BONDING WITH THE ENVIRONMENT: It is estimated that the 2012 Clean Energy Victory Bonds Act, if enacted, would generate some 1.7 million new jobs in and around the renewable energy sector across the U.S.
Image: iStockImages/Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: What are Clean Energy Victory Bonds?—Max Blanchard, Wilmington, Del.
Green America, a non-profit membership organization that promotes ethical consumerism, created the “Clean Energy Victory Bonds” concept as a way to give everyday Americans the opportunity to invest in clean energy and related fields in a fashion similar to how the federal government raised billions of dollars for the war effort during World War II over a half century ago. At that time, four out of five American households purchased the original Victory Bonds, raising $185 billion (over $2 trillion in today’s dollars) to support the war effort.
Green America first offered up the new spin on the Victory Bond idea in 2009 as something people on both sides of the political spectrum could get behind. The group has been lobbying federal officials and legislators to consider the benefits ever since. New legislation, the Clean Energy Victory Bonds Act of 2012, introduced into the House of Representatives this past August by California Democrat Bob Filner and 10 other co-sponsors, gets Green America a step closer to turning their vision into a reality. More than 40 other non-profit and advocacy groups and green investment institutions have allied with Green America in supporting the legislation as well.
If the bill becomes law, the new Victory Bond program would generate some 1.7 million new jobs in and around the renewable energy sector across the United States, and would extend the imperiled Production Tax Credit and other federal renewable energy incentives for as long as a decade. The beauty of the plan is that it allows everyday Americans to encourage cleaner, greener energy with a minimum investment and a guaranteed return—without requiring any direct budgetary allocations or expenditures by the federal government. Purchasers will be able to get in on the action for as little as $25, and will get the purchase price back plus interest in 10 years. Furthermore, projects supported through Clean Energy Victory Bonds will create jobs and business revenues that will bring in federal tax dollars while simultaneously reducing health and environmental costs nationwide.
The bill was referred to committee and could potentially come up for a floor vote before year end. Green America is encouraging everyday Americans to call their Congressional representatives and ask them to support H.R. 6275. Another way to get behind the effort now is to pledge to buy the bonds (via cleanenergyvictorybonds.org) after the legislation passes.
Yet another way to help is by spreading awareness about the bill and the good that can come from its passage. “Everyone who hears about this strategy loves it, because the bonds advance goals that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind,” reports Green America, urging everyday folks to tweet, blog and talk about the campaign and legislation—and to post a link to cleanenergyvictorybonds.org on their Facebook pages—so more conscientious Americans will find out about and get behind the concept.
CONTACTS: Green America Clean Energy Victory Bonds, www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/CEVB/; H.R. 6275, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6275ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr6275ih.pdf.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood grief. More government guarantees. More tax extentions.
Original purchase guaranteed plus interest...guess who will pay for that? Other taxpayers.
hint...The USA is BROKE. Take your money and invest in current green energy companies if that's your choice.
I am all for government investments in clean energy. Perhaps the most important spending we could do right now. However I must say that everyday Americans can already invest in clean energy. There is this thing called the stock market. It allows individuals to by shares (ownership) of a company. Average Americans need to invest instead of throwing their money away on useless over-consumption on product and services that do not add value to America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one of the maddest, most irresponsible things imaginable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no good definition of "green", and many of things touted as green in fact make things worse. Who is to judge where this money goes? And a government guarantee makes the whole thing fatal for the country. And as Fossilnut says, it's perverse that those who have the sense to stay clear will have to pick up the bill.
Only if there's a risk involved will people think long and hard enough about where their money goes.
Imagine if this were extended to other government entities. If all the warhawks had to "put their money where their mouths were" and had to fund all overseas wars through the sale of war bonds only. I'm all for a strong defense, but being the world police is a huge drain on our national resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter yet, reduce taxes overall and create these "victory bonds" for any of a number of government agencies. NASA, the NSF, PBS, etc. Just make sure that the CIA, NSA, and TSA have to run off of these bonds as well. Since our elected officials are often less than responsive to our desires, let us "vote with our pocketbooks" as to what agencies we actually want funded. You don't even have to pay me back, just let me decide how at least a portion of my taxes get spent.
