Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the that's-a-lot-of-batteries dept.

177

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."

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally... (4, Interesting)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | about 8 years ago | (#16165943)

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... (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 8 years ago | (#16165969)

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.

Re:Finally... (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 8 years ago | (#16166045)

John Howard is going to look soooo stupid. I hope.

You mean he'll look stupid because he's been exposed as a liar?
Interesting thought, but I wouldn't bank on it concerning him too much...

"Medicare will be retained in its entirety."
"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses."
"No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy."
"The Government's position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard".
"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons."
"Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq"
"I think effectively we are going to meet the Kyoto target, the emissions target of 108%"
John Howard

Jobs (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 8 years ago | (#16166717)

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.

Re:Jobs (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about 8 years ago | (#16166749)

In short, invest in General Electric. GE is heavily into wind power, and their 2 MW wind turbines are going up everywhere in the world. There is talk of putting up thousands of 2 MW wind turbines in the Great Plains far away from where people will complain about being an eyesore, and you know GE will jump at a chance to supply these turbines on large scale.

Re:Jobs (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 8 years ago | (#16167403)

2 MW is nothing. On a trip back from Germany, I was talking to a guy whose company builds 5 MWs and is about to come out with a 15 MW.

But I would look at GE for their nukes and hope that GWB will pass tax breaks for them in the same way that he did a give away to his oil companies. I doubt that he will push it, but thank god, the dems will when they take over congress.

Re:Finally... (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#16166861)

Even though fossil fuels may be deemed as evil the working guy/gal at these places would probably like to remain employed.

I'm perfectly willing to teach them to fix/build bicycles, show them what sort of fuel/comfort stations cyclists would find useful and spend money at, what sort of road system would better suit cyclists rather than cars, how human muscle can be used to transport goods, make electricity, etc.

"Paradigm shifts" always result in increased employment, although to take advantage of them one might have to learn some new skills.

For many of the workers in the car based economy these new "skills" would amount to nothing more than learning the new set of lies appropriate to selling the new product.

KFG

Re:Finally... (1)

Orgazmus (761208) | about 8 years ago | (#16167083)

Will you help me too? I want to learn riding a bicycle to work, just like anyone else who is hip and cool.
The route to my job is 50km long each way, and in the winter the temperature drops to -25C. I have yet to see a hydro refill station with my own eyes, and because of the price of electricity here, an electric car would be way too expensive.

Not everyone even gets the chance to be environmentally friendly, and without a car, I would be fscked.

Re:Finally... (2, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#16167155)

. . .without a car, I would be fscked.

So would I. Just because I don't own 'em doesn't imply that I don't use 'em. That's why there are jobs to be found in the enterprise.

Will you help me too?

Yes, I will. Although. . .I may well charge you for it. It would be my job.

The route to my job is 50km long each way, and in the winter the temperature drops to -25C.

About the same as the local conditions I have operated under. I can show you solutions, some of which would . . .creat jobs.

Remember that jobs are the context? Bicycles are not "free." They require support systems just like cars, and thus people to operate those support systems.

Jobs.

KFG

Re:Finally... (1)

djh101010 (656795) | about 8 years ago | (#16167259)

(Finally) Someone is doing something.

That's a bit insulting, don't you think, to those of us who _have_ been "doing something" with this topic for years or decades? Also, I don't know or care what your personal politics are, but Clinton's record for actually doing things based on factual scientific data isn't exactly a strong one.

While I'd love for this to turn into something useful, with Clinton heading it up, I can only see it turning into a "not so hidden agenda" for one political purpose or another. I'd love to be wrong on that first impression, but based on his performace on other issues (pretending 7 arrests was "millions of criminals stopped" in the case of the Brady Bill stuff, for instance), I just don't see it going anywhere useful.

Oh, but at least someone is "doing something". Sometimes, someone doing nothing, is preferable to them getting in, muddying up the waters, and doing the _wrong thing_. Time will tell.

Re:Finally... (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | about 8 years ago | (#16168149)

My apologies if it did seem condiscending, after I hit submit I read it and it was not what I meant. I am frustrated by the fact that nothing (usually) seems to happen unless some celebrity gets involved. He has raised significant funds for this project and that's what it seems to take to get the ball rolling. Once that gets rolling you'll get a more focused involvement for those of us that do want alternatives, then the bandwagon celebrities, then the politians, and then we'll get somewhere.

It is very unfortunate that's generally how the process works but when someone who can get the media's attention and bring light to something such as this, I can direct those people whom I've been trying for some time to understand the needs.

Side Effects (1)

ARWolff (993317) | about 8 years ago | (#16167813)

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.

Where do I sign up? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16165965)

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...

Guilt? In Capitalism? (0, Troll)

Travoltus (110240) | about 8 years ago | (#16165997)

Guilt? How can there be guilt if there are profits?

Take Union Carbide, for instance... I didn't have any guilt when their chemical accident killed thousands of people... but I sure had guilt when their stock dropped!

Guilt is for investors who lose their shirts, and for liberals. We manly men, we don't know this 'guilt' thing you talk of.

