- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
September 2011 Archives
How should the Obama administration and Congress promote different sources of energy ranging from renewables to fossil fuels?
The failure of solar manufacturer Solyndra has triggered a debate in Washington over what role the federal government should play in promoting innovative--but risky--renewable energies. The company's downfall has triggered scrutiny of a host of other types of government incentives, including nuclear-power loan guarantees, tax credits to renewable energy companies, and tax breaks to oil firms.
What lessons from Solyndra can Washington policymakers apply to government support for energy production? Should a distinction be made between the types of support the government gives to nascent industries like solar and wind, and more established sectors like oil and nuclear? And how much risk should the government be willing to take with taxpayer dollars?
16 responses: Andrea Luecke, Frank M. Stewart, Matthew Garrington, Margo Thorning, Cal Dooley, Jan Lars Mueller, Bernard L. Weinstein, Denise Bode, Brent Erickson, Rhone Resch, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Arjun Makhijani, Barry Russell, Amy Harder, Paul Sullivan, William O'Keefe
What do Solyndra's failures mean for renewable energy writ large?
Over the last several weeks, the federally backed solar company has filed for bankruptcy, laid off 1,100 workers, and became the target of a FBI investigation. Solyndra's downward spiral has triggered a political firestorm in Washington over President Obama's jobs agenda, the federal government's ability to back energy projects, and whether the renewable energy industry is all that Obama promised it would be.
Should Solyndra's woes warrant a deeper look at the Energy Department's ability to finance renewable energy? How does global competition--namely from China -affect the ability of renewable energy companies like Solyndra to succeed? Should the government stop funding renewable energy altogether?
21 responses: Michael Brune, Michael Brune, Michael Brune, Alan Oxley, Phyllis Cuttino, Peter Lehner, Matthew Stepp, Amy Harder, Tim Greeff, Jennifer Morgan, Rhone Resch, Tom Wolf, Dirk Forrister, Jackie Roberts, David Kreutzer, Karl Gawell, Josh Freed, Brent Erickson, Marvin Fertel, Margo Thorning, William O'Keefe
Can energy and environmental initiatives fit into President Obama's jobs plan?
In his address to Congress last week, Obama announced a $447 billion proposal to put Americans back to work immediately, and he implored the House and Senate to pass it right away. He didn't mention clean-energy jobs once, but observers reading between the lines see areas where the sector could gain, including creating an infrastructure bank and retrofitting schools to become more energy efficient.
What role can energy and environment policies play in jump-starting the economy? Is the nascent renewable-energy sector growing fast enough to make green jobs a realistic policy option right now? What policies did Obama leave out that should be included in his plan?
24 responses: Frank M. Stewart, Kateri Callahan, Cal Dooley, Amy Harder, Amy Harder, Barry Russell, Margo Thorning, Lewis Milford, Frank M. Stewart, Guy Morgan, Brian Wynne, Bob Dinneen, Roger Platt, Karl Gawell, Amy Harder, Daniel J. Weiss, William O'Keefe, Brent Erickson, Josh Freed, Carl Pope, Tom Buis, Don Santa, Bill Meadows, David Holt
Was President Obama right or wrong to withdraw the Environmental Protection Agency's smog standard?
Last week, Obama announced he was withdrawing EPA's re-proposal of the George W. Bush-era ground-level ozone standard until at least 2013 when the agency will regularly review it. While underscoring his commitment to EPA's efforts to clean up the air, he said: "Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."
What implications does this have for the economy and the country's air quality? How does this affect Obama's commitment to other EPA rules, such as those controlling mercury and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants?
9 responses: Richard Revesz, Lance Brown, Michael Brune, Peter Iwanowicz, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, William O'Keefe, Frank O’Donnell, Charles Drevna, Phil Kerpen
