Obama's $4bn clean-energy initiative: a big number hiding a bigger idea

[applegrove]

Obama's $4bn clean-energy initiative: a big number hiding a bigger idea

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/17/obama-clean-energy-investment-private-sector

"SNIP.................



It’s not flashy breakthrough technology, but rather the nitty-gritty details of building an investment market and, eventually, a fully mature industry. Clean energy is no longer in its infancy; it’s ready to go big. It just needs the money.

“There’s a whole set of funding sources we’re going to need if we’re going to deploy clean energy at scale,” said Dan Reicher, executive director of Stanford University’s Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance. “It’s less about the specific amount of money that was committed today, and more about the structures that are being put together.”

A useful backdrop to the new initiative is an International Energy Agency estimate of the investment it will take to scale clean technologies so Earth’s temperature doesn’t warm by more than 2C (3.6F) by 2100. That will require, calculates the IEA, annual investments of $500bn by 2020 and $1tn by 2030.


There’s presently nowhere near that amount of clean-energy investment. Instead there’s roughly $250bn, reported Steyer-Taylor researchers in a 2014 white paper (pdf) that became a foundational document for the new initiative. Among “impact investors” – those seeking not only financial returns but also social and environmental good – this accounts for just $46bn – roughly the size of the US divorce industry.


.................SNIP"

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. As much as many might protest ...

this is an excellent political Jiu-Jitsu move for getting the funding done ... using the capitalistic market to advance/provide the needed funding is a lot easier than convincing 290 legislators to raise taxes.

[applegrove]

2. It is in their own best interest. Those who come up with the best renewable energy will own the

world.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. And those that invest early, and/or significantly, in ...

those who come up with the best renewable energy will own a mountain of cash.

That what capital markets do; but, that will not please those that are anti-capitalist ... even if it meets/helps to meet another liberal goal.

[applegrove]

4. Very few people are anti-capitalist here. Most people just want good government and a good mixed

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

market economy. And they don't want rampant-unchecked capitalism to destroy the world.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Perhaps ... the counter jumps out at me ...

being that I'm the consummate "3rd-way", "corporatist lackey"!

[Finishline42]

6. Your faith in the markets is naive...

The major problem facing renewable energy - mainly wind and solar - is that they are a long term investment and as such severely undercut the income stream from the utility model and the 20% yearly ROI that seems to be prevalent in the MBA crowd. Solar and wind both are upfront investments that break even early in the warranty period and produce electricity long after the warranty expires. And specifically with solar - it opens up to people being able to produce their own power which really undercuts the utilities income stream.

Your faith in markets also understates the power of the vested interests in coal and oil industries. Want proof? Just follow the millions of dollars the Koch's spend to fund ALEC and the restrictive rules on solar and wind ALEC produces.

Stop and think for a moment on how much of our tax dollars are spent yearly on electricity at all levels of government. We should be on a long term plan to at least start installing solar PV on our school roofs and grounds. I live in a city where there are over 100 public schools, start with a couple the first year, go to four then maybe more the next. Once you run the numbers, it's a no brainer. This is a program that would actually reduces the cost of government long term. But then that would go against the Right's main mantra - 'Starve the Beast', wouldn't it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Okay. n/t