Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund 410
An anonymous reader writes "President Obama will ask Congress for a $1 billion 'Climate Resilience Fund' in his proposed budget next month. From the article: 'Obama is expected to release his proposed 2015 budget in early March. The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House. But Obama, who made preparation for climate change one of the major themes of the climate action plan he released in June, will continue to press for the need to adapt, according to the White House.'"
Just say "No" (Score:5, Insightful)
Just say No to this.
The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution, It's the third world up-and-comers with a massive increase in their oil budgets and no, or suppressed, or wholly state-owned, watchdogs who are polluting the world.
A pork fund by any other name is still a pork fund.
Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Be careful with that link, you may just learn something....
Especially if you remove the oil producing countries (they burn a lot as a side effect of providing oil to the other countries, and have low populations..).
The third world (and in fact second world) produce small amounts per capita, or are you going to argue against per capita, so we can all laugh at you?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Be careful with that link, you may just learn something.... Especially if you remove the oil producing countries (they burn a lot as a side effect of providing oil to the other countries, and have low populations..).
The third world (and in fact second world) produce small amounts per capita, or are you going to argue against per capita, so we can all laugh at you?
'cause that's the important thing, who we can laugh at.
In the meantime, how is one billion more that we don't have anyway going to help?
Re: (Score:2)
Only idiots try to push the concept of per capita.
And claiming that 3rd and 2rd world produce small amounts per capita indicates total foolishness on your part. Many of their are massive. Worse, China doubles every 10 years, and they are NOT SLOWING DOWN.
here is based on 2005 emissions which is worthless, but there it is [wikipedia.org]
This is based on PPP GDP (which is also a bad idea, but still better than per capita) [worldbank.org]
Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Interesting)
Wake up. CO2 is not "pollution" by any rational reckoning. CO2 is plant food.
This. Is. Awesome! Okay, I'll play - oxygen is human food! So, let's all consume pure oxygen! What could go wrong? And water? H2O is a vital element of all complex life on Earth! Go stick your head in a bucket of water for 10 or 20 minutes. We'll wait.
(Some weird rant against the EPA)
Yep, the evil EPA, created by that Earth-hugging pot-smoking hippy, our elected representative Richard M. Nixon in 1970. With that uid, I would have guessed you lived through the 70's in the U.S. I was alive then - pollution by UNACCOUNTABLE INDUSTRY was out of control. Remember Love Canal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org] Remember the Cuyahoga River that CAUGHT FIRE in the late 60's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] Remember smog in LA in the 70's? It's down 85% since then. Do you know why? http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/0... [thegoodhuman.com]
Nope, don't need that evil EPA, no siree.
Re: (Score:3)
Love Canal was a properly lined and capped toxic waste dump, privately owned. It was seized by the government, and over the warnings of the old owner the integrity of the containment was destroyed.
If you need an analogy you can understand, watch Ghostbusters.
Re: (Score:3)
Just say No to this.
The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution, It's the third world up-and-comers with a massive increase in their oil budgets and no, or suppressed, or wholly state-owned, watchdogs who are polluting the world.
A pork fund by any other name is still a pork fund.
Yeah, you're only the 2nd highest gross emitter [wikipedia.org] responsible for ~18% of the worldwide emissions (and probably a lot more of the cumulative emissions already there). You're practically a nation of vegan hippies!
Re: (Score:2)
Those other nations will point out we've already contributed the lion's share, so why should they do green energy when we didn't and won't even though we have the money. And nothing will change.
Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Informative)
Ahhh, no. Levels of tracked pollutants came down a bit between 2007 and 2009, but there was a bounce in 2011, and they're still way above the 1990 level that the US set as a target to reach by 2020, while the EU's target of 8% below 1990 levels was exceeded by 2012.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is not a fund to do anything about climate change. This is a tiny fund to help mitigate the effects after they happen.
The USA's policy on climate change is to do nothing about it and then try to do better than others in dealing with the inevitable effects.
Remember that the wealthy will be mostly ok regardless and that is all policy makers in the US care about nowadays.
I imagine this fund is really just to make sure that the (wage) slaves can be prevented from dying or becoming too
Re: (Score:2)
Wont make it any less true...
Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, America's emissions are dropping in EVERY arena. In fact, for the last 5 years, we have dropped more than any other single nation OR ENTITY.
