Obama committed to green energy, auto bailout
The anxious auto and clean-energy industries have received positive signals from President-elect Barack Obama in the past two days.
In an interview with 60 Minutes broadcast on Sunday, Obama said he intends to pursue a government stimulus package that includes investments to promote clean technologies, even though oil prices have fallen dramatically during 2008.
Interviewer Steve Kroft asked whether cutting oil imports was less important now that the price of oil has plummeted from $147 a barrel earlier this year to under $60.
Obama: It's more important. It may be a little harder politically, but it's more important.Kroft: Why?
Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.
And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it.
Obama said a consensus exists among policymakers that a stimulus package is required to prop up the deteriorating economy.
Addressing the question of a bailout for cash-strapped U.S. automakers, Obama said that giving them government money with conditions is the best policy.
He said that allowing the U.S. automakers to collapse would be a disaster but that handing them a blank check won't solve the problem. Instead, he said that the various stakeholders need to come up with a plan for a "sustainable auto industry." From the interview:
So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan (for) what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? So that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere."
Meanwhile, in his weekly radio address on Saturday that was broadcast as a video online, Obama reaffirmed his plans for long-term investments on green energy.
"It means investing $150 billion to build an American green-energy economy that will create 5 million new jobs while freeing our nation from the tyranny of foreign oil and saving our planet for our children," Obama said.
Energy and environmental policy were certainly not the top topic of the president-elect's public statements, given the pressing nature of the economic crisis and executing the transition between administrations.
But Obama's recent statements, as well as those from his advisers, indicate that energy remains a high priority. The idea is that an energy policy focused on clean technologies can address environmental problems while stimulating the economy.
"The president-elect will move quickly on climate change," Jason Grumet, a high-level Obama campaign's lead energy and environment adviser, told a conference on carbon trading last week.
In addition to spending on energy infrastructure, Obama's energy plan calls for incentives for energy efficiency, a national renewable energy mandate for utilities, a low-carbon biofuels standard, and a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
Living in texas we have alot of coal burning power plants that emit most of the states pollution that do not fall under EPA controlls. They are coops which are ran by the counties. They service rual areas Will you put them under EPA controll and reduce emmissions, if so how much will my bill increase because I am on fix income. Some of these plants will need to be rebuilt at what cost?
Option #1: Reduce pollution, pay some more money and save the planet
Option #2: Keep burning coal plants, let China set up a new coal plant per week and let the entire planet be as smoke-filled as Beijing
The second option is called 'Burn Baby Burn' (Copyright Republican Party of America)
Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crumbling infrastructure, diminishing resources, overcrowded schools and emergency rooms, vanishing farm land and green space, crime, pollution, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the marginalization of American workers, taxpayers and voters, the overall decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained immigration.
Further, all of the current alternative energy technologies we're presently focused on require vast amounts of land and water if they are to be viable, sustainable, and most importantly, affordable. Solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, bio-fuels, all require vast amounts of real estate and water. Real estate and water that are increasingly overpriced and in short supply, as the result of overpopulation.
Certainly government can and should play some role in the energy decisions of our nation, but unless the Obama administration has plans to nationalize these energy resources, such efforts would best be focused on limiting the demands on our existing and emerging energy resources that overpopulation is placing on all our resources.
Indeed, LA is ablaze, and water shortages there are preventing fire fighters from effectively combatting the fires. Doubtless, California will be next on the Washington doorstep demanding that their state also be bailed out as the result of "imprudent overdevelopment" and overpopulation. Taxpayers can only afford so much before it dawns on them that they might as well join the hoards demanding to be "bailed out".
Like it or not, unless Senator Obama is planning on nationalizing energy, these new technologies will depend on investors for the major portion of their financing. Investors will continue to see little benefit to putting their money into technologies that will cost more to consumers and require more from consumers than current energy resources. Consumers aren't interested in an alternative energy product that costs the same or more than current energy products, or that requires that they trade in their existing vehicle, or change out the furnace or appliances at home in order to "benefit".
All of Senator Obama's, and for that matter, the alternate energy policies of both parties, ignore the fact that "stabilizing our population", limiting population growth through unconstrained immigration would do more to address our immediate energy needs, than another TVA like, taxpayer funded program. Limiting the oppressive demands on our existing energy resources would buy the time that for alternative energy technologies to develop based on market demand, without subsuming taxpayers in debt for projects that will barely keep up with our nations uncontrolled population explosion. Particularly when you consider that the benefits from these new energy resources will only be consumed by population growth, before they can even be brought on-line.
Virtually every industrialized nation, China, Mexico, Great Britain, the European Union, realizes the need to stabilize their population growth, and limit demands on their natural resources. All of these nations have adopted zero tolerance policies for illegal aliens. Further, these same countries have adopted policies to curtail legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other concerns, in the best interests of their native populations. It's dangerously misguided for the United States not to do likewise.
Too many people competing for the same limited resources is NOT sound economic, environmental, social or cultural policy!
