It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBS Reveals $6.5 Billion in Taxpayer Bailouts for 12 More "Green Energy" Failures

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
ABC first broke from the pro-administration cheerleaders with its revelation of the depth of the Solyndra scandal.
White House Email: 'Coming Storm' Over Solyndra 'And Other Inside DOE Deals'

The Washington Post leapt off the bandwagon shortly afterwards when it obtained WhiteHouse emails, documents and memos that described the political basis for throwing good taxpayer dollars after bad to further a crony-capitalism agenda favoring Obamam donors and supporters, including Jeff Immelt's General Electric.
Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs


Now, CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has undertaken a new investigation that covers as many as 12 more projects, whose funding exceeds $6,500,000,000 that are going under, including 5 who've filed for bankruptcy since Solyndra flusshed $525,000,000 down the drain.


It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. (SunPower was to design, build and operate the California Valley Solar Ranch Project.)

First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose - even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans.

Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects

Attkisson and CBS asked an independent economist for his views on the wasted Beacon bailout:

Asked whether he'd put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, "Not on purpose."

"It's, it is a junk bond," Morici said. "But it's not even a good junk bond. It's well below investment grade."

Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that's not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.

"This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term," he said.

In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it's unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad.

www.cbsnews.com...

Even the staunchly pro-Obama New York Times released scathing criticisms of this sheer waste of tax dollars:

By Aaron Glantz.
The green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.

Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises


By David Brooks.
With the economy stagnating and unemployment high, where are the jobs of the future going to come from? A few years ago, it seemed as though the Green Economy could be a big part of the answer.
New clean-energy sources could address environmental, economic and national security problems all at once. In his 2008 convention speech, Barack Obama promised to create five million green economy jobs. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated in April 2009 that green jobs could account for 10 percent of new job growth over the next 30 years.
Alas, it was not to be. The gigantic public investments in green energy may be stimulating innovation and helping the environment. But they are not evidence that the government knows how to create private-sector jobs.

Where the Jobs Aren't

President Barack Obama has a problem when even his stalwart allies at The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News and CBS News have no choice but to admit:
The President’s “green” agenda has failed miserably.

Despite these green failures—and reports that 80 percent of the $2 billion set aside in the “stimulus” package for green jobs is going overseas, mostly to China–President Obama is continuing to make the pitch that a federally funded green future is central to his plan for rescuing the economy, pledging additional $Billions for green jobs, especially to make batteries for electric cars.

The Heritage Foundation’s Ernest Istook explains why this state-planning will fail, just like it has in the past:

Green jobs are about government subsidies, cronyism, and job cannibalism. They aren’t self-sustaining because they rely on giveaways of taxpayer money and they cannibalize existing jobs…

The green agenda soaks taxpayers. But it also packs a double wallop because taxpayers are first hit to pay for the subsidies, then everyone is hit by higher energy prices caused by energy taxes and regulations.
[/url=http://www.askheritage.org/are-green-jobs-the-answer?/]Are Green Jobs the Answer?[/url]

Perhaps Reporter Attkisson has left her "Fast & Furious" series for new territory, or perhaps her bosses have given in to the White House criticism and moved her in a different direction.

Either way, the list of failed government "investments" is certain to grow as the Obama administration puts more of our money into "worse than junk bond" ventures to pay back his cronies and union lackeys.

jw




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
There are no jobs being created with this hemorrhaging of our tax dollars...just more rich people....



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
With all the billions the oil companies have been ripping us off for years I don't mind a few going for green energy. We'll never get off oil if we don't try.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
"Cronies" are getting their "bonuses..." of taxpayer dollars.
Guess if you belong to the correct "religion";
When liberals( Church of "Barak the environmentalist") do it
it's Okay?

"I don' think so Vern..."



edit on 15-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Its easy for the current energy industry to destroy the green energy industry via buy offs. Chances are it was just another way for the elite to grab even more tax dollars.

Tickets to the freak show.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 

I agree with you there. But the problem is that government does not do well at creating private-sector jobs. And trying to do so through the process of political-cronyism just compounds it.

Having our elected officials pouring our tax money into the pockets of political supporters who supply money and votes is one of our most intransigent problems. And it will never end--and indications are it will only get worse--until we take the money out of politics.

And, to be fair about this, it's not just an Obama problem. All elected officials do it. It's a favored tactic to accept money from big donors and then reward them after election by giving them *our* money through one kind of corporate welfare or another....



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I'm not a big fan of Obama's although I have been in the past, however these threads of yours seem to imply financial reward back to the POTUS, and unless you can prove it unambiguously, it's better you leave that aspect alone. By all means endeavour to find out how the companies have failed, or are they all connected somehow, and just where the billions went. It could just be that those in the White house are asking the same questions.

Just to add, the original process was under the auspices of GWB, (an expert on business failure) not Obama, though I daresay that Obama would have endorsed it anyway.
edit on 15-1-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Were any of the "beneficiaries" of all these green jobs programs Obama campaign donors ?

I think so.