[end republican parody]

Re:Where do I sign up? (2, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | about 8 years ago | (#16166201)

Besides being a great investment with a likely massive return

The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common ... poor returns. Now, this doesn't make it a bad idea, and perhaps with Clinton's name attached to it that may boost awareness somewhat, but I think anyone who invests in this fund needs to think of it as "doing the right thing" for a small return, rather than treating it like a "real" investment. Of course knowing how ambitious the Clintons are, once can't help but suspect this is more about Hilary's run in 2008 than it is about saving the planet.

Re:Where do I sign up? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 8 years ago | (#16166617)

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" [google.com] was the Winslow Green Growth fund (WGGFX) which has outperformed the S&P and DOW indices by over 30%. [yahoo.com] Since most managed funds (at least 80% of them) fail to even match market indices, clearly not ALL green funds have poor returns.

Re:Where do I sign up? (2, Informative)

LaughingCoder (914424) | about 8 years ago | (#16166811)

Source: http://www.greencentury.com/funds/performance.aspx [greencentury.com]

Green Century Balanced Fund 10 year return: 7.71%
Green Century Equity Fund 10 year return: 6.93%
S&P 500 Index Fund 10 year return: 8.31%

The numbers look alot worse if you consider 1, 3 or 5 year returns.

Here's another one: http://www.domini.com/domini-funds/Domini-Social-E quity-Fund/index.htm [domini.com]

I couldn't find their 10 year return, but their 5 year is 3.12%. The S&P 500 Index 5 year return is 4.65%.


For reference, a few well-known, "non-socially responsible" funds to look at:

Fidelity Contra 5 year: 10.09%
Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%
Fidelity Contra 5 year: 8.94%
Fidelity Balanced 10 year: 11.30%

So the first 2 examples of green funds that I found underperform a simple broad-based index, and significantly underperform some well-known broad-based equity funds (one of which is a balanced fund which sacrifices capital appreciation to boost income).

I will grant you your point, however, challenging my assertion that *all* green funds have poor returns, since you found a (rather nice) counter-example. But I believe that generally these types of socially-conscious funds inevitably wind up sacrificing returns for "principals".

Re:Where do I sign up? (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 8 years ago | (#16167309)

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

Considering that in general most funds, socially-conscious or not, underperform the market indices, I think your conclusions are erroneous. I don't have the data to do a comprehensive survey, but considering that it is easy enough to find other high-performing socially-conscious funds like the paxworld family, [paxworld.com] I'm more willing to believe that the group of such funds as a whole at least mirrors the general market for funds than I am to believe that it trails it.

Re:Where do I sign up? (2, Interesting)

scoove (71173) | about 8 years ago | (#16167357)

Thanks LaughingCoder for a good response to the "I call BS" poster. Readers who don't understand finance should be well served by your post.

One point I'd also add to your comment about returns is that this data does not include expense ratios, which are usually significantly higher than average in managed green funds. Part of this is due to the funds not getting near as much capital (due to the market's awareness that they deliver poor returns historically) as other funds, so the fund's costs are spread across less invested dollars. There may be other factors that increase the costs as well.

I work with emerging markets analysis and am careful about fund expenses as I would hope all investors would be. While the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) delivers a 7% return, it has a 1.5% expense ratio PLUS taxes that are distributed to the investor (which need to be accounted for as well). Your best return is actually 5.5% pre-tax consideration, and as mutual funds pass on their tax costs from trading, you really should consider that [ricedelman.com] as well.

An alternative (that has its own pros and cons) for someone who is determined to invest in clean energy is something like PowerShares Clean Energy WilderHill ETF [yahoo.com] PBW [powershares.com] . Read up on exchange traded fundss on someplace like Morningstar [morningstar.com] if you're not familiar with index investing. While I'm not recommending the clean energy sector, I'd suggest that if you're totally determined to invest in it for your own reasons, you at least look at lower expense opportunities like an ETF (in this case, the expense ratio is 0.6%). Otherwise, you'll be paying some firm to have well paid managers delivering lousy returns which is a real shame. And if you're prudent, you won't expect a positive return on your green investments - the sector has too much new venture risk, is very exposed to crude market risk (e.g. if other energy forms become significantly cheaper again, nobody buys their products), and in most cases this leads to liquidity and ultimately solvency risk. In a nutshell, the normal volatility storms of the energy market is too much for these little boats to weather.

Re:Where do I sign up? (2, Insightful)

KenSeymour (81018) | about 8 years ago | (#16168611)

Perhaps non-green corporations can financially out perform green ones because they can pass on the environmental costs on to future generations and the government.

Iron Mountain Mine [epa.gov] in northern California. It is an abondoned open pit pyrite mine. Whenever it rains, it produces sulphuric acid, combined with heavy metals, which would eventually feed into the Sacramento River, if it were not for two intervening dams. During heavy rains, the polution does get past the dams before being sufficiently diluted.

For the rest of time, someone will have to operate a combination of a lime neutralization plant on site, combined with releases of water from the dams timed with large seasonal flows from Shasta Dam. This site was actively mined off and on from the 1860s through 1963. At one time, the site was the largest producer of copper in California.

