Change and The Brighter Future To Come: or Barry's Best Foot Forward: or American Business As Usual

When Solyndra hit the wall of insolvency, all that could be heard were the echoes of the person occupying the Presidency: "this loan will generate hundreds of jobs insuring Solyndra a brighter future". The $535 million loan was expanded by another $75 million and Solyndra’s expenditures, just to build the plant, cost an estimated $733 million. With those words and figures in mind, more than a thousand people are jobless many are losing or have lost their homes and for them times are, indeed, really tough. More than 900 are still without steady employment.

After the bankruptcy on September 6, a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing was called to ask questions of company officials. The company's CEO, Brian Harrison, and chief financial officer, W.G. Stover, were called and both invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and in response to questions said nothing.

The interesting point of this debacle is not concerning the Solyndra employees, not concerning the increase in future jobs at Solyndra, not concerning the private investors in Solyndra, not concerning the "Made in America" products, not concerning the increase in "Jobs in America", and certainly not concerning solar panels or the "Green Industry." And unquestionably not concerning who the criminals are, how much money they got, and why they aren't all in prison.

As memos, Emails, and testimony have clearly shown without doubt, the concern of all the major players involved everywhere, as if it were just a board game to win at any cost, were solely political and had nothing to do with making our Nation strong in manufacturing or profitable for the citizens who work to make a life for themselves and their families. The sleazy dealings of the White House, political appointees at the DOE, and campaign contributors being repaid for helping the person occupying the Presidency. With the political favors repaid, taxpayers left to pay the costs, move on, nothing to see here, more change is necessary. 

You don't need sunglasses to see all that remains are just another business failure and lives that lay in ruins.

The wrong road to reducing emissions

by Peter DeFazio, guest opinion

Monday January 26, 2009, 6:00 PM

Peter DeFazio

Deregulation brought a meltdown in our electricity markets with market manipulation, profiteering and higher costs to consumers without benefits. Remember Enron? Deregulation was also a major contributor to the recent Wall Street-led financial crisis. Now powerful forces in Washington, D.C., and Salem are pushing a market-based (read unregulated) cap-and-trade system to address the problem of climate change.

A cap-and-trade system works by setting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and then giving participants credits to pollute up to the established cap. Participants may buy, trade and sell credits in an unregulated market to meet their emission targets. In theory, emissions will drop as the number of credits available each year is reduced. It's a good idea on paper.

But like deregulated U.S. energy and financial markets, a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation.

Alarmingly, cap-and-trade proposals being considered in Washington, D.C., and Salem would allow unregulated entities -- such as investment banks and hedge funds -- to participate in the market. These entities -- really, speculators -- don't have emissions to cut. Their goal is to make profits.

Speculation has been ruinous in Europe where a cap-and-trade system was implemented in 2005. Unregulated entities are profiting at the expense of regulated businesses by buying up credits to pollute, hoarding them until the price increases, and then selling them for inflated returns. The result? greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise despite $60 billion worth of credits being traded in the lucrative European market each year. The cost of business is rising and consumers are paying the premium.

Apply this to a U.S. market, expected to be three times the size of Europe's. The opportunities for economic competitors with large reserves of dollars (think China and Saudi Arabia) to manipulate and abuse the market would be enormous. Similarly, the possibilities are ripe for a few powerful speculators to bring Oregon's small market to its knees.

To add insult to injury, proposals in Washington, D.C., and Oregon would give a large portion of the pollution credits to the energy industry based on historical emission levels free of charge. The idea is to cushion the fall in profits for regulated entities when they start to cut emissions. This works out to a potential $100 billion giveaway to the oil, gas and coal industries in the first year alone of a nationwide system. Total giveaways to industry through the life of the market would be mind-numbing, making the Wall Street bailout seem like pocket change.

Despite these obvious problems, federal and state lawmakers are poised to move forward with a cap-and-trade system. I'm working in Washington to oppose this proposal and to find an alternative. One option that needs further exploration is to establish a emissions cap and to direct polluters to either reduce emissions or to purchase certified offsets (reductions from other entities) to meet emission targets.

But given the devastating impact of past deregulation on U.S. energy and financial markets, I have serious concerns about using a "market-based approach" to solve serious problems. My colleagues in Congress, and Oregon legislators, would be wise to do their homework on a cap-and-trade system before moving forward with more deregulation.

Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, represents Oregon's 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It seems that I am not alone in my thinking about the cap and trade market doing little to move to energy independence or reduce the GHG emissions. All it will do is create yet another way for the financial sector to profit and the consumers get squat.

Having a Good Business Plan

The governor of the state of Oregon looks like he is making a good move toward clean energy and creating jobs and economic growth for his state. On the other hand, GM is partnering with Segway, the makers of those two wheeled pedestrian mobility devices that you plug in to charge. I would say that based on what I see, Nissan has the better business plan and that is why bailing out GM is a bad idea.




Governor: Electric cars are Oregon’s future


The Associated Press • April 6, 2009

PORTLAND — Gov. Ted Kulongoski continues to pitch Oregon as the nation’s all-electric vehicle hub.
At a news conference the governor test drove a Nissan all-electric vehicle this morning — the same vehicle he drove during his November trade visit to Asia.


Right before Kulongoski jumped behind the wheel, he described the all-electric technology and green technology in general as “the future of Oregon’s economy” and environment.
Nissan plans to bring all-electric vehicles to Oregon in late 2010. The state will be one of the nation’s first markets.
On Tuesday, a Norway-based company will come to town as it searches for a U.S. location for an electric car manufacturing plant.


Mike Gansler, Director of Core Technology with Segway Inc., drives a Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, or PUMA, project prototype vehicle in New York's Times Square on Sunday, April 5, 2009. Segway Inc. and General Motors Corp. announced Tuesday that they are working together to develop the two-wheeled, two-seat electric vehicle designed to be a fast, efficient, inexpensive and clean alternative to traditional cars and trucks in an urban environment. (AP Photo/Jin Lee)