Is green energy a fad that has run its course?

clip_image002

So, How’s Your Green Energy Stock Doing?

Guest post By Steve Goreham Originally published in The Washington Times

Is green energy a fad that has run its course? The investment community seems to think so. RENIXX® World, the Renewable Energy Industrial Index of the world’s top green energy companies, hit an all-time low below 146 on November 21, down more than 90 percent from the December 2007 peak.

The RENIXXindex was established in 2006. It’s composed of the world’s 30 largest renewable energy companies with more than 50 percent of revenues coming from wind, solar, biofuel, or geothermal energy, or the hydropower or fuel cell sector. The index includes equipment producers, such wind turbine companies Vestas (Denmark), Gamesa (Spain), and Suzlon (India), solar equipment companies such as First Solar (USA), Suntech Power (China), and Sun Power (USA), and also utilities such as Enel Green Power (Italy) and China Longyuan Power Group. Of the 30 companies, 10 are headquartered in China, 10 in Europe, and 7 in the US.

During the heydays of 2007 and 2008, the RENIXX index was on a roll. Former Vice President Al Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth reached number one on The New York Times best seller list in July, 2006. His documentary movie by the same name became a worldwide hit the same year. In December 2007, Mr. Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The world was whipped into global warming frenzy.

Subsidies and mandates for green energy existed for many years, but during 2006—2008 governments redoubled the emphasis on renewables. California enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, establishing greenhouse gas emissions targets and renewable mandates. Illinois, Michigan, and other states passed or strengthened Renewable Portfolio Standards, requiring electrical utilities to buy an increasing percentage of renewables or pay fines. The European Union approved the Climate Action and Renewable Energy package in 2008, requiring increased renewable energy and biofuel use and tighter emissions restrictions.

Money poured into green energy stocks. Kevin Parker, Director of Global Asset Management at Deutsche Bank, talked about Mr. Gore and a green investment fund that the company created: “He [Al Gore] impressed us all at Deutsche Bank Asset Management. We invited him to an internal meeting in April, 2007 during which we discussed the issue of climate change extensively. A few months later, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his commitment. We then created a fund that invests in companies that position themselves as climate-neutral. Within two months almost 10 billion dollars flowed into this fund. Can you imagine? 10 billion! There has never been such an overwhelming success.” The RENIXX index rocketed to over 1,900 in December of 2007.

But the subsidy-driven green energy wave soon hit a brick wall of fiscal reality. Spain paid solar operators up to ten times the rate for conventional electricity with a 20-year subsidy guarantee. With a guaranteed annual return of 17 percent, every hombre entered the solar business, making Spain the largest solar cell market in 2008. But the nation’s subsidy obligation soon mounted to $36 billion dollars. In 2009, Spain cut the subsidies and its solar market dropped by 80%.

In Germany, feed-in tariffs of eight times the market rate resulted in the installation of over one million roof-top solar systems by 2010. But the 20-year guarantee also produced a subsidy obligation of over $140 billion. German electricity rates climbed to the second highest in the world and continue to climb to pay for green energy. To stop the bleeding, Germany cut feed-in subsidies three times in 2011 and announced a complete phase-out by 2017. Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations cut subsidies for wind, solar, and biofuels during the last three years.

At the same time, solar manufacturers built huge capacity to meet expected demand for green energy. But with cuts in subsidies, demand crashed and so did solar cell prices. Dozens of companies went bankrupt, such as German companies Solon and Solar Millennium, and US-based Solyndra.

The failure of global climate negotiations also drove the RENIXXindex down. Investors expected a binding agreement from negotiations, but no pact could be reached at the 2009 Copenhagen, the 2010 Cancun, or the 2011 Durban conferences. The current climate conference in Doha, Qatar is also unlikely to produce a binding agreement.

It’s interesting to note that a single oil company, Exxon Mobil, has a market capitalization of over $400 billion, or about 40 times the capitalization of the RENIXX index of the world’s top 30 renewable companies. It looks like investors are betting on oil and not green energy.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jenn Oates

I knew I should have got into the carbon credit scam while the scamming was good.
To late for me to rake in the big Green bucks, I guess.