Third, I always have to laugh when I see nutjobs like you screaming (anonomously) that America is the great evil on this, based on calculations of 50,75 years, while ignoring the fact that Europe, China have been emitting large amounts for millenniums. Heck, there is not virgin forest in either China OR Europe. And even now, Europe far outdid America in total emissions throughout most of the 1900s, until 1995. Then when Europe focused on taxing their fuel to stop future shock, did they lower their emissions. Regardless, America continues to drop our emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter how much better we get at not polluting, it's a political thing and to the left we will always be the evil polluters. Hell, now that we are dropping pollution levels it's our purchase of Chinese products that causes all the pollution in China according to the leftist media.
Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember how we were the scum of the Earth for not ratifeing the Koyoto agreement, yet we're the only country that met the emmissions target of the treaty we didn't ratify.
Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Informative)
As it reports, America is dropping our emissions a great deal. We have been for 6 years, which is why the stats like to use 2005, rather than the more accurate 2011 or 2012.
In addition, it points out that 60% of the emissions come from '3rd world' nations, which for all intents and purposes, means the BRIC nations. The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
Re: (Score:3)
The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
For small values of "Europe and America" (i.e. the EU and the US, excluding e.g. Russia, Canada, Mexico and Brasil), barely, and with a much larger population.
The reason why China is increasing emissions and the developed world has slightly decreasing emissions is that they make all our stuff now. We're still driving those emissions by unlimited consumerism, it's just that we outsourced the dirty bits of actually making stuff. That's not good, of course. And it's still our problem - in fact, it would sti
Re: (Score:3)
The real issue is that China has FORCED all of the manufacturing there. And they continue to build new coal plants weekly. It is for this reason why I continue to say that we need to tax ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from. If we do that, then it forces all nations to look long-term, rather than to do what China is doing.
China has forced manufacturing? E.g. by being cheaper and then letting the invisible hand [wikipedia.org] do its thing? I'm not aware of China threatening war, or Chinese gangs going around smashing British-made teapots.
Yes, Chinese industrialisation causes massive ecological problems. But then, so did western industrialisation. You are proposing a tax based on where parts come from. Why that? And using what measures? For me, the reasonable approach is a Carbon tax (or import duty), not based on place of origin, but rath
No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
For starters, just ask Solyndra for our $500 million back. Oh wait, they went bankrupt and most of it ended up in the executives' pockets and from their into your campaign fund.
Re: (Score:2)
and from their into your campaign fund.
Really? Did that happen?
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Informative)
Yep looks like it did.
http://www.almanacnews.com/squ... [almanacnews.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09... [dailycaller.com]
Take it as you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Really (Score:3)
Here's a more complete picture of what was going on. The process for Solyndra started well before the Obama office came into power. It was fast tracked once he got there, but mostly as one of the many projects related to the stimulus. And as a side note, the main reason that Solyndra failed was due to China price-fixing the market for solar panels to the point US companies couldn't compete.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-ta [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Be honest. Even if Solyndra had never happened you'd come up with some other excuse why the government should never spend money.
Re: (Score:3)
Only because there are so many examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Solyndra failed because China started selling PV solar panels cheaper than they could compete with so their business model was not longer viable.
Huh (Score:2)
Why does he want to change the climate? It was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure why does he want to change the climate ? The climate doesn't need Obama to change :)
It's a 1 billion dollar slush fund. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be fooled.
Re:It's a 1 billion dollar slush fund. (Score:5, Insightful)
A billion dollar slush fund in time for the 2016 elections. He's not fooling anyone.
But it has no chance of getting through Congress, just something he will point fingers at the Ebil Tea Party Owned Republicans for blocking.
What we need ... (Score:2)
No, it will not work (Score:2)
Now, you have Germany that is killing off their nuke program, BUT massively increasing coal and importing electricity
heh (Score:2)
Perfectly Understandable (Score:2)
Obama has to keep paying off his supporters. And it's not like it's *his* money, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Such foolish actions (Score:3)
What is needed is to get ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 emissions quicker, not to allow say all of the BRIC nations to go on a emissions spree.
So, who to do this? Simple. We need to put a tax on ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from.
The tax needs to start low and raise over a period of time.
Base it on REAL measurements of CO2 emissions, and not on guesses. Simply use the OCO2 that will be launched this year to record how much CO2 enters a border and how much exits. With this approach, we can see how much CO2 a region is responsible for.
And then to equalize it, do it based on GDP, not per capita. Per capita is the WORST idea going. The fact is, that 80-90 of emissions are based on sloppy manufacturing and energy. By focusing on emissions / $ of GDP, it makes it possible to get all nations to focus on clean energy. In addition, this rewards nations that have clean energy. They can scale up their manufacturing and be cheaper than others since they know that they will not have an expensive tax(way to go iceland).
