Clinton to Start $1 Billion Renewable Energy Fund 177
antifoidulus writes "ABC news is reporting that former President Bill Clinton has announced the creation of a $1 Billion investment fund devoted to renewable energy. This will be an investment fund as opposed to charity, and Clinton has said that 'The Green Fund would focus on reducing dependence on fossil fuels, creating jobs, lessening pollution and helping to reduce global warming, all while making a profit.' Former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn will be managing the fund."
Where do I sign up? (Score:2, Insightful)
He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hilarious, because not only does Clinton attempt a diplomatic answer, but when Chris Wallace won't let it go and birddogs him, Clinton completely pwns Wallace, then goes back on topic.
I'm curious to see if they actually air it.
One part doesn't make sense! (Score:1, Insightful)
I do like this idea though, Mr. Clinton!
Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept is not new. "Green" mutual funds have been around forever. They all have the same thing in common
We could do so much better (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm saying this as a libertarian, someone that hates taxes and big government. But this is exactly where government regulations and taxes should be used, when the free market doesn't value the environment and causes long term damage without intervention.
Re:He went on Fox News to Talk about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, Bush's strategy of waiting around until Osama keels over from natural causes [msn.com] was much better.
Re:Finally... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm perfectly willing to teach them to fix/build bicycles, show them what sort of fuel/comfort stations cyclists would find useful and spend money at, what sort of road system would better suit cyclists rather than cars, how human muscle can be used to transport goods, make electricity, etc.
"Paradigm shifts" always result in increased employment, although to take advantage of them one might have to learn some new skills.
For many of the workers in the car based economy these new "skills" would amount to nothing more than learning the new set of lies appropriate to selling the new product.
KFG
Re:We could do so much better (Score:2, Insightful)
Make . . . your . .
KFG
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that in general most funds, socially-conscious or not, underperform the market indices, I think your conclusions are erroneous. I don't have the data to do a comprehensive survey, but considering that it is easy enough to find other high-performing socially-conscious funds like the paxworld family, [paxworld.com] I'm more willing to believe that the group of such funds as a whole at least mirrors the general market for funds than I am to believe that it trails it.
That makes me want to cry. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the foreign oil bought us flowers, and said it was sorry, and it was morning in America. And now we're back in the same boat we were thirty years ago, and we're acting like no one could have possibly seen this coming.
You know, Brazil is energy-independent. They followed through on what Carter promised but was voted out before he could deliver on, and the program was plagued by various problems for decades on end... but as of a few years ago, it works. We could have had that. But we didn't.
And I still don't see what was horrible about that speech. Could someone point out to me why that speech cost him the Presidency?
That's good stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
'Course, they'll probably cut it down to:
And that'll be all.
Mentioned on The Daily Show the other day (Score:3, Insightful)
He noted that if every family in America donated $10-20 to a fund/concern devoted to alternative enegery, we'd be rid of using oil in short order. Good to see he actually moved forward with the idea.
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iron Mountain Mine [epa.gov] in northern California. It is an abondoned open pit pyrite mine. Whenever it rains, it produces sulphuric acid, combined with heavy metals, which would eventually feed into the Sacramento River, if it were not for two intervening dams. During heavy rains, the polution does get past the dams before being sufficiently diluted.
For the rest of time, someone will have to operate a combination of a lime neutralization plant on site, combined with releases of water from the dams timed with large seasonal flows from Shasta Dam. This site was actively mined off and on from the 1860s through 1963. At one time, the site was the largest producer of copper in California.
Another EPA document [epa.gov] gives a explanation of the problem, photos of the neutralization plant, and some history. Here is a quote from that document:
When extraction of the ore was suspended from the
various stopes above the Lawson, the ground was in
very bad shape, and the conditions regarding heat
and gas were so terrible that it seemed advisable to
abandon any attempt to work from that level.
In fact it was a case of walking away and leaving the
job for the next generation" (William F. Kett,
General Manager, Mountain Copper Co., August 1944)
Mining at the site was abondoned, at least in part, because the ground became too unstable to mine it anymore. So when the mine was operated, the company was profitable. I don't know the relationship of the company that did the mining to the current owner of the site.
But it is possbile for a company to cease to exist once the mine is worn out. So the companies that mined this site were profitable while the mine was open, mostly by avoiding paying for the environmental damage they caused.
The EPA has successfully gone after the current owner of the site. In my mind, it is not fair to have a company that did not create the problem pay for cleaning it up. But it is also not fair to have taxpayers pay for it either. Once all the ore is gone and the mining company folds, there is no way to go back and make the owners pay for the damage they caused.
So maybe green companies might underperform non-green companies TODAY. But that is true because often they can skip out on paying all the costs of their activites. The Sacramento River provides drinking water for a significant portion of the population of California. I was astonished when I heard of this site.
Re:Americathon (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point does America need the charity to bail it out? And can we skip all the nasty bits until then?
I hope a private charity bails the gorernment out. Government is getting bigger and bigger. Nothing seems to be shrinking it. Maybe if Clinton's charity is successful, government will deregulate energy and shrink itself in embarassment.
Here is what a government should do:
1) wage war
2) pave roads
3) keep a police force
4) fire and emergency response
Here is what government should not do:
1) Healthcare
2) tax unless absolutly neccessary.
Re:That makes me want to cry. (Score:4, Insightful)
There was nothing wrong with the speech; the problem is with our electorate. The US has been overrun by asshats. Haven't you witnessed the last few elections? People in the US think it's their God given right to drive monster trucks with a big flag flapping in the back. Intellectuals are frowned upon. Creationism is on the ascent. We violate the Geneva conventions. Every day, millions of people pay tribute to bigots like Bill O'Reilly. Greedy self-interested Republicans vs. snivelling cowardly Democrats. Yuck.
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're willing to sacrifice principles for a slightly higher rate of return, then you never had the former and don't deserve the latter.
Actually no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone except, say, Gamesa, Suzlon, and Clipper Wind and all the other foreign-owned companies from other industries who seem to have no problem at all opening plants in the U.S. like say Toyota. They seem to be able to turn a profit off American employees. Go figure. Maybe it's U.S. corporate management that is overpriced and underskilled.
Re:Never thought I would say this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
second, the democratic party isn't 'in deep trouble'. they seem to be holding their own against the GOP in spite of a cohesive plan for most everything. i'd say the GOP is starting to slip down the slope into 'deep trouble' territory.