<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Renewables score big victory in the Senate]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Sean Casten</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:03:46 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Don't clap too hard</strong></p><p>This is better than nothing, but is really goofy, in the sense that it will do nothing to encourage clean energy deployment. &nbsp;Getting one year of production tax credits serves only to provide additional cash to projects that were already in development and going forward. &nbsp;With ~1+ year development times on just about any energy project (and another year to build), it just isn't possible to move quickly enough so that a one year tax bill changes any behavior.</p><p>
Note that this is not a criticism of clean energy incentives per se - simply that this is a pretty JV way to do it. &nbsp;(As I said to a geothermal developer I was with in DC yesterday, given the choice between &nbsp;"would you like congress to F up a lot, or F up a little, the latter is clearly preferable. &nbsp;But they're still f'ing up.)</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Don't clap too hard</strong></p><p>This is better than nothing, but is really goofy, in the sense that it will do nothing to encourage clean energy deployment. &nbsp;Getting one year of production tax credits serves only to provide additional cash to projects that were already in development and going forward. &nbsp;With ~1+ year development times on just about any energy project (and another year to build), it just isn't possible to move quickly enough so that a one year tax bill changes any behavior.</p><p>
Note that this is not a criticism of clean energy incentives per se - simply that this is a pretty JV way to do it. &nbsp;(As I said to a geothermal developer I was with in DC yesterday, given the choice between &nbsp;"would you like congress to F up a lot, or F up a little, the latter is clearly preferable. &nbsp;But they're still f'ing up.)</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:33:07 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>It is better?</strong></p><p>It is better than the alternative Sean, no PTC.</p><p>
The assumption by investors will be that a more GHG free energy policy will come in with the fall election. &nbsp;And that this short term PTC extension will bridge the gap.</p><p>
But will they wait until the actual election results to fund new projects? &nbsp;Probably. &nbsp;Having gone through the 2000 "appointment" fiasco, Watching stock markets dip and dive with every new legal opinion on the Fla "hanging chad" migration.</p><p>
The effort to divert a paltry 13 billion over 10 years from oil company subsidies to subsidies for renewables and conservation was narrowly defeated.</p><p>
I think politicians are waiting for a chance to institute cap and trade, with cash aquired from the sale of carbon emission permits going to their favorite allegedly green pork projects, like ethanol fuel farming, clean coal, and nuclear power.</p><p>
A big sell out of the environment and the movement is in the works. &nbsp;The hedge fund managers and big DC eco-lobbyists are salivating. &nbsp;Will this mean new mistresses for the lot of 'em? &nbsp;Yep. &nbsp;Don't be a player hater, these lowlifes are soo horny, hehey.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>It is better?</strong></p><p>It is better than the alternative Sean, no PTC.</p><p>
The assumption by investors will be that a more GHG free energy policy will come in with the fall election. &nbsp;And that this short term PTC extension will bridge the gap.</p><p>
But will they wait until the actual election results to fund new projects? &nbsp;Probably. &nbsp;Having gone through the 2000 "appointment" fiasco, Watching stock markets dip and dive with every new legal opinion on the Fla "hanging chad" migration.</p><p>
The effort to divert a paltry 13 billion over 10 years from oil company subsidies to subsidies for renewables and conservation was narrowly defeated.</p><p>
I think politicians are waiting for a chance to institute cap and trade, with cash aquired from the sale of carbon emission permits going to their favorite allegedly green pork projects, like ethanol fuel farming, clean coal, and nuclear power.</p><p>
A big sell out of the environment and the movement is in the works. &nbsp;The hedge fund managers and big DC eco-lobbyists are salivating. &nbsp;Will this mean new mistresses for the lot of 'em? &nbsp;Yep. &nbsp;Don't be a player hater, these lowlifes are soo horny, hehey.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by dcprell</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:06:44 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>PTC extension</strong></p><p>Sean, </p><p>
Your impulse is correct, but extending the PTC for another year does not mean extending PTC payments for just one more year. &nbsp;</p><p>
The PTC is a 10 year tax credit that triggers for a project on the date it is placed in commercial service. &nbsp;What a PTC extension does is it extends the placed in service sunset date for another year. &nbsp;In other words, a wind project developed in 2009 will no be entitled to 10 years worth of PTCs.</p><p>