America is the great importer. Worst of all, we import heavily from some of the worst emitting nations. So, this will force those nations to change their ways, while helping any nation that cleans up.
i know where the cash can come from... (Score:2)
Oil and gas subsidies. [wikipedia.org] Record profits and they are still getting subsidized?
priorities.
What uncertainty (Score:2)
From the summary: "The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House".
There's no uncertainty about it. Anyone with five or more brain cells to rub together can tell you that this will never pass in the House. In fact, I doubt it will even get out of committee to be debated on the floor, much less come up for a House vote.
Stop global warming. (Score:2)
With the winter we've been having.I want more global warming!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With the winter we've been having.I want more global warming!
I don't believe you really do. More warming may disrupt the jet stream even more, so while some portions of the planet bake, and the U.S. experiences continuing drought and record breaking summer heat, we will ALSO see more winters like this one. Which would suck.
You didn't really think that global warming meant that every place gets warmer, did you? That's not how the world works.
Makes sense, regardless on position on AGW ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes sense, whether or not you agree with climate change models or the proposed mechanisms of climate change, because it provides funds to protect critical infrastructure during extreme weather events.
We already know that different regions are susceptible to different types of extreme weather. For example: some areas are prone to flooding while others are susceptible to drought. Prior generations have decided to deal with measures such as building levees or irrigation systems, simply because they understood that infrastructure has to be protected. They didn't worry about the politics of climate change simply because the controversy didn't exist. However, data about prior weather events did exist. (Alas, some of that data was due to contemporary floods or droughts which had a considerable cost in life and property.)
Now if Americans want to stick their heads in the sand and insist that years of flooding and drought won't exist because they don't agree with the AGW crowd, that's up to them. They should also realize that when the inevitable happens, they are the ones that will pay the price for their lack of preparedness. That is true regardless of whether the weather is caused by natural mechanisms or exacerbated by human factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
One BILLION! Why, that's almost as much as the 2007 estimate for the F35 plane!
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of like spitting in the ocean. Add about 7 or 8 trillion if you want to do anything about it otherwise you're just pissing money away. Think of the trillions of dollars worth of carbon fuel burned every year. What are you going to replace it with that costs a billion dollars? Fucking silly.
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Facts, evidence, and reason are readily available anywhere you want to look for them. At this point, about the only reason you left not to be familiar with them is willful ignorance. That's the reason you'll (hopefully) get modded into oblivion, not because there's a gospel or anyone's out to get you. Try reading a book once in a while that isn't written by someone working for an oil company.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no scientific consensus on what should be done about global warming.
The commonly accepted way to reduce climate change (archaic form: global warming) is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG).
The largest sources of human caused GHG emissions are a. coal fired electricity generation b. industrial agriculture.
The total CO2 equivalent emitted by you, me and what we consume, every year is 30 Billion tons.
That needs to be reduced by at least 50% within two decades or so.
Coal fired electricity generation produces prodigious amounts of CO2.
The problem with reducing coal ba
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There IS scientific consensus. Just no political consensus. Equals: we are so screwed.
If there is a scientific consensus, then what is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity? That's the Billion dollar question, the Apocalyptic Global Warmists need a value above 3 for their vision of Thermageddon to come to fruition, yet emerging research is pointing to a value of 1.5-1.8.
The only real consensus I've seen is that 98% of the climate models agree, the real world observations are wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
E X A C T L Y
Now why are we crying about a meagre $1B to get that answer?
Re the " Apocalyptic Global Warmists ":, we are more concerned with methane tipping points
(you know, when we burn enough carbon to warm the oceans and atmosphere so the TRILLIONS of tons of
methane in permafrost and in undersea clathrate deposits are emitted). That promises runaway climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
ok, I'm not sure why you think the scientific consensus is that we should reduce GHG,
Ever heard of the green-house effect?
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't put this only on Hansen alone. Put it on the tens of millions of people that are very worried about climate change and know the limitations of solar and wind.
If solar and wind were that economical, Hawaii would have already shutdown it's fossil fuel electricity, because Hawaii has the most expensive fossil electricity outside of remote Alaska. Hawaii has strong/consistent winds, and is the best USA state for solar. Still, wind+solar in Hawaii is still less than 10% of electricity production.
The German clean electricity plan is one trillion euro. It has already resulted in German coal consumption going up (along with emissions).
