Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund 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."
Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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...
Jobs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Expect many 2 MW wind turbines to go up in North and South Dakota over the next 15 years.
Actually no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone except, say, Gamesa, Suzlon, and Clipper Wind and all the other foreign-owned companies from other industries who seem to have no problem at all opening plants in the U.S. like say Toyota. They seem to be able to turn a profit off American employees. Go figure. Maybe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 mi
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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. .
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 . .
Remember that jobs are the co
Re: (Score:2)
Gas is like $6/gallon, and electricity is about $0.15/kWh i think.The el prices is expected to double this winter..
Re: (Score:2)
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 anothe
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, and just in time for the 2008 elections too...
Re: (Score:2)
Just in time for the 2006 elections actually... but that ignores the larger points: (a) Clinton couldn't run for President again even if he wanted to, he's already served two terms, and (b) why is it that nobody can do anything good anymore without some cynic suggesting that it's nothing more than an empty political ploy? Have we become so cynical that we literally cannot imagine anyone genuinely trying to improve the state of the world?
I suppose Mother T
Re: (Score:2)
1 - Clinton is still a Democratic Party stalwart, and said Party is in deep trouble. 2 - *Hillary* Clinton is in the midst of ramping up a campaign for 2008. (And is widely seen wherever her husband is dispensing Good.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
second, the democratic party isn't 'in deep trouble'. they seem to be holding their own against the GOP in spite of a cohesive plan for most everything. i'd say the GOP is starting to slip down the slope into 'deep trouble' territory.
Re: (Score:2)
He has the vision to know just what is needed to get away from the current energy sources, and also has the proven ability to raise money for good causes like this, and to pick suitable managers for the money funds.
I'm sure something will come of this, Mr. Clinton himself is not doing the research, but those who will be will have grants, jobs and places to work.
Just as Ford Motor Company managed to move from the Model T to the Model A, and is was hard, every part in the Model A
Re: (Score:2)
With BioDiesel or Hydrogen approaches, there would still be retail distribution jobs.
BioDiesel interests me because I see it as solar energy in storable and transportable form. The issues of a stable energy supply has always been an issue for wind and solar collection, relegating them to being supplemental instead of primary energy sources.
Unlike ethanol, biodiesel energy farming is net-positive, even with current technology.
Where there will be fights is in government, as fossil energy companies fig
Re: (Score:2)
According to an article I read on a Polish news site, a lot of European farmers are doing that already. They buy a special apparatus for a few thousand euros, and vegetable oil from Ukraine or China (cheaper than locally produced). One farmer claimed that this arrangement paid for itself after a year. The problem in Poland is that these operations are in a legal grey a
Re: (Score:2)
The term "mini refinery" is misleading. I think it's the kind of term the oil companies would bandy about in an attempt to ensure that biodiesel production is regulated by government bodies the fossil fuel companies already know and have leverage with.
Biodiesel processing is much cleaner than fossil fuel cracking, and it doesn't leave behind a host of fuel variants (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, high-test fuels, paraffin, etc.)
Where do I sign up? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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-know
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 acr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
F
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're willing to sacrifice principles for a slightly higher rate of return, then you never had the former and don't deserve the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Good! I would much rather make less money (note, still making money) investing in green or sustainable businesses than make more money supporting things that disgust me.
Re: (Score:2)
If only saving the planet and political ambitions overlapped more frequently...
Re: (Score:2)
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
He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
That's good stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
'Course, they'll probably cut it down to:
And that'll be all.
Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, Bush's strategy of waiting around until Osama keels over from natural causes [msn.com] was much better.
Might be because your parent was wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
He did? (Score:4, Informative)
'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".
The Sudan offer wasn't credible. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pwned? Put down that crack pipe, buddy (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
For multiple reasons, a military action in that time frame was impossible. Even under normal circumstances, a President starting a maj
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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" r
Anti? (Score:1)
One part doesn't make sense! (Score:1, Insightful)
I do like this idea though, Mr. Clinton!
Clinton had sex with Argonne Labs IFR (Score:3, Informative)
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. It
Jimmy Carter (Score:5, Informative)
--- Jimmy Carter, from his televised speech on July 15, 1979.
That makes me want to cry. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the foreign oil bought us flowers, and said it was sorry, and it was morning in America. And now we're back in the same boat we were thirty years ago, and we're acting like no one could have possibly seen this coming.
You know, Brazil is energy-independent. They followed through on what Carter promised but was voted out before he could deliver on, and the program was plagued by various problems for decades on end... but as of a few years ago, it works. We could have had that. But we didn't.
And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?
Re:That makes me want to cry. (Score:4, Insightful)
There was nothing wrong with the speech; the problem is with our electorate. The US has been overrun by asshats. Haven't you witnessed the last few elections? People in the US think it's their God given right to drive monster trucks with a big flag flapping in the back. Intellectuals are frowned upon. Creationism is on the ascent. We violate the Geneva conventions. Every day, millions of people pay tribute to bigots like Bill O'Reilly. Greedy self-interested Republicans vs. snivelling cowardly Democrats. Yuck.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing. That speech actually boosted his approval rating briefly. The reasons for the end of his presidency were a lot more complex, but the kind of pundits who love to say "good news for the Republicans" at every new development prefer to think it was this speech and it's I-Know-What's-Best tone that drove his presidency under, because it fits into the narrative they have built
Re: (Score:2)
more like advanced weaponry and Federal Reserve notes ;P I am continually amazed by how much people love to badmouth Jimmy Carter. Yes, yes, rampant inflation. It's a old canard. The OPEC embargo was largely out of his control and Reagan reaped much of the gain from Carter's policies (much of the improvement in the early 80s economy was a result of executive changes begun in the Carter administration; it takes time to turn an economy around) Of course, I was born in 197
Re: (Score:2)
In Brazil, over a third of the population live in slums with no electricity, running water, education or law enforcement. If this is what happens when you're energy independent then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Non-sequitur! Red flag! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, are you? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True... on the other hand, the USA has the advantage of being the dominant nation on Earth, with the largest economy and most advanced technological capabilities ever. So you'll have to pardon me if my sympathy seems limited where our unwillingness to kick the oil habit is concerned.
