra was up against had a lot more backing. But at least we know there is an investigation underway.
- Five myths about the Solyndra collapse – The Washington Post
- Separating Issues from Myths in Obama’s Solyndra Situation – NYTimes.com
- How China dominates solar power | Environment | guardian.co.uk
- Solyndra: Why did Solyndra fail? – Quora
- Solar poweroff: why did Solyndra fail? | 89.3 KPCC
- Why Solyndra Wasn’t Good Stimulus – Megan McArdle – Business – The Atlantic
- Green jobs stimulus: Why Solyndra’s loan guarantees were in the stimulus bill | The Economist
- Burns Doesn’t See Solyndra Ending Up as Criminal Case – The Washington Post
- Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story | ThinkProgress
- Opposing view: ‘Perfect storm’ sank Solyndra – USATODAY.com
If the Clinton tax rates had remained in effect, the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2012
If the Clinton tax rates had remained in effect, the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2012
I had long wondered about something like this being true. Back in June of 2009 when I wrote: Whose Deficit Is It? I was stunned by the 673 billion dollar figure for the Bush contribution to the deficit in the NY Times How Trillion-Dollar Deficits Were Created chart (and I was also always bothered by the question ‘just who gives a tax-cut in the middle of a war‘ question too). I wondered had we not instituted those tax cut just where would we be today?
While just a great robust and informative speech that is well worth listening to in it’s entirety if you have only limited time listen to the section running from 24:00 to 30:00 in which the realization above about the Clinton tax rates appears and how we are ignoring the potential in the world’s future energy market and ceding the leading position to China.
Some excerpts from karoli’s C&L article and the video of the Kerry speech given in front of the Center for American Progress:
John Kerry gave a speech last week at the Center for American Progress that should become the marching song for every liberal in this country. He was clear: The last 10 years have cost us too much, and if the hyper-partisan tone doesn’t change to one of true concern for the direction of this country, we will cede any chance to lead to others.
He hits it all: Infrastructure, energy, debt, climate change. Every point. The one that hit home for me was when he talked about where we might have been, had Bush and the Republicans not unwound progress made during the Clinton administration.
Here’s an example. We talk about how the Clinton tax rates generated a surplus, but we stop there. We don’t talk about the fact that if the Clinton tax rates had remained in effect, the entire national debt would have been paid off by 2012. Imagine what a difference that would have made in today’s dialogue. And more importantly, why aren’t we hammering this home every single time one of those self-righteous Republican buffoons stands up and talks about how our national debt is killing the country?
Kerry points out that we would be at a point where our financial position would be at it’s strongest point ever. What would that have meant when (or if) the bottom fell out of the economy? Most assuredly, we wouldn’t have to be speaking of debt retirement and austerity.
We need to start going there. This shouldn’t be swept under the rug. I can’t recommend this highly enough. Take an hour out of your day and watch Kerry’s speech. He really hits hard on the cost of NOT investing in the country and how it puts us behind on a global basis every single day.
Check out this headline from January 26, 2000, just 11 years ago:
Consumer Confidence Hits an All-Time High; Jobs Called ‘Plentiful’ : Clinton Sees An Early Payoff of U.S. Debt
Compare it to today’s headlines (this one, from the Wall Street Journal, one of the biggest tax-cut pimps):
U.S. Ran $80 Billion Budget Deficit in December
I think we need to give Republicans full credit for everything they did for to us. We should be at least as loud as the anti-hcr folks are, and we should repeat it every single day in public, especially to anyone who still thinks Republicans are fiscally responsible.
On almost every front that I can think of Republicans have just plain old out-marketed Democrats and Liberals. They have a great talented team working on their messaging we know that. Frank Luntz* was the architect of the Republican talking points and language regarding global warming and the Frank Luntz term "Climate Change" and he most recently worked with them on their demonization of health care reform. From the Wikipedia article on Luntz:
"Luntz was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase ‘government takeover‘ to refer to healthcare reform, starting in the spring of 2009. "’Takeovers are like coups,’ Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. ‘They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.’" — (PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘A government takeover of health care’)
Will Republicans now recruit him to work on their economic propaganda babble now too?