Another EPA document [epa.gov] gives a explanation of the problem, photos of the neutralization plant, and some history. Here is a quote from that document:

When extraction of the ore was suspended from the
various stopes above the Lawson, the ground was in
very bad shape, and the conditions regarding heat
and gas were so terrible that it seemed advisable to
abandon any attempt to work from that level.
In fact it was a case of walking away and leaving the
job for the next generation" (William F. Kett,
General Manager, Mountain Copper Co., August 1944)

Mining at the site was abondoned, at least in part, because the ground became too unstable to mine it anymore. So when the mine was operated, the company was profitable. I don't know the relationship of the company that did the mining to the current owner of the site.
But it is possbile for a company to cease to exist once the mine is worn out. So the companies that mined this site were profitable while the mine was open, mostly by avoiding paying for the environmental damage they caused.

The EPA has successfully gone after the current owner of the site. In my mind, it is not fair to have a company that did not create the problem pay for cleaning it up. But it is also not fair to have taxpayers pay for it either. Once all the ore is gone and the mining company folds, there is no way to go back and make the owners pay for the damage they caused.

So maybe green companies might underperform non-green companies TODAY. But that is true because often they can skip out on paying all the costs of their activites. The Sacramento River provides drinking water for a significant portion of the population of California. I was astonished when I heard of this site.

Re:Where do I sign up? (1)

mattkime (8466) | about 8 years ago | (#16168703)

>>Of course knowing how ambitious the Clintons are, once can't help but suspect this is more about Hilary's run in 2008 than it is about saving the planet.

If only saving the planet and political ambitions overlapped more frequently...

Re:Where do I sign up? (0, Troll)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 years ago | (#16166449)

Your a fool alternative energy investments have been major failure and will continue to be major faliures as long as oil is cheap. Oil is getting cheaper as I write this. You are not doing anyone any harm by investing in oil either. Stock is just paper or now days just ledger lines that has little if anything to do with the company its supposed to represent. Buying 300 shares of a large cap firm like Exon-Mobile won't have any meaningful impact on that companies vaule at all. Your little transaction is not going to bid up the market. The only person who maybe extracts some gain off your activity is your broker. Sitting out a good energy investment for emotional reasons is just missing a good oppertunity. Its not the same thing as buing a $10k chunck of some small cap firm, say LetsKillBabies Inc. Where your volume could move the price and the company might gain from your actions. Even in that instace emotions and morals have NO PLACE in the stock market. If you can't check them at the door you probably should stay in cash, otherwise you are going to loose.

Re:Where do I sign up? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166671)

as long as oil is cheap.

It's funny how "cheap" gets redefined as the price of crude rises. $40 a barrel was considered expensive a couple of years ago, and it hit nearly $80 a barrel earlier this year, but because it is now "only" $65 a barrel, it's still "cheap"!

Ask Richard Branson why he's putting up $10billion into this fund and he'll tell you it's because of the rise in fuel prices. Transport companies (ALL transport companies; road hualage, rail, shipping and airlines) are having major issues paying for fuel. These guys buy fuel by the hundreds of thousands and millions of barrels; a single dollar rise in fuel can cost them millions and reduce their already razor-thin margins. Paying an extra couple of cents at the pump might be an inconvenience for you, but it's a huge problem for these companies.

P.S: I didn't even mention petrochemical companies. The economics are the same for them, too. Let's also not forget the bilions of dollars spent on "protecting" oil supplies from the Middle East and South America, and the oil money that flows into unstable countries that is used, directly or indirectly, to fund terrorism and keep unsuitable governments in power.

Re:Where do I sign up? (1)

rs232 (849320) | about 8 years ago | (#16167247)

"alternative energy investments have been major failure and will continue to be major faliures as long as oil is cheap. Oil is getting cheaper as I write this" DarkOx

Not exactly true as the above comment points out. And if alternative energy is doomed to failure why did big oil get a tariff on ethanol being imported into the US and at the same time pushes to reduce domestic production. According to a number of impartial and reliable resources oil production has already peaked [zmag.org] .

Oil is getting temperorly cheaper for the oil companies mainly because the US stole Iraqs entire oil supply and is currently selling it back to them. The value of the dollar is tied to the price of oil. Consequently the global markets are tied to oil. Anything to impact the price of oil would have disasterous consequences possibly leading to a total crash. Perhaps this is the real motive in big oils objection to alternative energy. These conditions can not be good for long term economic stability.

"a good energy investment for emotional reasons is just missing a good oppertunity .. emotions and morals have NO PLACE in the stock market"

According to this the disinformation [huffingtonpost.com] comes chiefly from the other side.

Why? (-1, Offtopic)

kahei (466208) | about 8 years ago | (#16165975)


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

I suppose this counts as a troll but honestly, I am saving the libertarians so much time by writing it first. I should be considered a hero -- yet it is my destiny to be modded down :(

This is all because my wife said that she would make breakfast, and she's making BAGUETTES for breakfast, not proper breakfast, and she's taking HOURS to do it so here I am sitting here really hungry wasting my morning waiting for these darn baguettes, it's freakin 10:45 ffs, WHERE IS MY BREAKFAST WOMAN???

