Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Green Energy Boom In Bailout Bill
Christopher Helman, Forbes
Renewable energy providers will reap an immediate benefit from the raft of new incentives in Washington’s financial rescue package. Better late than never.
John Berger, chief executive of Standard Renewable Energy, was holding his breath this week. “If it passes, this would complete the mainstreaming of solar energy in the U.S.,” says Berger, who generates 85% of Standard’s $20 million in annual revenues from solar installations. He figures the new tax credits could quintuple his solar business in a year.
The old set of federal incentives for energy investments in wind, solar, biomass and geothermal expire at the end of this year. The industry thought Congress was about to pass the bill back in May but squabbling over how to pay for the estimated $17 billion cost over eight years derailed negotiations. Both the House and Senate recently passed similar versions of new green energy incentives but hadn’t agreed on a final version.
(2 October 2008)
Palin to play ball with Big Oil
Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney
The Alaska governor may have raised taxes on the oil industry and scrapped a questionable pipeline deal, but in Washington she’ll toe the party line.
—
Sarah Palin gets a lot of credit for standing up to Big Oil in Alaska, but if she and John McCain win the White House, don’t expect some of her more populist policies to survive the move to Washington.
In her two years as Alaska’s governor, Palin is credited with being tough on big oil, to the benefits of her constituents and bucking her own party.
Last Updated: October 3, 2008
(3 October 2008)
Will The U.S. Nationalize The Banks?
Dan La Botz, ZNet
… Whatever the ultimate bailout plan, the financial situation could well continue to unravel and begin to affect credit and the broader economy, leading to a deep recession or depression. The U.S. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, might then be forced — despite their deep aversion to any form of government ownership — to not only bail out the banks but to buy them. The increasingly popular sentiment that the bankers should be made to pay for the crisis opens the door to the notion of nationalization of the banks. What would it mean to have the government own the banks?
Historically the Populists, various labor parties, and the Socialist and Communist left have raised the slogan of nationalization of the banks as part of a process of bringing about socialism. Their argument has been that if the banks were owned by the government, and the government was controlled by the people, we could democratically plan an economy to meet the needs at of all. Nationalization of the banks would form part of a plan of socialization of the economy — banks and corporations, mines and factories, airlines and railroads — brought under the control of a combination of citizens, workers and consumers. We would put our children, the elderly and the infirm first, and organize the economy to provide jobs, housing, health care, education, and retirement benefits for all. Bank nationalizations have usually just been a stage in the boom-bust cycles of modern economies, a period when the state lends its strength to finance to see it through hard times, and once finance has recuperated, returns it to its private owners to continue to reap the benefits of wealth plus interest.
When Governments Nationalize the Banks
In recent history governments have nationalized banks when the pressures of internationalized financial markets and international competition have made it difficult for them to control and stabilize their finances and currency. During the last couple of decades, countries as different as Mexico, France, Sweden and Japan carried out partial or more or less complete bank nationalizations to regain control of the financial situation.
… Lessons of the Experience
Without going into all the details of the Japanese, French and Mexican cases, we can note some similarities in the experience of nationalization of the banks. First, an important sector of bankers resisted nationalization, and when finally forced by the government to relent, fought for higher compensation for their property than originally offered, and usually won. Second, in none of these cases was bank nationalization complete, with some domestic and foreign banks usually excluded. Third, where banks were more completely nationalized, the bankers opened new financial institutions which tended to engage in banking functions and significantly drained off capital. In general, bank nationalization tended to contribute to the centralization and modernization of the banking industry as a whole. In all cases after a few years the nationalized banks were reprivatized, usually to many of the same financiers who had previously owned them.
The nationalization of banks does not necessarily represent a progressive measure nor is it a logical next step toward socialism. Government ownership of banks, at least partial ownership and sometimes complete ownership, is quite common around the world. Many capitalist nations — both developed and developing ones — have nationalized their banks during the twentieth century. A 2002 study of banks found that around a third of all banks were government owned, though such bank ownership was more common in the developing world.[5] In capitalist societies governments engage in the nationalization of banks to reestablish financial stability and improve their economic position in the international market, not to advance the common good.