The Republican/Conservative trickle down economic meme that with tax cuts the rich will invest in business and create new jobs is just a discredited joke and Democrats and Progressives need to get that message out.
The key to our future is economic truths and embracing the a new age of not just energy independence but energy leadership and that means a better consistent and persistent marketing message from Democrats and Progressives.
(*— While yes Frank Luntz was the architect of the Republican message on global warming he later recanted and changed his position in 2006 FRANK LUNTZ RECANTS: Changes Position on Global Warming: Framing Science. Given that and what I wrote earlier about Wendell Potter I have to wonder will Frank Luntz again recant and change his position on health care and maybe even work for the "good guys" on the economy? Don’t count on it.)
For those of us who are still thinking that Nuclear Energy is a viable economically wise answer to our energy problem (I’ll admit that I’ve been one of them although I am starting to change my mind in that regard) we have news (via Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog.com) that …
Nuclear Energy: Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective
16 Aug 08 — Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh have penned a new report on nuclear energy as a fossil fuel option, concluding that nuclear is still dangerous and complicated, not particularly reliable, creates a pollution problem that lasts for many millennia and is therefore a waste of money that could be spent more productively on renewable energy.
Perhaps most devastating to the free market fans, Lovins and Sheikh note that "nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both."
"During the nuclear revival now allegedly underway, no new nuclear project on earth has been financed by private risk capital, chosen by an open decision process, nor bid into the world’s innumerable power markets and auctions. No old nuclear plant has been resold at a value consistent with a market case for building a new one."
The hat tip here goes to Steve Milloy, Junk Scientist extraordinaire and unreconstructed PR guy, who pointed to the Lovins’ paper in a hyperventilating screed on the Fox News wire. Thanks Steve.
By the way for anyone who wasn’t already aware of it do you know all those google ads you see at the time where there is this guy who wants to debate Al Gore in regard to
Global Warming Global Climate Disruption*** and more recently Canada’s David Suzuki? Well Richard Littlemore has accepted that challenge and wants to take on the British nobleman Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley! Read all about it:Monckton vs. Littlemore: A Debate in the Waiting.
- Pure Fabrication, Lies and Global Warming Denial Propaganda from Non-other Than Andrew Breitbart's Big Government September 6, 2011
- "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Shams & Lies July 12, 2007
- Firing Line 1997: a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate November 14, 2007
- ABC Australia's Tony Jones and the "Great Global Warming Swindle" debate July 17, 2007
- Matt Patterson & The New York Post Clueless About The Climate August 3, 2011
- What I'm Reading, Tuesday, April 24, 2012 April 24, 2012
- Whose Deficit Is It? June 12, 2009
- What I’m Reading, Sunday, May 19, 2013 May 19, 2013
- What I’m Reading, Saturday, May 18, 2013 May 18, 2013
- What I’m Reading, Friday, May 17, 2013 May 17, 2013
- What I’m Reading, Thursday, May 16, 2013 May 16, 2013
- What I’m Reading, Tuesday, May 14, 2013 May 14, 2013
- What I’m Reading, Monday, May 13, 2013 May 13, 2013
- What I’m Reading, Sunday, May 12, 2013 May 12, 2013
- Collin: "Skeptic squared", I like that. It describes me ...
- klem: Wow, the alarmists have been reduced to 16% only. ...
- Collin: Thank you. :)...
- klem: That's odd, almost every engineer and geoscientis...
- J. Jerrald Hayes: Okay, and I guess I should have put in pompous, ar...
- William M Briggs: No, sir. It is "Holier than thee."...
- klem: Fantastic video regarding the 800 year lag. Wow. ...