I don't care what side of the aisle you support, I think we would ALL like to have a larger voice in how our taxes are allocated.
If the renewable energy included nuclear power it might work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind and solar not so much as they produce with low efficiency gas backup run inefficiently, more GHG's than an all gas solution.
In fact, if the money spent on wind and solar in past decade had been spent on nuclear, the world would be coal free, millions of dead from air and water pollution would be alive, and the AGW precipice would have been moved many years into the future.
Shows you how effective this fossil fuel funded renewable energy and anti nuclear campaign has been, in diverting a conversion from coal to nuclear.
Many people think only of themselves or the small number of people in their "tribe". We are not so far removed from monkeys as we would like to think. Still, it's possible to be "selfish" while still working to "save the Earth" if one simply realizes that a healthy environment is more conducive to passing along ones genes (through the health of their children). And isn't that the main reason anyone does anything? To pass their genes along?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Bops Your quotes: "Shareholders are big money pits, that get paid first." "Unions are even worst, paying people money to do whatever they choose."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- These are emotionally charged statements and opinions without any rational argument. There is therefore no rational response to them.
What I mean by value add is an increase of actual usable resources. Which is more important than money itself since it is what backs the value of the dollar for example. Efficient energy production, materials we can use to build things, food, clothes, electronic devices to process information and design things, are some of the things that allow us to better control the world, survive and live in comfort. In contrast some cheap toy that breaks after 3 uses, over priced purses, or a diet book, for example that just wastes peoples money, dilutes the total value of the American economy, and hence the dollar. Not all production and consumption of resources are equal.
I just think in terms of bettering the world, we should not blindly consume all the cheap junk that is marketed to us, and we should invest in our future; which means being one of those money sucking shareholders I suppose. Think like an investor and a builder of things, not just a blind helpless consumer.
Coal, Oil, Unnatural gas, and nuclear enjoy at least 5 decades of massive tax breaks, incentive$, giveaways, breaks on human health regulation(pollution), and free research money from federal and state mandates. In Ohio, the constitution there even requires that taxpayer money be spent to find new reasons to burn coal, even though they have to import 50% of the coal they burn. To argue against solar and wind is absurd, especially since wind is now the cheapest way to build new energy capacity. No fuel charge on wind, and G.E. and others are working on making it cheaper yet. When renewables are widely distributed, they have comparable reliability with our aging nuclear fleet. Solar, in spite of right wing silly talk, will emerge as the predominant energy production method in the U.S. As they widen the spectrum of usable light, stop re absorption, cut reflection, nothing will beat it's price. But since wind is cheaper than anything now in many area, how can either political party direct it's believers against wind? Cheaper is better, especially when it doesn't poison your kids lungs, lower his i.q. with mercury, and devastate water supplies. The real costs of coal are externalized away from your electric bill. Those costs include missed time from work, deaths from heart disease, lung cancer asthma, and that pesky lower I.Q. from the mercury. But the cost of death to a family, how do you put a cost on that, maybe a million to the immediate family, but how about his other relatives and friends, what about their grief? The loss to the company that valued the dead person. A storyteller said the loss of a human is like a library burning down, but it's even more than that. If you're an American and a person with values, you should embrace alternative energy. It might keep us out of another war, and save someone we care about. G.E.'s latest couple of innovations/adaptations include very light and cheaper flexible fabric wind turbine blades, and elimination of heavy failure prone gearboxes. Solar is in it's infancy, we can own it, or have it own us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf business has anything to say about it, likely no.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter all, business has no conscience. Its only goal
is to acquire and prevent others from doing the same.
They like to call it competition.
With lucrative nonrenewable sources still available and
vast family fortunes involved, how likely are they to
be amenable to alternatives?
This is one venue that requires the will of the people not business or government.
A typical response from those who would rather just keep
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisusing up the nonrenewables and avoid any personal involvement. Odd how parasitic we have become.
To be so disengaged at to be aware of only ones next breathe.
Culture so embedded that nothing else is perceivable or considered possible.
Small minds make for a dismal world.
Yes, Fossilnut, we can generate $2 trillion in today’s dollars and invest in all in Solyndra. Oops, no, some other green cos. This is just insane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the USA, Federal subsidies for non-carbon emitting electricity, 1950-2006, (renewable subsidies have increased exponentially since 2006):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistinyurl.com/Federal-subsidies-for-clean
Solar & Wind subsidies: $45B for 0.7% of USA Electricity production
Geothermal: $7B for 0.3%
Hydro: $81B for 7%
Nuclear: $65B for 19%
Thus Hydro received 3.5X the Nuclear Subsidies per TWh of Electricity produced.
Geothermal 6.9X the subsidies of Nuclear.
Wind & Solar 19X.
Add to that there are nothing short of INCREDIBLE State subsidies for Wind & Solar energy. The Sleaziest of which is Renewable Portfolio Standards, a COWARDLY, DEVIOUS way to try and hide, GARGANTUAN Wind & Solar subsidies. And notice big Renewable promotion state utterly refuses to release the cost of contracts they sign with Solar & Wind farms, they claim we just want the public's cash - we refuse to give the public access to information on just what they are getting for those $billions in costly subsidies. Utterly DESPICABLE behavior of the California Utilities Commission.
Added to that, for Wind:
Wall St. Blood Suckers are making a killing on Wind Energy, due to the big tax incentives, including triple accelerated depreciation. Glenn Schleede:
"...Therefore, a "wind farm" owner using his own equity to cover 50% of capital costs (normally the equity share is lower) can recover his entire equity investment in less than 18 months and then enjoy (a) an infinite return on equity thereafter, and (b) in effect, an interest free "loan" for the balance not yet depreciated - all courtesy of US taxpayers...."
Ted Rockwell: "...Warren Buffet's MidAmerican Energy project calculates that it can break even after six years, WITHOUT EVER PRODUCING ANY ELECTRICITY. And Boone Pickens is offering his investors a 25% return on a 4000 MW wind-farm based entirely on federal tax credits..."
John Droz - Getting past the hype behind wind energy:
tinyurl.com/Droz-hype-on-wind-energy
"..Wind developers often sell their tax credits to Wall Street banks or big corporations or other investors who have large incomes. They create what is called a 'tax equity' deal in order to lower or eliminate taxes...
This tax avoidance scheme is why we have companies such as "Microsoft, Sprint" joining the growing list of major companies calling on the US Congress to extend wind Production Tax Credit.. half of the world's largest corporations plan to.. increase investment in renewable energy.."
kienhua68
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA typical piece of know-nothing arrogance.
What's best for the environment is a technical question, decided by looking at hard facts and figures, and not by examining one's own feelings of self-virtue.
I'm against so-called renewables because I think the evidence is they're much worse for the environment compared to nuclear.
Another fundamental point the greenies won't accept: with 7 billion people and growing, there is no "golden solution": environmental problems are all about the choice of the lesser evil.
I guess the "risks" that arise from traditional fossil fuel energy extraction, production, and consumption are ok because they will be absorbed (literally) by the general public while the private stockholders cash their dividend checks in air-conditioned comfort. Let's add social costs to Phalaris's calculated view and recalibrate the profit margin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you not realize that, by far the majority, of those 'private stockholders' are 401k owners and union retirement funds for working members of our society? The days of huge companies being owned wholly by one person or a small group of investors have been over for fifty years. when the economy falters or taxes are ramped up on 'investors and capitol gains', the only people hurt are the working class people who then can't afford to retire and continue to pay their growing power bills. If you work for private industry or own mutual funds, or work for the government and invest for retirement through thrift funds, or are a union member, you own stocks and bonds and are investing to some extent in foreign markets as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you, rmbliss, are in that tiny minority who don't fit any of these categories, I would suggest you reconsider if you ever plan to retire. SSA will not provide enough even for food, and forget power.
Not so blissful now, is it?
rmbliss #14 :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscome up with a useful and objective definition of "social costs" and apply it consistently : no problem.
use it as a smokescreen just to be able to pull the solution that suits your ideology out of the hat: dishonesty.