We have an enormous ideology problem in the world. One such angle is the radical green ideology that sees man as a problem, and sees cheap electricity (no matter how clean) like giving a chainsaw to a child.
The anti nuclear greens want expensive electricity so we can't waste it.
We must separate the hidden green peace agenda from solutions to climate change. And take nuclear power seriously.
Fukushima and Three mile Island killed nobody from radiation. I'll be conservative and conceed it's possible Fukushima will cause a few hundred cancers, with the anti nuclear lobby conveniently forgetting the 8.8 magnitude earthquake and the tsunami killed 20000 people.
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Insightful)
This funding is for climate resilience. It doesn't matter if the cause of climate change is human or not. If the climate is changing there are things that can be done to prepare for it and to help withstand the effects.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no scientific consensus on what should be done about global warming.
Yes this is true, just as there is no scientific consensus for how to solve global poverty. Both issues are for politicians to solve. Science tells us there is a problem. It is up to our political system to decide which solutions to choose from.
Re:There are no comments (Score:5, Informative)
In my wee opinion, this is prima facie evidence that there is money in shouting the AGW 'gospel' and pushing the panic button.
Using your logic:
There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
Change? There are still a handful of idiots trying to make the case that there is a global cooling trend.
There is no serious debate left. The only people that don't accept AGW are the same type of lunatics that still deny smoking causes cancer. They have been left behind by the rational people who tend to believe the scientists rather than the cranks.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, except that 97% is a made up statistic in the category of "repeat a lie often enough and people will think it is the truth. 97% of IPCC climate scientist agree with the IPCC findings.
That's called projection. See "Merchants of Doubt" for the history of "repeat a lie enough"
Re: (Score:3)
I am perfectly fine with that, we only ask climate scientists and not everyone with a BS, MS... clearly computer scientists are not client scientists (although, looking at the crap code that the models use, they would be less suspect), the problem is that the media and politicians that quote the "97%" does not make the distinction.
IF they reported it as 97% of IPCC scientists who are members of the publishing entity IPCC agree with the AGW findings I would not have a beef. People can make their own decision
Re:There are no comments (Score:5, Informative)
Using your logic:
There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
I still see lots of people claiming that it's mostly due to the urban heat island.
2) Flooding is a present problem that causes damage, and is quite demonstrable as to its immediacy and even its sources. AGW theory on the other hand promises problems later down the road... maybe, well, if their models are proven to be correct.
Try again?
Well AGW theory promises problems like flooding, and preparing for AGW can help us mitigate or even reduce those problems.
As for your skepticism over the theories, the only way to truly prove the models correct is to wait for the consequences to happen, and at that point it might be too late to act.
For a country the size of the US $1 billion is minuscule, even if the skeptics were right and the science was shoddy group think and the models were wildly inaccurate, the potential size of the problem is so big that this would still be a good investment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember climate experts shouting back in the last millennium that if we didn't do radical change by 2000 it'd be too late to make a difference. Why does that target date keep moving?
Re:There are no comments (Score:5, Informative)
Cite? I've generally heard 2020s or 2030s but that might be true and they might have been right. For all we know we're already past the tipping point and are going to get hit no matter what.
Re: (Score:3)
Cite? I've generally heard 2020s or 2030s but that might be true and they might have been right. For all we know we're already past the tipping point and are going to get hit no matter what.
I made a list of such warnings and predictions once. [slashdot.org] You hear them every couple years or so.
But those predictions are all completely consistent with eachother and what I was saying.
In '89, we got about 10 years before some stuff becomes irreversible.
Come 2000+, now a bunch of stuff is irreversible.
They aren't saying we're going to see major effects in the next couple years, but we are probably past the point and we're going to see major effects in the future (though they'll probably be mitigated if we start reducing).
Re: (Score:3)
It's never to late to make a difference (unless maybe we hit some major tipping point). The ultimate outcome just depends on how soon and radically we react.
Re: (Score:2)
There are floods in Somerset, England? Funny; Somerset was bogland 1200 years ago, too.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... [wattsupwiththat.com]
But they built dikes and drainage pumps. Which works fine, as long as you do routine maintenance on the pump system. Which they stopped doing....
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com... [wordpress.com]
So perhaps some flooding in Somerset isn't all THAT unexpected?
Re: (Score:3)
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
People *do* claim that the climate is getting cooler, which is balls stupid on the face of it. And there is no serious scientific debate on the origins of recent warming, just like there's no serious debate on evolution.