Like I said, your impulse is correct, though. &nbsp;Significant renewable energy development won't occur unless there is a longer period of PTC certainty. &nbsp;Projects that take 3-4 years to develop need to know that the PTC will be there at the commercial operations date. &nbsp;If the PTC is uncertain, the project never happens. </p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>PTC extension</strong></p><p>Sean, </p><p>
Your impulse is correct, but extending the PTC for another year does not mean extending PTC payments for just one more year. &nbsp;</p><p>
The PTC is a 10 year tax credit that triggers for a project on the date it is placed in commercial service. &nbsp;What a PTC extension does is it extends the placed in service sunset date for another year. &nbsp;In other words, a wind project developed in 2009 will no be entitled to 10 years worth of PTCs.</p><p>
Like I said, your impulse is correct, though. &nbsp;Significant renewable energy development won't occur unless there is a longer period of PTC certainty. &nbsp;Projects that take 3-4 years to develop need to know that the PTC will be there at the commercial operations date. &nbsp;If the PTC is uncertain, the project never happens. </p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by birdbrainscan</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:47:42 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>That one last Senate vote<p>It's just so galling to watch 2008 dribble away with the Senate regularly one vote short of passing so many green measures. <p>
What really gets my goat is that Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (R-ID) is still in there voting against anything remotely green. You'll recally that Sen. Craig pled guilty to soliciting gay sex in an airport washroom... then asked to un-plead when the story broke. He said he'd resign (in disgrace) from public office -- then changed his mind and chose to tough it out. His wife "stood by her man", he denied that he's gay or bi, and the Moral(istic) Majority happily forgave him or bought his lively excuses including "I have a wide stance" (when he tapped feet with the undercover cop next door) and "I was reaching for a piece of TP stuck to my shoe" (when he held hands with him). <p>
In a priggish, prudish and homophobic culture, somehow it's still okay to solicit gay sex in a public bathroom if you are just really really conservative. <p>
If only the public had been just a bit less tolerant, and Sen. Craig had bowed to public pressure to resign. Then maybe we'd have the more robust energy bill, the national Renewable Electricity Standard, etc.<p>
As it is, we can wait and hope for the next session. Everyone please take a look at the League of Conservation Voters, a pro-environment congressional watchdog: <a href="http://www.lcv.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.lcv.org<p>
Their environmental voting scorecard for Sen. Craig (result: 13% green) is at:<br>
<a href="http://capwiz.com/lcv_stage/bio/keyvotes/?id=206&amp;congress=1102&amp;lvl=C" rel="nofollow">http://capwiz.com/lcv_stage/bio/keyvotes/?id=206&amp;cong ...<p>
I just hope more people catch on to how Sens. Craig, Inhofe, Stevens, McConnell and all the LCV's "dirty dozen" are stuffing their pockets with oil and coal PAC funding, voting to increase pollution, and making a mockery of the "conserve" in conservative.

<p>http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/</p></p></a></br></p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>That one last Senate vote<p>It's just so galling to watch 2008 dribble away with the Senate regularly one vote short of passing so many green measures. <p>
What really gets my goat is that Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (R-ID) is still in there voting against anything remotely green. You'll recally that Sen. Craig pled guilty to soliciting gay sex in an airport washroom... then asked to un-plead when the story broke. He said he'd resign (in disgrace) from public office -- then changed his mind and chose to tough it out. His wife "stood by her man", he denied that he's gay or bi, and the Moral(istic) Majority happily forgave him or bought his lively excuses including "I have a wide stance" (when he tapped feet with the undercover cop next door) and "I was reaching for a piece of TP stuck to my shoe" (when he held hands with him). <p>
In a priggish, prudish and homophobic culture, somehow it's still okay to solicit gay sex in a public bathroom if you are just really really conservative. <p>
If only the public had been just a bit less tolerant, and Sen. Craig had bowed to public pressure to resign. Then maybe we'd have the more robust energy bill, the national Renewable Electricity Standard, etc.<p>
As it is, we can wait and hope for the next session. Everyone please take a look at the League of Conservation Voters, a pro-environment congressional watchdog: <a href="http://www.lcv.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.lcv.org<p>
Their environmental voting scorecard for Sen. Craig (result: 13% green) is at:<br>
<a href="http://capwiz.com/lcv_stage/bio/keyvotes/?id=206&amp;congress=1102&amp;lvl=C" rel="nofollow">http://capwiz.com/lcv_stage/bio/keyvotes/?id=206&amp;cong ...<p>
I just hope more people catch on to how Sens. Craig, Inhofe, Stevens, McConnell and all the LCV's "dirty dozen" are stuffing their pockets with oil and coal PAC funding, voting to increase pollution, and making a mockery of the "conserve" in conservative.

