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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[/url=http://www.askheritage.org/are-green-jobs-the-answer?/]Are Green Jobs the Answer?[/url]
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.
Obama’s Green Jobs Program “Infused with Politics at Every Level”
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.”
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.
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.
Gov. "Green" Push Puts U.S. in the Red
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pure BS (Barack Supplicant).
w/o investment and action from the Government we always will be relying the chemical release of energy via burning for power.
Use Energy,Get Rich and Save the Planet
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.