And in this country, the environmentalists will scream bloody murder if we
Re: (Score:2)
All plants have about the same chemistry. They are sugar polymers with the general chemistry of (CH2O)n. Ethanol and all alcohols are slightly oxydized alkanes. An alkane has the general chemistry of C(n)H(2n+2). An alcohol (single alcohols) are C(n)H(2n+1)OH. Set n=2 and you get ethanol: C2H5OH. Methanol (n=1) is also suitable for a fuel but it is poisonous and will blind too many
Re:Jimmy Carter MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Now look what we have:
COAL. The dirty beast. Nobody wants a coal fired plant. The power utilities have decided to go with the flow.... coal is not politically correct. NIMBY Rotating blackouts are becomming common.
Natural Gas... The darling. We get about 2x as much energ
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If Clinton had backed it, it would have never gotten out of comitee. Not only that, but the republicans would have used it for fodder putting the worst possible spin on it.
Even if he had backed it and somehow it did make it through commitee and through the house and senate, you know damn well the Bush administration would have shut it down the first day they were in office.
My point was simply that you can
Re: (Score:2)
Matt Simmons says that oil will hit $350 per barrel when the declines come. I don't know if I will go this far out on the limb. The demand for energy is very inelastic however, so Simmons may well be correct.
I do agree with you that we will not ru
typo (should be 2:1) (Score:2)
The thing is if we want to use Fischer-Trophe to produce the hydrogen we need then when we get to 5 million barrels of liquid synthetic crude p
We could do so much better (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Make . . . your . .
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.
I agree that massively centralized power is a bad idea, but given that most Americans live in urban areas, how can we avoid centralized power collection? I can't put a windmill on my apartment building. I'm sure the definition of "massively centralized" varies, but are you suggesting that individuals are the solution, or do you think community-owned power collection could work? Even there, I'm a bit skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - just imagine.
There are currently 113 nuclear plants in the GIGAWATT range operating in the USA. Your 20,000 windmills are equivalent to about 20 of these plants - and only when the wind is blowing. If the duty cycle of your windmills is 33% then you are proposing equivalent to about 7 nukes.
The USA produces about 10% of
Tax bads not goods. (Score:2)
http://www.whynot.net/ideas/2195 [whynot.net]
As a side note... (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5368194.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Baby Steps (Score:2)
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 sayi
Meanwhile, back at the ranch... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.smartveg.com/ [smartveg.com]
Creating Jobs (Score:2, Funny)
Mentioned on The Daily Show the other day (Score:3, Insightful)
He noted that if every family in America donated $10-20 to a fund/concern devoted to alternative enegery, we'd be rid of using oil in short order. Good to see he actually moved forward with the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla Motors has the right idea, but I doubt within the next decade they'll have an electrical energy storage device capable of delivering more then 400 miles per charge (they're only at 250 miles/per charge right now). Biofuels (the diesel sort more specifically) have the energy density to
Re: (Score:2)
Corn-based ethanol production? Thanks, but no thanks - that is a loser from the get-go, and the worst use of a valuable grain product to boot...
However, maybe if we used sugarcane or sugarbeets, that could work out. Or, we could use hemp - this would actually be a perfect solution for both ethanol (for the stalks and other cellulose) and biodiesel (from seed oils). Hemp can grown anywhere in just about any soil conditions, and it also acts as a nitrogen fixa
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-environmental policies and market systems can indeed be compatible, and we'll all be better off by realizing that. A good source for this sort of thinking is the Environmental Economics [env-econ.net] blog.
you aren't helping matters much (Score:2)
Re:Wasn't this $ from Virgin Air's n-Years' profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never thought I would say this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton was good. He was a politician, sure, but he was competent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that $6B is enough? Do you think it would have any effect without the government, including the ex/presidents working on it? Don't you think that most of the problems this private system is addressing are problems with the target countries' governments serving p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you mean, "even if it can't." The government should figure out who can solve the problems that the market and the government can't. This mean private charities in many cases. There are plenty of rich people that want to go to the moon, or be known as the one that financed the cure of cancer. Government should create a system that encourages this private charity.
After you deal with corporations
Re: (Score:2)
Even the moon isn't being done yet, though the government proved how two generations ago. Cancer is a good example of how the market harvest only the "low hanging fruit", like painkillers and symptom treatments, unless the government organized research for "the greater good" of longterm health at the expense of (neverending) shortterm profits.
The thing about cultivating the low hanging fruit is that most ind
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the debate. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now flash forward to 2006, and Toyota is wiping the floor with American auto companies, because Toyota was willing to do the work to improve fuel efficiency while GM and Ford invested all their money into lawsuits and bribes^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign donations to ensure that they could continue to produce the same o
Shit, they did it last time too. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)