A Labor Day for Serious People, Willing to Help Tackle Serious Problems
This Labor Day weekend, I'd like to pause and express my personal gratitude to the hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers who have contributed to this movement. Again and again I am informed that the motivation for their ongoing efforts - this "labor" of love - is not so much the PickensPlan itself, but rather the realization that this nation cannot continue to proceed down the same path as it has in the past.
Permit me to comment on why it is so important to reach out to our policy-makers (including candidates for office).
Perhaps the biggest threat to America is complacency. It is the force which has doomed so many great civilizations and nations in the past. Responding to this threat, millions of American citizens are presently involved in national, state, and local political campaigns - whether to support a candidate or an idea. And there exists super-majority support for renewable energy development and deployment, aided by a cohesive, common-sense national energy policy.
But transforming support for a policy into action by those in Congress and the new Administration, as well within state and local government, will not be easy. The influence that large corporations possess upon political decision-making in this country should not be underestimated. Nor should the effect of their ongoing manipulation of public opinion through targeted multi-media campaigns, to downplay the problem of America's overdependence on foreign oil and the huge foreign trade deficits to which it substantially contributes.
A RATIONAL INCREASE IN OUR NATION'S R&D BUDGET FOR SOLAR, WIND, AND OTHER PROMISING TECHNLOGIES IS NEEDED. Evidence of the influence of large corporations can be found in the U.S. Department of Energy's own budget for research and development. While funding for renewable energy sources has increased recently, funding for research into traditional energy sources - fossil fuels and nuclear power - remain nearly equal to the budget devoted to renewable energy sources. Moreover, a comparison of DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation shows that renewable energy R&D would decline slightly, while fossil energy R&D and nuclear energy R&D would increase by 34 percent and 44 percent, respectively. WHY? One also wonders why "Big Oil" even needs further research into fossil energy, given both the huge profits oil companies have generated in recent years, as well as what should be a national effort to reduce our nation's carbon footprint. Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed to terminate its oil and natural gas R&D programs, but Congress - under the influence of "Big Oil" - continues to fund them.
Note that DOE also conducts R&D on near-zero emission power plants—including carbon capture and sequestration—through its fuels and power systems programs and its Clean Coal Power Initiative. Worthwhile programs, for coal remains an inexpensive (if one does not consider its emissions and carbon footprint) and domestic source of energy for our country. If carbon sequestration and "zero emissions" coal plants can come online, then most of the negative impacts of coal-fueled energy production can be overcome while keeping relative costs low.
Of the renewable energy research budget at the Dept. of Energy, the recent R&D focus in renewable energy has been (in order of expenditures): (1) biomass-derived ethanol, (2) hydrogen-powered fuel cells, (3) wind technologies, and (4) solar technologies.
While I agree that funding of all of these technologies should be undertaken, the continued focus on ethanol production needs closer examination. This is especially so given the already-apparent effects in stimulating demand for corn and other agricultural products, leading to major price increases for agricultural commodities and thereby adding to hunger around the world. Additionally, ethanol faces high production and infrastructure costs, creating challenges in competing with gasoline nationally over the long term. I'm not suggesting we abandon research and development of ethanol technologies - but I am intensely curious why the more-promising wind and solar industries (from an overall cost-benefit analysis), as well as hydrogen, lack behind in research dollars. The influence of large corporate agricutural corporations, no doubt.
In contrast to the high amount of dollars devoted to fossil fuel R&D and nuclear R&D, DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request would reduce funding for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative by 17 percent from $283.5 million in fiscal year 2008 to $236 million in fiscal year 2009. Research for solar energy would fall from $168.5 million to $156.1 million. Research for wind energy would only see a very modest increase from $49.5 million to $52.5 million.
DOE’s budget authority for all of its renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D has rebounded over the past 10 years from extremely low levels to $1.4 billion annually. But one wonders why so little of our national budget is devoted to this R&D effort, and why so little of the R&D budget at the DOE is devoted to the promising areas of wind energy and solar energy. (Of course, other programs, within the DOE, and in other agencies such as the Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Agriculture, also undertake research related to energy.)
[For details on the DOE budget for research, please refer to the GAO report found at this link: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:fmqt0s40R7AJ:www.gao.gov/new.it...
THE NEED FOR LONGER-TERM TAX CREDITS.
According to the Cato Institute, "The USDA distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year ... More than 90 percent of agriculture subsidies go to farmers of five crops—wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton. Roughly a million farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers ... In addition to routine cash subsidies, the USDA provides subsidized crop insurance, marketing support, and other services for farm businesses ... These indirect subsidies and services cost taxpayers about $5 billion each year, putting total farm support at between $15 billion and $35 billion annually.