/P
To just give the glutens the money they want with accountability is irresponsible!!!
Enforce a reasonable benefits package more in line with competing industries here in the states.
Structure a two tiered benefits package for existing employees, one for new employees (wishful thinking?).
Remove Chrysler from domestic competition -
Make it a public/private entity who's main function is to facilitate the modernizing, efficiency and competitiveness of the 'Big 2' through flexible staffing and facilities use, standardized modern energy components, national modern infrastructure coordination, tooling and servicing of modern energy system needed to facilitate a move toward modern vehicles, and maintain and facilitate a US auto industries benefit program (a public/private entity that could compete with private options at the employees choosing).
The -US Chrysler- entity could also function as a 'go between' for government contracting and be adjusted to allow for rapid re-tooling/should the need arise (military need, etc)
This entity would allow the US to provide a guidance rather than revisiting several bailouts. The -US Chrysler- 'tool-kit' would be available for the 'Big 2' but the tools in the kit would be designed toward moving into a modern world economy and modern efficiency goals.
Here's my idea... I'm sure it has some holes... but I haven't heard anything especially encouraging from any of 'those in the know' - whomever they might be ; )
This is actually a great opportunity for Obama to make good on this promise, with an incentive rather than a regulation. Obama is not going to pass that up.
What a phrase! Obama, you are the most intelligent politic!
I was driving home from work last week and noticed the latest gas price of $ 1.66, seems like we were just recently at over $ 4 per gallon. Oil is now $ 40 per barrel, commodities like steel are down, our national debt is skyrocketing, and all the once high flying Solar energy stocks and green eco funds have plummeted along with the global markets. They say we are in a severe recession, that demand will fall for energy and that gas could fall to $ 1 per gallon as unemployment hits multi-decade highs. Seems like we were just being shocked by $ 145 per barrel oil and record profits by oil companies, it makes me as an American citizen really feel manipulated and that our government hasn't had a plan for securing our country's future. How did we get into this financial crisis? Who caused this collapse? Seems to me terrorists couldn't have implemented a plan this exacting, yet we hear that this was triggered by only four percent of the outstanding US home loans being in question. Now all conversation turns to how many billions of US tax payer dollars will be reactively given to faltering industries to mitigate loss of jobs in America. These are global corporations asking for US bailouts. Will unsecured pension plans, hurt by the recent stock market collapse, be next to default? Where will jobs come from as we rise out of this global recession? Green technology jobs and projects may be now questionable due to falling energy prices. Will America be the county and we be the innovators of this Intellectual property? Can the hundreds of alternative energy startups get the financing they will need to stay alive through this recession and to successfully commercialize their products?
Barack Obama will take office soon and has stated his administration will invest $ 150B over ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Let's hope he isn't an advocate of 'clean coal', which many doubt exists or today's Ethanol as his green alternatives. Will Q Microbes hold promise for Ethanol production which is in it's early stages of research at UMASS Amherst? My hope is that he backs strong Solar, Wind, and Natural Gas based 'distributed hydrogen generation' projects, the building of Hydrogen distribution fueling stations, and Fuel Cell use in his ten year plan. Just to think, we could have used $ 25B to setup 20,000 hydrogen fueling stations in the US, instead, hundreds of billions will be wasted on reactive spending rather than implementing long-term energy solutions. Will our new president have the discipline and vision to invest in these energies and infrastructures, to create and capture these jobs, or will he drop these pre-presidential energy plan headlines until another day when prices start rising again? Where will all these billions come from, between the Iraq spending, financial crisis bailouts, and proposed alternative energy initiative investments? The more we print new money, the more we risk the value of the US dollar falling to all time lows and the American family's wealth further disappearing. As we recover from this financial crisis and recession, will India and China's thirst for oil reinitiate the high demand and prices as new cities continue to be developed in these and other emerging countries?
As a citizen and investor interested in the advancement of alternative energies, in America's future, and in managing these global wealth shifting trends, I sincerely hope we aggressively drive energy science, provide research and development dollars to these early startups, and reduce our dependency on dirty foreign oil and fossil fuels. We need a 'Hydrogen Manhattan Project' that integrates Solar, Wind and Natural Gas as a source of power to generate distributed onsite hydrogen coupled with fuel cell use. Focused research and development dollars solve problems through science advancements. Innovation and diversification into green energy is the answer for America and the world. For more information visit and bookmark my website; www.go-h2.net
by John Merlino, email me your comments and suggestions for the site at;
info@green-solar-wind-hydrogen-energy.com
- by jtdccc March 11, 2009 6:12 AM PDT
- we already have green tech we've had it for years but the people don't pay attenion to it.only when it hits there pocket, then all hell breaks loose for a while then they become complacent. we have had hydrogen technologies for a lot of years but oil companys don't want it to work it would hurt there pocket. I have an idea since the oil companys boast billions in profits why don't they kick in a few billion and help this country out.
- Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)