I was kind of hoping she would get finished while I am writing this but no... 10:46 and still I have had NOTHING TO EAT all day. The reason for this disaster is that I bought her a sandwich toaster a while ago and since then she won't do anything that doesn't involve a sandwich toaster, even though being Korean she is hardly in tune with the sandwich way of thinking, and so every bit of food in the house is now basically a flat asbestos-like sheet, lightly charred throughout and as dense as a neutron star.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

hdw (564237) | about 8 years ago | (#16166333)

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

bit late, but (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166027)

That'll sure take the heat off about that time when he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (5, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16166037)

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 [thinkprogress.org] .

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... (2, Insightful)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | about 8 years ago | (#16166077)

That's the funniest thing I've read in awhile. I wasn't a fan of Clinton when he was the President, but am more now with all the charity he's doing. And it's always a pleasure to watch ANY media get punked.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (1)

pipingguy (566974) | about 8 years ago | (#16166305)

Who is being actually "punked" (thank you MTV for the lead-in to whathisface's show/concept) here?

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | about 8 years ago | (#16168107)

Sorry, I was using punked (as to today's pwned) before that MTV show so for me punked has a different meaning.

I was referring to the reporter who thought he was slick and would hard ball Clinton and put him in a corner but Clinton reversed it and put the reporter in a corner.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (1)

pipingguy (566974) | about 8 years ago | (#16169027)

You kids today with your redefining of words and terminology (internet communications and 500 TV channels all competing for mindspace and uniquitude make it worse). I'm so lame that I only just recently discovered what a "camel toe" is by watching a re-run of The Weatherman.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (1)

novus ordo (843883) | about 8 years ago | (#16166199)

Ah the magic they work in the editing room...

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (1)

will_die (586523) | about 8 years ago | (#16166603)

The reason that Clinton is doing his show is because he came out so much agaist the ABC mini-series.

So the chances of you actually seeing it look to really low since it looks like that "transcript" looks like it was false a href=

I'm really curious. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16167227)

... what you were going to say there; it looks like your comment got mangled. Care to complete it?

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166757)

Clinton: I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.

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.

Clinton could have had Bin Laden killed. Unfortunately his little affair with Monica Lewinsky prevented him from doing so.

So, yes, the events in the Path to 9/11, while dramatized, are still true. Clinton could have killed Bin Laden. He had the opportunity and the chance, and he decided not to.

That's the bottom line.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (4, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16166829)

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 [msn.com] was much better.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167117)

If fucking puritans hadn't started their fucking war on Clinton because of a blowjob nobody cared about, what you say (if it's true, supposedly) wouldn't have happened. He didn't rape her? Nope. Was it sexual harassment? I fail to see how it would have been, she's free to accept what she wants in her mouth. Truth is, puritan America is to blame. Anyone, including a president, is free to be blowjob'd, by a hooker or a coworker, and nobody should even ask about it. Monica is a whore.

Perjury (0, Flamebait)

p51d007 (656414) | about 8 years ago | (#16167383)

It wasn't the "bj" that got him in trouble. It was LYING to a GRAND JURY. It's called Perjury That is why he was "hounded"......The fact he was and is a LIAR had nothing to do with the CRIMINAL nature of the case. It was the FACT that he LIED under OATH. From Wikipedia: Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a very serious crime as it could be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. 1746.

Re:Perjury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167709)

I wish I had points to mod parent up, or grandparent down. Both are equally offtopic, and both are equally not really flamebait. Only the one that is negative towards Clinton gets modded down (while an AC, easy to mod down, stays untouched).

Your left is showing, Slashdot.

Might be because your parent was wrong. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16168295)

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.

Re:Might be because your parent was wrong. (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | about 8 years ago | (#16168555)

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.
Incorrect. Both civil and criminal contempt are punishable by jail time and/or fines. The classification has to do with the nature of the contempt, whether it's merely disobeying the orders of the court vs. direct disruption of court proceedings. Do not confuse civil and criminal contempt with civil and criminal law.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167295)

Holy smoke! Are you the redundancy meister or what???

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167137)

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've seen the video. He play acts anger, shakes his finger and has the same eye movements he did when he said he didn't have sex with "that woman, Monica Lewinsky." He's actually not a very good liar. 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.

Please don't take my commentary for a defense of Bush, who's been equally ineffective in dealing with real problems. I just wanted to note that anyone who is fooled by Clinton's obvious dishonesty (which is verified by extensive documentation in case you aren't able to read people very well) really ought to stick to easier subjects.

He did? (3, Informative)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16167289)

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".

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167331)

yes indeed, as if all documentation and "histories" are factual or "reality" based. Clinton haters are a bunch of self-righteous and self-deluded hypocrites.

That's good stuff. (3, Insightful)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16167367)

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.

Pwned? Put down that crack pipe, buddy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167369)

Yeah, it was a journalistic ambush, that Clinton didn't deserve.

But any way you slice it, Clinton ignored Bin Laden outside of flipping a few cruise missiles at him every now and then. He ignored bin Laden to the point of refusing to take bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up (of course, without a place like Guantanamo Bay, what could he do with bin Laden?)

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?

Come on, tell us. What did Clinton do in response to the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole?

Please, let us all know.

Here's a hint: it won't take you any time at all to tell us. Literally. No time at all.

The Sudan offer wasn't credible. (4, Informative)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16167437)

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.

Re:Pwned? Put down that crack pipe, buddy (4, Informative)

OoSync (444928) | about 8 years ago | (#16168789)

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:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (1)

EricCarr (1004715) | about 8 years ago | (#16167451)

Wow, it looks like Fox News completely spun this:

Fox News ad for "interview" [youtube.com]

They make it out like the interview was supposed to be about 9/11 and Bin Laden. What sneaky fucks. And look at the comments. Does anyone else get the feeling that conservative smear groups are trying to spread propaganda through YouTube?

Anyone remember this? [slashdot.org]

Gah, I want my country back.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16168077)

If Clinton (and Bush) wanted to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil, they would have raised the nation's average vehicle fuel economy.

The fuel economy of the average US vehicle is the worst it has ever been.

Not only because vehicles are getting bigger & more powerful, but because the consumer is choosing "light trucks" instead of "cars". Light trucks (minivans, SUVs, and weird vehicles like the PT cruiser) are excepted from fuel economy & safety standards that apply to cars.

Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (2, Interesting)

OoSync (444928) | about 8 years ago | (#16168831)

If Clinton (and Bush) wanted to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil, they would have raised the nation's average vehicle fuel economy.

Fuel economy is one thing, but so are emmissions.



A decision was made many years ago to forgoe many significant advances in fuel economy in favor of reducing emmissions. The last I heard, California's had a dramatic decrease in smog and increase in air quality. The Prius, though known and marketed for its fuel economy, is also marketed for its "Near Zero Emmissions" rating.



Priorities and all that . . . .

Anti? (1)

anonieuweling (536832) | about 8 years ago | (#16166051)

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.

Re:Anti? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16168559)

Hello??

Investment fund. Capitalist through and through.

One part doesn't make sense! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166063)

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!

Re:One part doesn't make sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166371)

Since when is charity NOT an investment?
Don't be obtuse. It's the difference between, say, food drops (charity) and building agricultural infrastructure (investment). For long term impact, the latter is far more effective.

Here's a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166081)

Someone else doing more good for the country (and world) than the Bush Admin? NO WAY. /sarcasm

Seriously, topping this admin is as easy as making pancakes. But then again... You'd be surpised by how many people I've seen fail terribly at making pancakes.

Kudos to Clinton, though!

Wasn't this $ from Virgin Air's n-Years' profits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166123)

The UK owner of Virgin (whose planes - like all the rest - have helped bring on Global Warming)
was on Aussie TV a day or so ago stating that he's allocating "ALL" of Virgin (Air)'s profits
over the next years (4 or 5? I didn't note it down), ie, about a billion $'s or so
to fund RESEARCH into creating jet fuels that won't impact the environment as much (or similar).

Clinton was in pictured the same story, but wasn't given any air-time to speak over here...

It it's the same fund, why is it called "Clinton's" Fund here...? :-/

Re:Wasn't this $ from Virgin Air's n-Years' profit (2, Interesting)

bfree (113420) | about 8 years ago | (#16166795)

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 [breakingnews.ie] . So not only does the story not ascribe the cash to it's source, it doesn't even get the figure right.

Never thought I would say this... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 8 years ago | (#16166193)

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.

Re:Never thought I would say this... (0, Flamebait)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 8 years ago | (#16166535)

I don't think it is being characterized as 'handling it well' in many circles. Maybe in a few 'spin zones.'

The guy is finally coming to acknowledge that he fucked up and will always be known as a third or fourth rate president. Kind of like hollow old Carter, who rattles around the international stage trying to stir up some interest in himself.

Re:Never thought I would say this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167169)

Then Bush must be a thousandth rate President.

Re:Never thought I would say this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167461)

Try first rate. For the high level of adversity, and low attacks he faced during the entire term of his presidency, Clinton did very well and brought great benefit to the American people and raised the esteem of the world. What has Bush accomplished? Every good thing that Clinton had accomplished during his 2 terms, have been flushed down the toilet by the snide little idiot who currently sits in office now. The shame isn't on Clinton, it is on the people who allowed the distractions to his presidency continue. The shame is on everyone who didn't daily voice the outrage at that "vast right wing conspiracy" that rather deal with the problems at hand, chose to waste time on relentless attacks at every opportunity and in every low way against Clinton.

Re:Never thought I would say this... (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 8 years ago | (#16167641)

Every good thing that Clinton had accomplished during his 2 terms, have been flushed down the toilet by the snide little idiot who currently sits in office now.

Your metaphor fits, since everything that Clinton 'accomplished' was essentially just a turd.

It's really weird, how the people who hover over their keyboard on DailyKos or the DemocraticUnderground ready to slam anything related to the DLC are so quick to defend the DLC's star Candidate.