(29 September 2008)
Whatever one thinks of nationalization, it looks as if the US financial system will be nationalized to some degree. What seems impossible now, may look quite attractive if circumstances worsen. I wonder if the same will be true of the energy industry? -BA
“Drill, Baby, Drill” Already Debunked – by Bush Administration
Dan Miner, Sierra Club NYC
Sarah Palin, a self-described energy expert, implies that we now rely on imported oil because we refuse to drill abundant domestic supplies; if we only did that we’d be energy independent. Although Obama supports more drilling within a framework of efficiency and renewable power, domestic drilling is the very heart of the McCain-Palin energy plan. Can drilling really work? Considering three factors, not widely discussed in this campaign, will help us make the right choices about our energy future. One, the value of offshore drilling has already been debunked – by the Bush Administration. Two, the world’s oil supply is drying up much faster than new oil can be found. Three, as CNN reports, oil price shocks and supply disruptions are on the way, but neither McCain nor Obama has said a word about the problem, let alone how they would respond. More domestic oil drilling can’t fix our energy crisis. Energy independence means a rapid move beyond all oil, whether domestic or imported. Anything less is doomed to failure.
The Bush Administration’s own Department of Energy says that while the US consumes about 25% of the world’s oil we have less than 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves. The DOE’s Energy Information Agency reported that offshore drilling can yield up to 200,000 barrels per day – about 1% of America’s needs – in 20 years. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would have a similar insignificant effect. It would take about ten years before we’d see any oil from these sources, and neither would ever have a significant effect on US oil supplies or prices. Everyone chanting ‘drill, baby, drill’ didn’t get the memos from Bush Administration geologists. They’re on the internet. Any energy plan centered on domestic drilling is dead on arrival, and that’s just for starters.
Two, the problem with oil is worse than widely understood. It’s not just that supplies are tight. World oil production is expected to peak around 2010, and begin dropping soon after that. US oil production peaked in 1970 and has been dropping ever since, which is why two-thirds of our oil is now imported. Production from our other top sources is already declining, or at risk of political disruption. Oil imports from Mexico, our third biggest source of oil, have already dropped more in one year than offshore drilling will get us in 20 years. …
Dan Miner is chair of the Sierra Club for New York City.
(2 October 2008)
A Sustainable Bailout Plan for the U.S. (That Would Work but that Could Never be Considered by Those in Power)
Ryan D. Hottle, Global Climate Solutions
… I draw four important conclusions from the current economic situation. First, a system based on endless greed was always bound to fail. It shouldn’t be so surprising. A worthy anology might be the fact that selfish people who act only out of self-interest usually end up unhappy and self-defeated.
Second, a system based on extraction of resources from far-away lands (whether oil from the Middle East or borrowed money from China) is an inherently unwise and vulnerable economic pollicy. And we need only to look at history to tell us the fate of civilizations that became dependent on expansion and imperialism as a modus operandi for continued growth.
Third, a system based on exploitation of the environment and of people is necessarily unsustainable. In the long term, you simply can’t keep people down forever and you can’t go on destroying your land-base forever. Eventually the people rise up and eventually your land-base will no longer support you.
Fourth, a system of exponential growth simply doesn’t work on a finite planet.
The single question going through my mind is, “To what extent should we try to salvage this economic system when we can easily see that it is inherently unsustainable and unjust?”
I think the US economy is worth salvaging if for only two reasons: to prevent widespread chaos and violence, and to help solve the grave and growing threat of climate change.
If it is able to be salvaged, the abovementioned problems must be addressed: radical reform is needed. Internalize the externalities. Value communities, health, ecosystems, and happiness over greed for monetary wealth and material possession. Create an economic system that is based on equilibrium and balance instead of infinite growth.
The following is my idea of a bailout plan that would actually start addressing some of the core issues affecting the economy, that would simultaneously help the country prepare for the coming challenges of global climate change and peak oil, and that would focus on helping the American public at large instead of solely focusing on bailing out the corporations.
1) Stabilize the Economy but Not at the Taxpayers Expense …
(30 September 2008)
