So a 100% approval rating from the LCV is not something you can automatically assume is a good thing.

The 5% Project

1. Establish an Anthropomorphic Global Warming fund.

2. Invite all those who fear global warming to contribute 1/2 (50%) of their salaries to the fund.

3. Use the fund to do all the stuff you accuse "the Government" of not doing.

4. List the salaries and income of all those who believe in AGW and how much of their income goes toward either (a) CO2 reduction or (b) generation of the CO2 that they fear so much.

So, JBailo, those of us who don't own cars or participate in other activities that siginificantly cause global warming, should make a huge sacrifice of paying half of our salaries/wages to combat the greenhouse gases created by those who do?

No...that's the point.

With investors running away from financials to commodities, now "clean industries" such as wind and solar power are attracting major investment pools. Earlier Grist ran some articles about an investor who went long on ethanol, which turned out to be a poor investment because supplies are high and some processors are going bankrupt. OK, it was and is a disaster from the start.  While we tend to treat such investors as proverbial scum, they are the true motivators of our modern economy, having access to billions of dollars (Euros are even better!).  

From a policy perspective, this is troubling for our government because we don't regulate that kind of economy very well, and the government hasn't come through with a meaningful program for renewable energy. Can we or should we rely on market investors who treat wind and solar power like a traded commodity to achieve our goals?

Look at it this way, it is a relatively safe hedge to get into renewables because (1) they're making good money and (2) a cap & trade program will only make them MORE money by taxing others.

The only thing to watch for IMHO is a giant bubble of over-speculation in renewables. The latest crash in housing is a classic example of a bubble in the making for over ten years - which was caused in part by the US government and it's lax standards of performance. So the question comes down to how to harmonize a public-private clean energy program while being able to make corrective actions so as to prevent a bubble.  -sam

Onward through the fog

That is, you're not paying for facility or plans, you only pay on actual, delivered output renewable power, which can't be withheld if you want the credit.  Obviously the subsidy gets capitalized in that it makes people willing to pay more for ownership of renewable plants, but that is what it's for -- making ownership of renewable plants more desirable.  If the plants aren't making good net energy, then no amount of production tax credit helps.

Your comment recalls some of Sean Castens, suggesting that we simply set a tightening carbon emissions standard and charge a toll on everyone delivering power with excess carbon and give the money to those delivering power with less than the standard amount of carbon.

Sometimes a sharp increase in price isn't reflective of a bubble, it's reflective of a fundamental increase in value.

The 5% Project