I think they understood "green" to mean MONEY....YOUR MONEY



The Post’s other findings? The White House granted “easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration,” many of whom were Obama campaign donors. And others were given jobs in the Administration and “helped manage the clean-energy program.” What’s more, senior officials “pushed career bureaucrats to rush their decision” on the Solyndra loan in order to coincide with a visit by Vice President Joe Biden. The Post also reports that politics, “optics,” and political theater were at the top of the Administration’s mind, with one staffer writing that “a meltdown” at Solyndra “would likely be very embarrassing for DOE and the Administration.”
Obama’s Green Jobs Program “Infused with Politics at Every Level”


I see scum and vermin.

I Want a Refund from Obama



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The Department of Energy has provided loans to 37 different companies since September 2009. $35 billion in total.

The Recovery Act has also given $9.8 billion in tax credits to people and companies.

I'd also like to point out that at least one of those 12 companies has completely repaid its loan.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
With all the billions the oil companies have been ripping us off for years I don't mind a few going for green energy. We'll never get off oil if we don't try.


^agreed.

With the amount of control that they, the oil companies have in this world, and their rigging of markets to push down alternative energy, now more than ever we need investment from government in alt sources. First and foremost the existing Corporations are about continuing their profits in all ways possible, second is improving the technologies that solely improve their profits. Factor in the how other Corporations work hand in hand with them to continue furthering those profits, w/o investment and action from the Government we always will be relying the chemical release of energy via burning for power.

Anyone who doesn't believe that fact needs to spend some time in the Corporate world and review how profits and the technology to deliver those profits is the only driving force. You could almost admire them for their single mindedness of purpose... the Nazis had that too...

Derek



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
With the (apparent) lack of interest in this thread, it would seem that people have come to expect, and accept this as S.O.P.

I don't know if we should chalk it up to partisan politics or apathy.

Either way, that's just freakin' criminal.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viesczy
With all the billions the oil companies have been ripping us off for years I don't mind a few going for green energy. We'll never get off oil if we don't try.

It is so easy to pick on "big oil" as the source of all your problems, but the fact is that they behave like and benefit from the same policies that this country used to apply to all industry, before demagogues began trying to pick market winners and public scapegoats for policy failures.

You do not have to be "ripped off." Grow your own food, ride a bike or moped, use candles and wood fire.
Face it, we are dependent upon fossil fuels and will be for a while longer.

If we didn't have to ship 20% or more of our oil across the ocean, buy it from enemies and protect the sources, oil would be a lot cheaper than it is today. Domestic production and cleaner fuels like NG are the answer; not spouting meaningless blather at straw man targets.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but, here on Earth, we are naturally weaning ourselves off oil with ever-increasing efficiency and free-market forces driving companies to better-use their capital and limited access to natural resources.

Environmental values embedded in our society produce continuous improvements in air & water quality, resource conservation, waste handling, and technology. In terms of energy per dollar of GDP, our economy is becoming increasingly less energy and carbon intensive.
Gov. "Green" Push Puts U.S. in the Red

Since you have no idea what the economic and evolutionary realities of industrial society are, here's a measured evaluation.

Analyses of the evolving efficiency of the full energy system show that the United States has averaged about one percent less energy to produce a good or service each year since about 1800. ...
Happily, the most important single fact to emerge from 20 years of energy analyses is the gradual "decarbonization" of the energy system, the falling number of carbon molecules used to provide a unit of energy or economic product.

The Environment for Future Business: Efficiency will win

Moreover, the study has attributed this not to government intervention but to the fact that “the natural evolution of the energy system is away from carbon.” Technology, innovation, and market forces have been the drivers. And they will continue to be if the government lets them function.
Now, if you want to stop driving, flying, using transported goods and unplug from the grid; good for you. The rest of the country (and our energy technology) are not quite ready to join you.


Originally posted by buster2010
^agreed.
With the amount of control that they, the oil companies have in this world, and their rigging of markets to push down alternative energy, now more than ever we need investment from government in alt sources.

"Investment" is different from payoffs and bailouts. "Investors" make informed choices based upon risk and return, not political consequences and cronyism.

You have notjhing to support your alleged "rigging of markets" other than delusional paranoia. If alternative energy were viable on a large scale, it might become a true "investment." Neither Barack Obama or Secretary Chu were given their positions based upon their "investing" prowess. This "theory" is completely baseless.

Even the Chinese, true "riggers of markets," can't keep alt energy profitable. They now have overproduction and underutilization with the attendant loss of EU and Western markets..

Get real.


First and foremost the existing Corporations are about continuing their profits in all ways possible, second is improving the technologies that solely improve their profits.

Isn't that called "capitalism?" Now your true colors show through!
How does any technology "solely improve profits?"
Sophistry!
No technology has any value unless it has a market; it has to be shared.


w/o investment and action from the Government we always will be relying the chemical release of energy via burning for power.
Pure BS (Barack Supplicant).

As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy.
Use Energy,Get Rich and Save the Planet

The lesson here is that government should not pick winners for future energy sources; rather, it should provide clear and consistent rules for competition and an environment that encourages private innovation and true "investment."

deny ignorance

jw



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join