<p>http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/</p></p></a></br></p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:29:17 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/will-you-pay-or-will-you-go/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>One reason</strong></p><p>We couldn't pile on Craig for being gay, only for hypocricy. &nbsp;Our side is too tolerant to use the tactics of the real haters. &nbsp;The Rove, fauxnews, limboob wing nut squad.</p><p>
There is nothing at all wrong with being gay. &nbsp;It's a fact!</p><p>
People like John Waters, Rachel Maddow, Barney Frank, to name only a few mighty earth shaking gay culture heroes highlight this obvious truth. &nbsp;We just can't throw out principle, even to put an ass like Craig out on his ass. &nbsp;</p><p>
We'll have to wait, once again. &nbsp;</p><p>
But you know without some important enlightenment &nbsp;on the right GHG free energy and ag policy, even a democratic sweep will just boost the wrong stuff. &nbsp;Namely ethanol fuel farming, nuclear power, and clean coal.</p><p>
I'd say the time frame to get to all our democratic incumbents and democrats about to be elected with the real cure for climate disaster is about the same as the time to the next election. &nbsp;So every donation ought to be paired with a clear statement on real energy and ag policy reform.</p><p>
Politicians listen to cash. &nbsp;Send 10 bucks at a time with a nice crisp note dissing nukes, ethanol, and coal and boosting direct subsidy diversion to solar, wind, and farm biogas zzzaping through a renwable distributed smart grid to power plugin hybrids and geo heat exchange building heating/cooling systems.</p><p>
That's the ticket, millions of messages with cold hard cash backing them up. &nbsp;send one to each of your reps and candidates each month from now until the election. &nbsp;If millions did it? &nbsp;Well? &nbsp;100 millon bucks or so? &nbsp;With 10 million notes?

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>One reason</strong></p><p>We couldn't pile on Craig for being gay, only for hypocricy. &nbsp;Our side is too tolerant to use the tactics of the real haters. &nbsp;The Rove, fauxnews, limboob wing nut squad.</p><p>
There is nothing at all wrong with being gay. &nbsp;It's a fact!</p><p>
People like John Waters, Rachel Maddow, Barney Frank, to name only a few mighty earth shaking gay culture heroes highlight this obvious truth. &nbsp;We just can't throw out principle, even to put an ass like Craig out on his ass. &nbsp;</p><p>
We'll have to wait, once again. &nbsp;</p><p>
But you know without some important enlightenment &nbsp;on the right GHG free energy and ag policy, even a democratic sweep will just boost the wrong stuff. &nbsp;Namely ethanol fuel farming, nuclear power, and clean coal.</p><p>
I'd say the time frame to get to all our democratic incumbents and democrats about to be elected with the real cure for climate disaster is about the same as the time to the next election. &nbsp;So every donation ought to be paired with a clear statement on real energy and ag policy reform.</p><p>
Politicians listen to cash. &nbsp;Send 10 bucks at a time with a nice crisp note dissing nukes, ethanol, and coal and boosting direct subsidy diversion to solar, wind, and farm biogas zzzaping through a renwable distributed smart grid to power plugin hybrids and geo heat exchange building heating/cooling systems.</p><p>
That's the ticket, millions of messages with cold hard cash backing them up. &nbsp;send one to each of your reps and candidates each month from now until the election. &nbsp;If millions did it? &nbsp;Well? &nbsp;100 millon bucks or so? &nbsp;With 10 million notes?

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>