Between the start of the year and June 2008, the oil and gas industries spent $52.21 million lobbying Congress. Alternative energy industries spent $11.39 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
And look who's tops on the alternative energy lobbying pile, with more than double the expenditures of the next on the list:
- American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: $1.87M
- National Biodiesel Board: $679,913
- Solar Energy Industries Association: $535,000
- Clean Energy Group: $492,500
- American Wind Energy Association: $460,379
- Poet: $360,000
- Rentech: $250,000
- Green Hunter: $220,000
- Noble Environmental Power: $200,000
- GridPoint: $172,061
Yes, coal is now an energy "alternative" ... just like in the 1800s!
Notice that if you subtract coal and biodiesel -- as I think you should -- you end up with about 25 percent less lobbying money. No wonder the renewable tax credits keep getting blocked.
(This is via Katie Fehrenbacher, who's doing crackerjack work over on earth2tech.)
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Another coal plant bites the dust
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 2:34 pm
05 Aug 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:01 pm
05 Aug 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:47 pm
05 Aug 2008
I'd like to know more about what criteria was used for selecting what lobbying groups appeared on the CRP's list.
As for coal, I'm not surprised. After the 1973-74 oil crisis, all alternatives to oil were given the label "alternative energy". I once worked for the Alternative Energy Division on the International Energy Agency (IEA). The industries it analyzes (and still analyzes) included all electricity-producing sources of energy, plus natural gas and coal.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:48 pm
05 Aug 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:41 am
06 Aug 2008
Obama gets most of his contributions from individual voters. There's the basis of change.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
setb Posted 1:06 am
06 Aug 2008
Permalink
wedjr Posted 4:58 am
06 Aug 2008
We should keep asking at every mention of the word, shouldn't we?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:00 am
06 Aug 2008
As for refined coal.
I think thats a catchall for Pulverized Coal, and Fluidized Bed coal, and IGCC.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:17 pm
06 Aug 2008
The kind of synfuels industry that they hoped would emerge never got beyond the pilot-plant stage, even though it managed to absorb billions of dollars in public funds. But because of a loophole in the law, companies found that they could still claim the credit merely by treating coal with solvents or other substances. And, almost 30 years later, they are still doing just that.
Here is one succinct summary of how it works:
The loophole is the "synfuels" tax credit for companies that reprocess coal to create new synthetic fuels. But the law's provisions are so vague that corporations have been able to claim the tax break even if their reprocessing doesn't work, doesn't reduce our dependence on oil, actually uses oil products in the so-called reprocessing, is never marketed ... or is just plain silly.
How silly? So silly that the IRS has given the synfuels tax credit to companies that have done nothing but spray starch or diesel fuel or even Elmer's glue on coal.
Congressman Lloyd Dogget tried to abolish the decades-old "Synfuels Loophole" in 2005, but you can guess how successful he was at that.
And people wonder why some of us get nervous when people advocate NEW subsidy programs for their pet energy sources, claiming the subsidies will only be temporary?
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink