Hillary Clinton pledges half a billion solar panels for US if she wins office
Source: The Guardian
Democratic presidential frontrunner also says she wants America to generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home within 10 years
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has announced goals for increasing US reliance on renewable energy, pledging to have more than half a billion solar panels installed nationwide within four years of taking office.
Clinton, the front-runner for her partys 2016 presidential nomination, also pledged on her website on Sunday that the United States would generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in the country within 10 years of taking office.
The two goals were the first elements of what she said would be a comprehensive climate-change agenda to be announced over the next few months.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/27/hillary-clinton-pledges-half-a-billion-solar-panels-for-us-if-she-wins-office
truthisfreedom
(23,113 posts)Just sayin'.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)riversedge
(69,708 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)msongs
(67,193 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If a certain someone had followed Carter's lead in 92-00.
And let's be clear right up front.... nuclear power is not a clean renewable electricity source. Just so we're clear.
PBass
(1,537 posts)When you said "92 to 2000", you skipped over the years 1980 to 1988. Those years were much more directly relevant to what Carter was trying to do.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)(considering Poppy to be Reagan's 3rd term) from moving on reducing our ties to the ME and simultaneously taking action on climate change.
We've had a heads up on Climate Change since the 60s and Peak Oil since the 70s. Our 1st democratic president after the 60s, attempted to address them head on. Subsequent democratic presidents, starting in '92, not so much.
kjones
(1,053 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I'm sure this time around they'll keep him quiet and in the background. Time will tell.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)PBass
(1,537 posts)America can still lead on this, or we can be forced to play catch-up and buy the technology from another country. It's a choice.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)This actually isn't that super groundbreaking. Still nice to see but not like there's a huge commitment being offered.
Ban coal exports and then I'll get excited.
sheshe2
(83,319 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I don't get the whole "agenda rolling out over the course of several months" thing, but so far so good.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)China will get to supply the panels.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)ooops, caught myself. Don't want the flyby alerters to get me suspended again. You will just have to guess what I was going to say.
6chars
(3,967 posts)dmosh42
(2,217 posts)Amishman
(5,538 posts)Wallstreet Hillary doesn't miss an opportunity
Darb
(2,807 posts)Why would you make such an absurd statement?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)even if that were true, if Clinton is elected, she'll have a presidential library to raise money for.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I'd vote for her for this. It's almost as good as Bernie. Too bad about her other non-positions.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)So I'm glad she's finally put something on the table.
Now whoever wins can take it and make it "solar panels made in America and owned by the owner's of the roofs."
bowens43
(16,064 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)I'll vote for her if she gets our nomination but I don't think I'll have to worry with that happening.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Her foreign relations experience is unmatched. She is the most qualified candidate ever to run for office.
And if Sanders wins the primary, the republicans will gain the presidency.
madokie
(51,076 posts)with anything you said but thats neither here nor there.
Darb
(2,807 posts)As to why you disagree?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)ever looked as if Sanders was actually going to win the primary. Sanders is as unelectable to the presidency as Donald Trump is, no matter how much his supporters adore him.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)labeled as inevitable today.
elleng
(130,126 posts)O'Malley would zero out fossil fuels by 2050, providing MANY new jobs,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/18/pope-francis-encyclical-clean-energy-technology-campaign-column/28859409/
and would constrain Wall Street/bankers from ruining our economy.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/25/martin-omalley-at-iowa-caucus-forum-series-wants-an-inclusive-economy/
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Ever? Really?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Will it be government loans to individuals to install them, who will then own them?
Or will taxpayers pay for them twice, once to subsidize the electric companies to buy and install them, and again to pay their electric bill?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Unless, they force people to LEASE
their solar arrays.
If the solar arrays are leased
it's a win-win for Big Energy.
Energy companies won't need to
spend as much to upgrade their
facilities, eliminate competition,
and generate revenue both through
the lease and selling electricity.
It's a shell game
Darb
(2,807 posts)And I am not sure that you are a valid source. Are you? Can you provide any reasons that I should value your assessment?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)What is her plan to fight the
Coal and Oil industry campaign
to make solar cost prohibitive?
Seems like half-baked wishlist
that ignores the REAL OBSTACLE
to clean, renewable energy.
Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently, the Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a month in Arizona.
But the Big Carbon advocates arent giving up. The same group is trying to repeal or freeze Ohios requirement that 12.5 percent of the states electric power come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025. Twenty-nine states have established similar standards that call for 10 percent or more in renewable power. These states can now anticipate well-financed campaigns to eliminate these targets or scale them back.
<snip>
The utilities hate this requirement, for obvious reasons. A report by the Edison Electric Institute, the lobbying arm of the power industry, says this kind of law will put a squeeze on profitability, and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, it may be too late to repair the utility business model.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html
Darb
(2,807 posts)Let her say some things and let them marinate a bit. Why so quick to attack?
Damn, primary season is enough to make you not want to vote at all. Hope that works out for you.
elleng
(130,126 posts)Zero out fossil fuels by 2050.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/18/pope-francis-encyclical-clean-energy-technology-campaign-column/28859409/
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The elephant in the room for ALL of the candidates is the Republican-dominated Congress.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)Gothmog
(143,998 posts)elleng
(130,126 posts)This was published on June 18, 2015.
New technologies now put an independent clean energy future decidedly within our reach as a nation.
But reach for it we must.
Clean energy represents the biggest business and job creation opportunity we've seen in a hundred years. And reliance on local, renewable energy sources means a more secure nation and a more stable world.
Given the grave threat that climate change poses to human life on our planet, we have not only a business imperative but a moral obligation to future generations to act immediately and aggressively.
This is why protecting the United States from the devastating impact of climate change while capitalizing on the job creation opportunity of clean energy is at the center of my campaign for president.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/18/pope-francis-encyclical-clean-energy-technology-campaign-column/28859409/
CTyankee
(63,768 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i think bernie is very close, or maybe he just hasn't fleshed it all out yet.
but omalleys is very specific and well thought out
elleng
(130,126 posts)NO DOUBT.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)"Clintons plans also call for extending federal clean energy tax incentives and making them more cost effective both for taxpayers and clean energy producers, her campaign said."
let's decode:
tax incentives for clean energy producers: code for goodies for the oil and gas companies to get them to try and do what they should have to be doing anyway..making clean energy
tax incentives for taxpayers: code for a small tax break for someone who buys solar panels which probably won't even offset the cost. makes the goodies for big oil sound slightly less wretched
and how does this gel with keystone xl? she still hasn't come out with with
a clear position on it.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)We must end our reliance on fossil fuels.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Surely these Will. Be. Made. In. America. as part of her Jobs Program?