Why do you counter with 'What has Bush accomplished?' You expect me to defend ANY of the bullshit that people do once they've attained the reins of state power that nobody should wield in the first place?

Re:Never thought I would say this... (1)

abigor (540274) | about 8 years ago | (#16167625)

Actually, internationally Clinton is regarded as possibly the finest American president of modern times. Of course, this means nothing to the American right, for whom Europeans/Canadians/etc. are only a step up from al Qaeda.

Clinton bad! bad! bad! bad! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166261)

Had cock sucked by twenty-two year old fat intern. bad! bad! bad! Then lied about it! bad! under oath! BAD!!! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

Legislation promoted and signed into law under Clinton's two terms (taken from the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] ):

        * 1993-02-05 - The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
        * 1993-08-10 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Raised income tax rates; income tax, top rate: 39.6%; corporate tax: 35%
        * 1993-09-21 - creation of the AmeriCorps volunteer program
        * 1993-11-30 - Brady Bill
        * 1994-09-13 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses (see Federal assault weapons ban)
        * 1996-02-01 - Communications Decency Act
        * 1996-02-08 - Telecom Reform Act: eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.
        * 1996-02-26 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a welfare reform bill
        * 1996-03-14 - authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.
        * 1996-04-09 - Line Item Veto Act
        * 1996-04-24 - Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
        * 1996-08-20 - Minimum wage Increase Act
        * 1996-09-21 - Defense of Marriage Act, allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law
        * 1997-08-05 - Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
        * 1998-10-28 - Digital Millennium Copyright Act
        * 1998-10-31 - Iraq Liberation Act


BAD CLINTON! BAD!

you aren't helping matters much (1)

misanthrope101 (253915) | about 8 years ago | (#16166429)

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.

Re:you aren't helping matters much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166451)

I vote slack [subgenius.com] . Please become an ordained minister in the Church of the Subgenius and run for office now!

Ground rule number one for "green" ventures (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16166293)

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 [biofuelwatch.org.uk] in places of such extraordinary landscape and wildlife beauty as Borneo. [google.com]

Phfft, and what does he get out of it? (-1, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 years ago | (#16166379)

This man doesnt do anything for the common good, so it must be all about profit, so dont hold your breath for something useful to come out of this.

Clinton had sex with Argonne Labs IFR (2, Informative)

cdn-programmer (468978) | about 8 years ago | (#16166409)

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 [anl.gov]

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 [pbs.org]

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 [wikipedia.org]

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. Its too late to avoid catastrophie now, and we havn't even started to solve the problems.

Even with a breakneck development program we will not be able to put in place the infrastructure we need. There will be hell to pay with people freezing in the dark, and probably more energy wars as well.

Frankly I have NO respect for Clinton and never will. History will hold Clinton as much to blame for any future energy wars as Bush and Blair. Clinton did a great deal to create the problem.

Jimmy Carter (5, Informative)

Stalyn (662) | about 8 years ago | (#16166701)

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.

That makes me want to cry. (4, Insightful)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16167343)

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:Jimmy Carter (0)

Dun Malg (230075) | about 8 years ago | (#16168799)

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
Yeah, that's the solution. We'll just stop using so much oil. Growth will happen magically through the application of fairy dust and perpetual motion machines to power industry!

Carter was long on principles but short on meaningful plans. The classic example is his executive order banning breeder reactors, the reasoning offered being that breeders produce plutonium, and plutonium is used in bombs. Of course, the plutonium in breeder reactors is an inseparable mix of isotopes which cannot be made to work in a nuclear warhead. Subsequently, we are left with only two possibilities: a) Carter didn't know the difference between weapons grade and non-weapons grade plutonium, which seems unlikely as the man is a freakin' degreed nuclear engineer; or b) he knew the stated reasoning was wrong, but asserted it anyway, as it bolstered his stance against nuclear weapons proliferation. Neither answer, unfortunately, does the man's image any credit.

Re:Clinton had sex with Argonne Labs IFR (1)

Xyrus (755017) | about 8 years ago | (#16167015)

Yeah the reactor was great idea, so now where to build it.........

And therin lies the problem. NIMBY.

You could come up with the best power source ever, but if people don't want it around then it just isn't going to be built. Notice how no one is exactly clamoring for a nuke plant in their state.

At the time, Clinton was stating the obvious. Nukes were a no go, and alternatives would not keep pace with demand. At the time, fossil fuels would be the only source to "economically" keep up with energy demand.

You know damn well if Clinton started allocating billions for alternative research the Republicans would have been all over his ass. Not that he would have gotten it anyway as the Republicans controlled congress.

This wasn't just a Clinton problem, it was an EVERYONE problem.

Soon, we'll have no choice but to build nuke reactors and do more research into alternatives. If we don't though, you can rest assured that there won't be any energy wars as none of the war machines work all that well without fuel.

No matter what, eventually the expensive alternatives will become economical in comparison to sticking with the traditional fossil fuels. At that point, people will switch.