How about tax credits for oil companies and other "perks"? The environmental group Friends of the Earth says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11. That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs. Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Friends of the Earth says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.
If we look deeper at federal tax policy, we find that the federal government provides the energy industry and consumers with 20 tax expenditures affecting energy supply, totaling $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2008. These tax subsidies have historically been directed toward the conventional energy sector (oil and gas), though recently a small portion has also been directed toward stimulating the deployment of advanced energy technologies.
It must be noted that the renewable energy industry cannot serious expand if future tax credits are uncertain - long-term production tax credits and investment tax credits for renewable energy deployment are needed, not short-term extensions. As stated in a July 28th article in U.S. News and World Report, "uncertainty about key federal tax credits threatens to knock the wind out of the wind-power industry [and the lights out of solar energy] ... Nearly every American-bred source of energy, from coal to nuclear power, gets some sort of federal push, and wind and solar companies receive theirs in the form of tax credits, which enable them to line up investors and overcome enormous start-up costs. Hundred-foot blades don't come cheap."
Of course, the tax credits for wind and solar energy companies expire at the end of 2008, and despite widespread support for their continuation Congress is still bickering (about offshore oil drilling, mainly). Even then, at best we might hope for a one-year extension, not the multi-year extension which makes much more sense.
The tax credits need to be available for several years, as to promoting wind and solar projects to "go online." By way of explanation, it takes substantial time to put together a project, arrange financing, order production of the windmills, and then install them. The wind-energy tax credit is good for 10 years and pays developers about 2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce, but it must be available on the date that a project comes online. By contrast, the solar industry gets a 30 percent credit on new investments, and while it is easier to deploy technologies, serious development in new plants to produce the thin-film PV solar and other new solar technologies will only occur if Congress enacts credits which are available over several years.
GET REAL. America faces serious problems. We don't need to send to Washington politicians who want to go there just because of the title of "U.S. Senator" or "U.S. Representative." Nor do we want to send to Washington politicians who receive (and are influenced heavily by) large corporations - oil, gas, and agricultural conglomerates among them.
This is a serious time. America needs serious leadership. Those who will address our nation's challenges (and there are many) head-on. Those whose focus is not about getting re-elected.
It is time for us - all of us - to ask candidates for office the tough questions - and get serious responses. It is time for us to elect those who are truly committed to solving our country's many problems.
Together, we CAN make a difference. It will take commitment. It will take effort. It will take - labor.
Happy Labor Day to all. Ron
Permit me to comment on why it is so important to reach out to our policy-makers (including candidates for office).
Perhaps the biggest threat to America is complacency. It is the force which has doomed so many great civilizations and nations in the past. Responding to this threat, millions of American citizens are presently involved in national, state, and local political campaigns - whether to support a candidate or an idea. And there exists super-majority support for renewable energy development and deployment, aided by a cohesive, common-sense national energy policy.
But transforming support for a policy into action by those in Congress and the new Administration, as well within state and local government, will not be easy. The influence that large corporations possess upon political decision-making in this country should not be underestimated. Nor should the effect of their ongoing manipulation of public opinion through targeted multi-media campaigns, to downplay the problem of America's overdependence on foreign oil and the huge foreign trade deficits to which it substantially contributes.
A RATIONAL INCREASE IN OUR NATION'S R&D BUDGET FOR SOLAR, WIND, AND OTHER PROMISING TECHNLOGIES IS NEEDED. Evidence of the influence of large corporations can be found in the U.S. Department of Energy's own budget for research and development. While funding for renewable energy sources has increased recently, funding for research into traditional energy sources - fossil fuels and nuclear power - remain nearly equal to the budget devoted to renewable energy sources. Moreover, a comparison of DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation shows that renewable energy R&D would decline slightly, while fossil energy R&D and nuclear energy R&D would increase by 34 percent and 44 percent, respectively. WHY? One also wonders why "Big Oil" even needs further research into fossil energy, given both the huge profits oil companies have generated in recent years, as well as what should be a national effort to reduce our nation's carbon footprint. Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed to terminate its oil and natural gas R&D programs, but Congress - under the influence of "Big Oil" - continues to fund them.
Note that DOE also conducts R&D on near-zero emission power plants—including carbon capture and sequestration—through its fuels and power systems programs and its Clean Coal Power Initiative. Worthwhile programs, for coal remains an inexpensive (if one does not consider its emissions and carbon footprint) and domestic source of energy for our country. If carbon sequestration and "zero emissions" coal plants can come online, then most of the negative impacts of coal-fueled energy production can be overcome while keeping relative costs low.
