See what it looked like, in all it’s corny-ness, back in ’64.

$29 million in 2008 and over $20 million so far in 2009 to legislators.Second only to the Chamber of Commerce per the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2009&indexType=s

Coal too:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1210

But under this administration, funding for renewable energy departments at universities has actually never been higher, in wind and in EV development for example. The only fossil projects getting new DOE funding now demo how to reduce CO2 from fossil energy. CCS,CH&P etc.

Have you ever listened to Senate hearings on renewable legislation? The Republicans all say: “We can’t do anything about climate change because China and India won’t”. If I heard those fools every day for 2 years in the Senate, and then got elected president, I’d go make a deal with China and India, too.

$29 million in 2008 and over $20 million so far in 2009 to legislators.Second only to the Chamber of Commerce per the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2009&indexType=s

Coal too:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1210

But under this administration, funding for renewable energy departments at universities has actually never been higher, in wind and in EV development for example. The only fossil projects getting new DOE funding now demo how to reduce CO2 from fossil energy. CCS,CH&P etc.

Have you ever listened to Senate hearings on renewable legislation? The Republicans all say: “We can’t do anything about climate change because China and India won’t”. If I heard those fools every day for 2 years in the Senate, and then got elected president, I’d go make a deal with China and India, too.

It’s true India has committed to building 20GW of solar by 2020 – but they are demanding international financing and intellectual property relaxations for technology. Furthermore, if they build solar but don’t cut back on fossil fuels, it does very little – and see this story:

“Coral reef scientist slams Brumby over ‘reckless vandalism’

MELISSA FYFE

November 9, 2009, Sydney Morning Herald

“One of the world’s leading coral reef scientists has slammed the Brumby Government’s proposal to export Victoria’s brown coal to India as “reckless vandalism”.”

As far as international financing? Consider what banks have done with the $700 billion bailout – it was used to drive up fossil fuel prices by buying up supertankers and betting on oil futures markets. This drove the oil price back up to $80, meaning that Canadian tar sands could go ahead. We can’t even get these taxpayer-fed banks to invest in renewables here in the U.S. – that would require large-scale feed-in tariff programs for renewable energy – so why would they invest in India?

India, unlike the U.S., is working on a solar feed-in tariff approach – so why isn’t Obama supporting this?

Obama’s support for tar sands and coal is evident – he granted a cross-border-pipeline permit to Enbridge, he pushed for the $18 billion subsidy for the Alaskan natural gas pipeline to the tar sands, and he was the lead promoter of coal-to-gasoline during his Senate days.

Quote from Grist, Feb 2009:

“In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) set to air tonight, Obama was asked specifically about the tar sands. While he acknowledged that tar-sands oil “creates a big carbon footprint,” he didn’t rule out the use. Instead, he compared it to the United States’ problem with coal, suggesting that new technologies to capture and sequester carbon emissions could solve the problem.”

Rapid growth of renewable energy would make coal gasoline and tar sand oil non-viable, leading to billions in losses for some U.S. corporate interests, and billions in gains for the new renewable energy economy – but with fossil fuel interests controlling Congress and the White House, good luck.

A complete rethinking of the energy and climate approach is needed in the U.S. – and it’s going to have to be the states that do it, in the face of opposition from the fossil fuel-linked federal government.

Finally, the “public-private” research efforts are a joke – crony relationships between private interests and the DOE that funnel all the patents to a handful of people. This is why no U.S. universities have renewable energy engineering departments – the federal government refuses to fund it. There is an unhealthy obsession with control of the technology here – open source it isn’t.

Glossing over these issues won’t make them go away, unfortunately. You have to consider the possiblity that Obama is just as pro-fossil fuel as Bush was, but with an emphasis on coal and tar sands instead of Middle Eastern oil.

It’s true India has committed to building 20GW of solar by 2020 – but they are demanding international financing and intellectual property relaxations for technology. Furthermore, if they build solar but don’t cut back on fossil fuels, it does very little – and see this story:

“Coral reef scientist slams Brumby over ‘reckless vandalism’

MELISSA FYFE

November 9, 2009, Sydney Morning Herald

“One of the world’s leading coral reef scientists has slammed the Brumby Government’s proposal to export Victoria’s brown coal to India as “reckless vandalism”.”

As far as international financing? Consider what banks have done with the $700 billion bailout – it was used to drive up fossil fuel prices by buying up supertankers and betting on oil futures markets. This drove the oil price back up to $80, meaning that Canadian tar sands could go ahead. We can’t even get these taxpayer-fed banks to invest in renewables here in the U.S. – that would require large-scale feed-in tariff programs for renewable energy – so why would they invest in India?

India, unlike the U.S., is working on a solar feed-in tariff approach – so why isn’t Obama supporting this?

Obama’s support for tar sands and coal is evident – he granted a cross-border-pipeline permit to Enbridge, he pushed for the $18 billion subsidy for the Alaskan natural gas pipeline to the tar sands, and he was the lead promoter of coal-to-gasoline during his Senate days.

Quote from Grist, Feb 2009:

“In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) set to air tonight, Obama was asked specifically about the tar sands. While he acknowledged that tar-sands oil “creates a big carbon footprint,” he didn’t rule out the use. Instead, he compared it to the United States’ problem with coal, suggesting that new technologies to capture and sequester carbon emissions could solve the problem.”

Rapid growth of renewable energy would make coal gasoline and tar sand oil non-viable, leading to billions in losses for some U.S. corporate interests, and billions in gains for the new renewable energy economy – but with fossil fuel interests controlling Congress and the White House, good luck.

A complete rethinking of the energy and climate approach is needed in the U.S. – and it’s going to have to be the states that do it, in the face of opposition from the fossil fuel-linked federal government.

Finally, the “public-private” research efforts are a joke – crony relationships between private interests and the DOE that funnel all the patents to a handful of people. This is why no U.S. universities have renewable energy engineering departments – the federal government refuses to fund it. There is an unhealthy obsession with control of the technology here – open source it isn’t.

Glossing over these issues won’t make them go away, unfortunately. You have to consider the possiblity that Obama is just as pro-fossil fuel as Bush was, but with an emphasis on coal and tar sands instead of Middle Eastern oil.

I was making fun of the general media response. In fact, there is not much more a President can do but get China and India on board.

I was making fun of the general media response. In fact, there is not much more a President can do but get China and India on board.

Thanks for the response. I guess I was a bit quick to judge, but the sarcasm is your piece is perhaps not as strong as it could be — I shudder to think that this myth of Obama’s trip as a failure is being perpetuated. . .

dw

Thanks for the response. I guess I was a bit quick to judge, but the sarcasm is your piece is perhaps not as strong as it could be — I shudder to think that this myth of Obama’s trip as a failure is being perpetuated. . .

dw

Thanks for the response. I guess I was a bit quick to judge, but the sarcasm is your piece is perhaps not as strong as it could be — I shudder to think that this myth of Obama’s trip as a failure is being perpetuated. . .

dw

I was making fun of the general media response. In fact, there is not much more a President can do but get China and India on board.