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
And problems right now. A scientist will not say that AGW caused such and such a storm, and that *does* give weasel room for fluff-heads to claim that there's nothing to worry about; however, the dice are loaded for bigger storms, the jet-stream is changing (more floods/drought/cold/warm w
Re: (Score:3)
Hey ganjadude, whatcha been smokin'? There was still a 6 to 1 ratio of papers on global warming over global cooling in the 1970's (actually 1965-1979).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you're inviting someone to reel out, again, the arguments and facts that have convinced the majority of climate scientists that climate change is happening, it is significantly affected by human activities, and that we can and should do something about it. Well, we've done that. It's time to stop it.
Anyway, I don't think you bothered to read enough about what
Re: (Score:3)
"In 2013, there were 7 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. These events included five severe weather and tornado events, a major flood event, and the western drought / heat wave. Overall, these events killed 109 people and had significant economic effects on the areas impacted." - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billi... [noaa.gov]
This may be considered an ounce of prevention.
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Insightful)
There will, of course, be money in it. The science points to AGW being true, and that it will affect human society, especially various industries that we, as a species, rely upon. How can there not be money involved in talking about it? The fact that money is involved has nothing to do with the veracity of the science involved (indeed, the science is good, regardless of the politics which it causes). Pushing the "panic" button shouldn't be necessary, but because of the screams of "AGW doesn't exist" from the people seeking to not change their industries/companies/ways, it most certainly is necessary, otherwise rational people won't get to hear about how they can help. The most disturbing thing about this AGW stuff is how the nay-sayers ignore science, then get all complainy when the science is shown to be good time and time again, and then get even more complainy when people have to shout to be heard above the complainers' nonsense.
It doesn't help that people also confuse the politics with the science. If the politics sucks, that says nothing about the science, or what the science says will happen. You seem to be in this camp, which is a shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comments that actually make you THINK. Thank you.
Re: (Score:3)
The federal government no longer functions. The states of this union must convene an Article V convention and propose amendments for ratification by the state legislatures. Only by that constitutionally mandated power can the states restrain the federal government and restore balance to national governance
There's a 97% chance this will end up with something worse than we have now.
Remember, last time the constitution was written, it was done by people who had already made a few. Not only had they experience with making constitutions, they were also much more familiar with history. These were the guys who wrote the Federalist Papers. Now you'll be lucky to find congresspeople who've even read the Federalist Papers. I would bet a lot of them don't even know what they are.
Secondly, if you want to know why th
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think that you neo-cons/tea* are in dire need of the lithium that Tesla is chewing up.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
The difference between our government and others is that we have a Constitution which restrains corruption. The further we drift from the law, the more lawless we become.
We are fortunate that Madison was prescient in this thinking and chose to include a mechanism for recovering control in the face of a thoroughly corrupt federal government.
The states will do their duty, and it will be a signal to the world that the American People are both resilient and well equipped to handle any challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is checks and balances. When just one person/group has all the power, they get everything they want.
Just as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government help to reduce the amount of power given to any one group, the states exist to reduce the amount of power contained within the borders of Washington.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
It's a political thread and there's a lot of pseudolibertarians here nowadays, hence the stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
If Obama really wanted to 'press for the need', he'd propose a $1 trillion fund.
Much less than the Iraq War's costs over 10 years.
FTFY.
Also... much less than we were borrowing from (mostly) China on an annual basis 2-4 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
If Obama really wanted to help the country, he'd roll back the Executive branch's usurpation of legislative and judicial powers. Except he's just a member of the New GOP (formerly known as the DNC) and thus, has no interest in rocking the gravy boat.
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, that Solyndra thing worked out great. Why not give Obama a $1B slush fund to play with?
you forgot the other 24 companies that succeeded. a 96% success rate isnt good enough?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A little perspective:
Exxon Mobil profits for a single year: $44.88 billion
F-22 Program cost: $66.7 Billion
F-35 Program cost: $857 Billion ("projected," according to wikipedia, but you get the idea)
Halliburton profits for a single year: $3 billion
Cost of a single B-2 bomber: $737 million.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like the free market never makes a bad investment. Is your argument truly that businesses fail sometimes, and therefore we should not bother trying to stop climate change?
The free market fails with their money, the government fails with ours.
Not to mention the fact that Solyndra is only one of many recent government funded green energy company failures.
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
the free market is allowed to make mistakes *I* dont pay for them, the owner of the company does.