Of the renewable energy research budget at the Dept. of Energy, the recent R&D focus in renewable energy has been (in order of expenditures): (1) biomass-derived ethanol, (2) hydrogen-powered fuel cells, (3) wind technologies, and (4) solar technologies.
While I agree that funding of all of these technologies should be undertaken, the continued focus on ethanol production needs closer examination. This is especially so given the already-apparent effects in stimulating demand for corn and other agricultural products, leading to major price increases for agricultural commodities and thereby adding to hunger around the world. Additionally, ethanol faces high production and infrastructure costs, creating challenges in competing with gasoline nationally over the long term. I'm not suggesting we abandon research and development of ethanol technologies - but I am intensely curious why the more-promising wind and solar industries (from an overall cost-benefit analysis), as well as hydrogen, lack behind in research dollars. The influence of large corporate agricutural corporations, no doubt.
In contrast to the high amount of dollars devoted to fossil fuel R&D and nuclear R&D, DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request would reduce funding for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative by 17 percent from $283.5 million in fiscal year 2008 to $236 million in fiscal year 2009. Research for solar energy would fall from $168.5 million to $156.1 million. Research for wind energy would only see a very modest increase from $49.5 million to $52.5 million.
DOE’s budget authority for all of its renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D has rebounded over the past 10 years from extremely low levels to $1.4 billion annually. But one wonders why so little of our national budget is devoted to this R&D effort, and why so little of the R&D budget at the DOE is devoted to the promising areas of wind energy and solar energy. (Of course, other programs, within the DOE, and in other agencies such as the Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Agriculture, also undertake research related to energy.)
[For details on the DOE budget for research, please refer to the GAO report found at this link: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:fmqt0s40R7AJ:www.gao.gov/new.it...
THE NEED FOR LONGER-TERM TAX CREDITS.
According to the Cato Institute, "The USDA distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year ... More than 90 percent of agriculture subsidies go to farmers of five crops—wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton. Roughly a million farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers ... In addition to routine cash subsidies, the USDA provides subsidized crop insurance, marketing support, and other services for farm businesses ... These indirect subsidies and services cost taxpayers about $5 billion each year, putting total farm support at between $15 billion and $35 billion annually.
How about tax credits for oil companies and other "perks"? The environmental group Friends of the Earth says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11. That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs. Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Friends of the Earth says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.
If we look deeper at federal tax policy, we find that the federal government provides the energy industry and consumers with 20 tax expenditures affecting energy supply, totaling $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2008. These tax subsidies have historically been directed toward the conventional energy sector (oil and gas), though recently a small portion has also been directed toward stimulating the deployment of advanced energy technologies.
It must be noted that the renewable energy industry cannot serious expand if future tax credits are uncertain - long-term production tax credits and investment tax credits for renewable energy deployment are needed, not short-term extensions. As stated in a July 28th article in U.S. News and World Report, "uncertainty about key federal tax credits threatens to knock the wind out of the wind-power industry [and the lights out of solar energy] ... Nearly every American-bred source of energy, from coal to nuclear power, gets some sort of federal push, and wind and solar companies receive theirs in the form of tax credits, which enable them to line up investors and overcome enormous start-up costs. Hundred-foot blades don't come cheap."
Of course, the tax credits for wind and solar energy companies expire at the end of 2008, and despite widespread support for their continuation Congress is still bickering (about offshore oil drilling, mainly). Even then, at best we might hope for a one-year extension, not the multi-year extension which makes much more sense.
The tax credits need to be available for several years, as to promoting wind and solar projects to "go online." By way of explanation, it takes substantial time to put together a project, arrange financing, order production of the windmills, and then install them. The wind-energy tax credit is good for 10 years and pays developers about 2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce, but it must be available on the date that a project comes online. By contrast, the solar industry gets a 30 percent credit on new investments, and while it is easier to deploy technologies, serious development in new plants to produce the thin-film PV solar and other new solar technologies will only occur if Congress enacts credits which are available over several years.
GET REAL. America faces serious problems. We don't need to send to Washington politicians who want to go there just because of the title of "U.S. Senator" or "U.S. Representative." Nor do we want to send to Washington politicians who receive (and are influenced heavily by) large corporations - oil, gas, and agricultural conglomerates among them.
This is a serious time. America needs serious leadership. Those who will address our nation's challenges (and there are many) head-on. Those whose focus is not about getting re-elected.
It is time for us - all of us - to ask candidates for office the tough questions - and get serious responses. It is time for us to elect those who are truly committed to solving our country's many problems.
Together, we CAN make a difference. It will take commitment. It will take effort. It will take - labor.
Happy Labor Day to all. Ron
Comment
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network