Until then, we'll continue to burn the fossils, pollute the atmosphere, etc. History has shown that humans usually don't do anything until they absolutely have to. This is no exception, unfortunately

Re:Clinton had sex with Argonne Labs IFR (1)

cdn-programmer (468978) | about 8 years ago | (#16168941)

Where to build it? Why here in Alberta!

World oil production is currently about 85 million barrels of oil per day. OPEC production declined about 2% last month - we don't really know why. The top four (4) feilds produce about 15% of world production and all seem to now be in decline with Kuwait announcing Bergan slipped into decline in Nov 2005 and a Saudi Aramco spoksman admiting Ghawar slipped into decline in April 2006. A 5% decline rate will result in a world wide loss of about 1/2 million barrels of oil production per year from just these top four (4) feilds. Between now and 2015 this will accumulate to a loss of about 3.5 million barrels of production from these four (4) feilds alone.

The thing is the rest of the world is in decline as well and country by country production has been slipping in spite of the best efforts of the industry. Just last year Britian became an oil importer and the year before Indonesia became an importer. Since Indoneasia use to supply Australia this means three (3) more countries line up at the straits of Hormez for oil imports from the Middle East.

If we project a 5% decline on the 85 million barrel world production we end up short about 30 million barrels of production... ie - production falls from 85 million to about 55 million barrles per day to be made up from something and somewhere and this by 2015.

The Alberta Tar Sands is receiving investments of over $10 billion per year. All of these projects require massive amounts of energy which in the past was supplied by Natural Gas. In fact Canada produces about 6.3 TCF of gas per year of which over 1/2 is exported to the USA.

Were we to try to use this gas for energy and chemical feedstocks (hydrogen) which is needed to change the hydrogen:carbon ratio of bitumin (about 10 hydrogen to 7 carbon) into the hydrogen:carbon ratio of syncrude (about 1:1 actually - part of the alkane series: C(n)H(2n+2)), then we would need more than 1/2 of Canada's production by 2015 and in fact the proposed McKensie Valley pipeline can just stop at Ft. McMurray. In this senerio there IS NO EXPORT GAS FOR THE USA. The USA is already short of gas supplies and this is illustrated by spot prices in the $17 bux range a couple years back. The present price drop will be very temporary.

My point is that with these massive investments, Alberta Tar Sands output is expected to climb to only about 3.3 million barrels per day. This will not offset the decline from even the top four (4) oil feilds much less the expected declines from all other producing countries.

We need to install about 75 GIGAWATTS of nuclear energy for Tar Sands operations... this to bring production up to about 5 million barrels of syncrude per day.

NIMBY in part is ok for now for most of the USA. However NIMBY makes no sense here in Alberta.

Without a source of energy to obtain hydrogen from water, we need to chemically obtain it via reactions such as fischer-tropsh. In order to use F-T, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the carbon found in the bitumin is either relegated to coke piles or sent up the smoke stacks in the form of CO2.

So what I'm advocating and saying is: really the only thing that makes sense is to build big nukes - about 75 of them, and I'd like to see the IFR in that fleet - and I'm advocating building them IN MY BACK YARD.

I would much rather see nukes in my back yard than kids off fighting futile middle eastern wars.

-----------------

The point of IFR technology is that it won't come in overnight. There is a LOT of work to be done. Eventually it will be done - but we are all likely to suffer big time in the mean time.

The gas line ups and fuel shortages of the 1970's are nothing compared to where we are going. Yet if we look at the energy we have available via IFR and other advanced reactor designs...

60,000 years supply of uranium on hand for the existing fleet of about 113 reactors in the gigawatt range.... most of this uranium is called waste or spent or depleated.

6,000 years supply for 1000 reactors in the gigawatt range. 1000 reactors will supply 100% of North American energy requirments.

The amount of uranium we have available is staggering with designs like the IFR. For instance, granite runs about 5 PPM uranium. There is enough energy in 1 ton of granite to match 10,000 tonnes of coal. But then there is far more energy in the uranium that goes up the coal plant's smoke stacks than there is in the coal itself. Instead of capturing this uranium we leave it free to polute the countryside.

One thing most people don't know is that a few years back uranium was extracted from the fertilizers manufactured here in Alberta. In most parts of the world it is just spread on the feilds. The USDA has done studies and proclaimed that the uranium spread on the fields via chemical fertilizers is not gnerally taken up by the crops and hense is not a real problem.

If we just disregard the total energy waste and short sightedness of policies like this - then consider that on the one hand the nuclear industry is feared and condemned because of radioactive isotopes escaping into the environment, yet meanwhile the agricultural industry spreads uranium on the land "because it is not economic to capture it".

MOD Parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167741)

Yes, there is an anti-Clinton bias, but you cannot argue with the facts he presents (See J.S. Mill and the Marketplace of Ideas). The IFR is a great design. We complain about environmentalists for not wanting to build nuclear reactors, but we praise Clinton even when he shutdown one of the most revolutionary reactor designs.

MOD parent up!!! The IFR is the perfect solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16168123)

The IFR is basically the perfect (and only) solution for clean, cheap, and virtually inexhaustible energy. As an added benefit, it can consume the "waste" from conventional nuclear plants. Furthermore, fuel cell powered vehicles are worse than useless if they derive their energy from coal to begin with!