Sure. Except when Exxon and BP dumped tons of oil into the water. Or when Wall Street banks and auto manufacturers were failing.
when the government fucks up *I* DO have to pay for it, That is the difference my friend
True, but the green energy investments were far, far more successful than private sector venture capital investments. And even if they were less successful, the government investments were for things which will benefit the entire economy, not just a few venture funds. You need both private and public funding or your economy falters.
Re: Sure, why not? (Score:2, Informative)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/... [heritage.org]
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDelâ(TM)s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billio
Re: Sure, why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's some terrible formatting - mixing billions and millions and straight dollar amounts.
After some simple parsing: 33 companies total, 19 filed for bankruptcy, 14 did not.
Of the 19 that filed for bankruptcy, Solyndra was easily the largest with $535M.
Of the 14 that did not, Brightsource is easily the largest with $1600M.
Brightsource alone constitutes more money involved than the total for those that filed for bankruptcy; $1598M.
The total money involved for those that did not: $5837M
Ultimately these numbers don't mean a whole lot without looking at the complete effects, but I thought I'd at least make that list a little easier to work with; numbers in millions.
1600,Brightsource
1460,First Solar
1200,SunPower
529,Fisker Automotive
299,Johnson Controls
178,Babcock and Brown
151,LG ChemÃTM
126.2,ECOtality
100,Mascoma Corp.
98.5,Nevada Geothermal
50,Vestas
39,Navistar
5.9,Amonix
0.5,GreenVolts
535,* Solyndra
400,* Abound Solar
279,* A123 Systems
118.5,* EnerDelÃ(TM
80,* Range Fuels
43,* Beacon Power
33,* Raser Technologies
25,* Evergreen Solar
20,* Konarka Technologies Inc.
16,* Nordic Windpower
13.3,* Energy Conversion Devices
10,* OlsenÃ(TM
7,* Stirling Energy Systems
6.5,* Thompson River Power
5.4,* Azure Dynamics
3,* Satcon
2,* Mountain Plaza
0.700981,* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group
0.5,* SpectraWatt
Re: Sure, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Sure, why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I had 100k to spend on an electric vehicle that could be used for 95-99% of my daily errands, what would I have bought before Tesla?
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't check sources - that's on the parent poster to take responsibility for (or rather the site they sourced it from) :)
At least it's a lot easier to point out discrepancies with the list reformatted, right? :D
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, the list is of companies "The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:" so companies on the edge of collapse. The thing is, filing for bankruptcy (unless you're just gonna sell off the assets....) or being on the edge of collapse does not necessarily mean complete failure. This list does not include companies which received loans and who are profitable and solid. As mentioned, it doesn't include Tesla, well, Tesla motors stock price has climbed rapidly and they're profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even see the corrections at the bottom. The last sentence makes me lol
"CORRECTION:
Figures for four companies have been updated: Beacon Power received $43 million from the U.S. government, not $69 million as originally reported. Azure Dynamics received $5.4 million from the federal government, not $120 million as originally reported. Compact Power Inc. received $151 million as part of the stimulus, not $150 million as originally reported. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group received $700,981 in governmen
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that it includes fiskar, but does not include tesla which came out of the same funds and was paid off.
Can you say TOTAL BS?
Re:What's wrong with that list = Heritage Foundati (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are proffitable, then why do they need government money?
Or is that they are not bankrupt --yet?
Re: (Score:2)
They need government money to be profitable. Lots of companies like that in a lot of industries. Corporate welfare. Didn't President Obama promise to do something about corporate welfare? I guess I misunderstood what he meant to do.
Re:What's wrong with that list = Heritage Foundati (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of the grants is to get things going. While Tesla got most of its startup funding from Musk, most high-tech companies need money from either a venture capitalist or, if seen as too risky, some sort of grant.
In general, the funded firms companies were long-shots with a very significant up-sides for the nation and the economy, and the environment if they succeeded. It was completely expected that many would fail. If the odds were not long, most of the companies would have gotten private capitalization.
And, yes, several more may yet fail, but even the failures are far from a complete write-off. Some produced some potentially useful tech that could not be monetized before the cash ran out or the value was clear enough to get private funding.
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area.)
I'm all for solar and renewal energy development. But let's not kid ourselves over President Obama's track record. Here's a list of the ten largest loans to solar panel companies that went bankrupt:
If we add in Solyndra at $570 million he's managed to piss away about $2.5 billion on those ten companies. If that's what you consider an impressive track record, I'd hate to see what you consider mediocre, or poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tues 17 Feb. 2015? 2026? slid on 2009.