Canceling the IFR project may well turn out to be the worst and most costly decision ever made.

Really, I never have mod points when they are useful.

Still in pursuit of a 'Legacy,' huh? (0, Flamebait)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 8 years ago | (#16166507)

Well, let's see how Clinton can twist and turn 'renewable energy' into a malevolent disaster. It'll be an interesting challange for him.

Re:Still in pursuit of a 'Legacy,' huh? (1)

geniusj (140174) | about 8 years ago | (#16167947)

I hope he is. That is called motivation and unfortunately good things rarely happen without someone being motivated.

We could do so much better (2, Insightful)

bhmit1 (2270) | about 8 years ago | (#16166593)

The United States uses 360 million US liquid gallons (1.36 gigalitres) of gasoline each day.
If the above wikipedia entry is accurate, that would mean raising the gas tax by 3 pennies would raise the same amount of funds per day. It would also make alternatives more competitive and ensure that as long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, the renewable energy has a source of funding. As an added bonus, people that adopt new technologies aren't taxed and the tax will eventually disappear.

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.

Re:We could do so much better (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | about 8 years ago | (#16166739)

One thing we should push for is far more usage of wind power.

The Great Plains of the USA is one of the best areas on Earth for large-scale wind farms. Imagine thousands of 2 MW wind turbines, located in areas where few people will complain about being an eyesore; we could generate as much as 20,000 MW of power from these turbines.

Also, thanks to nanotechnology, we could drastically reduce the cost of solar panels to generate electricity; imagine whole neighborhoods where every home has a solar panel with a nanotube supercapacitor bank storing the energy for use at night, with all the power connected together in a distributed power generating fashion.

In short, the next big company won't be the oil companies, it will be General Electric.

Re:We could do so much better (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | about 8 years ago | (#16166929)

I love windmills. I hate windfarms. Windmills are a viable energy independence technology. Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.

Make . . . your . . .own.

KFG

Americathon (1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 8 years ago | (#16166893)

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 [wikipedia.org] ? And can we skip all the nasty bits until then?

Re:Americathon (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | about 8 years ago | (#16167901)

You're saying that like its a bad thing. IMO, given a libertarian view, this is how it should have worked from the start. Get the government out of the picture, let the people do the work. Gov't only needs to be there if the people can't/won't do it. In this case, the people are doing what is needed.

Re:Americathon (2, Insightful)

j-pimp (177072) | about 8 years ago | (#16168715)


At what point does America need the charity to bail it out? And can we skip all the nasty bits until then?


I hope a private charity bails the gorernment out. Government is getting bigger and bigger. Nothing seems to be shrinking it. Maybe if Clinton's charity is successful, government will deregulate energy and shrink itself in embarassment.

Here is what a government should do:
1) wage war
2) pave roads
3) keep a police force
4) fire and emergency response

Here is what government should not do:
1) Healthcare
2) tax unless absolutly neccessary.

Clinton interviewed on Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167239)

Think Progress: FULL TRANSCRIPT: Clinton Takes On Fox News
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/ [thinkprogress.org]

Baby Steps (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 8 years ago | (#16167327)

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.

I love it (1)

popsicle67 (929681) | about 8 years ago | (#16167353)

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?

Re:I love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16168651)

Apparently you've forgotten about Hillary's ability to turn a profit in cattle futures!

complete bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16167423)

If Clinton (and Bush) wanted to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil, they would have raised the nation's average vehicle fuel economy.

The fuel economy of the average US vehicle is the worst ever.

Not only because vehicles are getting bigger & more powerful, but because the consumer is choosing "light trucks" instead of "cars". Light trucks (minivans, SUVs, and weird vehicles like the PT cruiser) are excepted from fuel economy & safety standards that apply to cars.

I remember the debate. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | about 8 years ago | (#16168257)

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.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (2, Informative)

norite (552330) | about 8 years ago | (#16167861)

Those of us in the know are quietly getting on with things....

http://www.smartveg.com/ [smartveg.com]

Creating Jobs (2, Funny)

iPodUser (879598) | about 8 years ago | (#16168177)

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!

Mentioned on The Daily Show the other day (3, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 8 years ago | (#16168503)

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.

Dumb Dumb Dumb (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16168683)

I can't believe how stupid Clinton is and some of you lap this BS up.

Global Warming is an even bigger, more heinous power and money grab than the War on Poverty.

We need nuclear now! (0, Redundant)

Upaut (670171) | about 8 years ago | (#16168973)

What we need to spend money on is developing a proper nuclear infrastructure. We need reactors, and a lot of them, otherwise we are going to be screwed in a few years. Renewable energy is great and all, but will not be able to sate our unquenchable thirst for energy. We need infrastructure now.

So write to your congressman about building some breeders today. Remember, call then Breeder Reactors, not mentioning the "nuclear" aspect. That makes people much more comferatable. Same way they renamed NMRI's to MRI's.... It makes the common man feel safer...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?