Coke

I like how the graph falls perpetually around the time of the Climategate scandal. Would be nice to hear how the warmists explain that one away!

Richdo

So, How’s Your Green Energy Stock Doing?
Ouch! Before I actually looked at the science, many years ago, I lost thousands on Astropower (APWR). Should have looked at the science first! Lesson paid for and learned.

It’s hard to figure out the total subsidies in the US to produce a kWh of energy. I have read that it is as high as $1 per kWh produced. Does anyone have information on how to find out in one place, what the total subsidies are? There’s FIT, Loans, grants, tax write offs for manufacturers, and tax breaks to purchase. I would like to have some numbers if someone has them.
Mario

robinedwards36

Our (UK) government seems to be in two minds on renewables. Whilst still supporting them with massive subsidies there is at last a move towards the shale gas option. This is some sort of good news.

We should never stop researching and developing clean and renewable power sources.
Rolling them out on an industrial scale was utter folly. Looks like a bunch of economists believed their own hype and the warmist hype. Our governments are populated with idiots who studied politics and know nothing of basic engineering estimate.
Nothing new there then.

It would appear that reality does have an effect on the bean-counters!
Long may it continue.

Kev-in-Uk

Green energy (or renewables, if you prefer) needs to stand on its own two feet – subsidies will only delay the inevitable demise of anything that is inherently inefficient or uneconomic. The issue of green energy was pushed on the assumption of the carbon credit type regimes to be imposed (which are, if you like, yet a further indirect subsidy, by ‘taxing’ the fossil fuel industry). Whilst not wishing to prolong the economic problems of the world – it is only this that has taken the wind from the green sails – in times of austerity, investors (or even your average Joe) will only put money into something worthwhile. Clearly, green energy is VERY low on the list of things that need saving! and that is because it simply isn’t (currently) a valid economical proposition and they cannot make it so. I reckon we have a lot to thank the crash of 2008 for!

richardscourtney

Coke:
Your post at December 6, 2012 at 2:50 pm says

I like how the graph falls perpetually around the time of the Climategate scandal. Would be nice to hear how the warmists explain that one away!

You are right, but Climategate was not the reason for the decline in the value of renewables stocks.
In the months prior to the CoP held in in Copenhagen during December 2009 it became clear that a successor Treaty to the Kyoto Protocol would not be achieved. Renewables rely on subsidies and without the successor Treaty those subsidies would reduce. Therefore, investors started to withdraw from renewables.
Richard

I found this goldmine of information on total subsidies. Does anyone have any comments on the validity of it? I could not connect to some of the links to the source references.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/hardfacts-uploads/NJI_IER_HardFacts_ALLpages_20120423_v8.pdf

MrX

So what you’re saying is if liberals had to put their money where their mouth is, they’d be a little more pragmatic about green energy? Liberals don’t want to invest their own money. They want to invest your money.

Michael Tremblay

Being skeptical, I notice that this chart is an industrial index chart and that it correlates very nicely with the Dow Jone Industrial Index for the same time period.
I believe what you are seeing is the decline in investment in renewable energy sources which corresponds to the general economic decline rather than evidence of an overall decline in interest in renewable energy sources.
As long as you see a rise in the price of the current energy source you will see an increase in the interest in alternate energy sources. The real breakthrough and conversion comes when the cost of the alternate energy source is less than the cost of the current source.

CodeTech

I advised my parents, who are retired and living off investments, to get out of anything labeled “green” some years back. They talked to their money guy and he was still hyping the whole “green” thing, but did move their stuff away from self-described “green” funds.
Today, many of their friends are lamenting their reduced finances, while my own parents are still chugging along with a nice income.
By the way, I also got my parents into a sizable chunk of Microsoft stock back in the 80s… despite their money guy saying it was like throwing money away. I know he still kicks himself for not buying more himself.

son of mulder

I have no problem with cheap green energy, other than perhaps the aesthetics of wind turbines, which are not cheap, and the potential ecological damage of river barrages. Well managed nuclear and geothermal would be good and clean. But while carbon based fuels are relatively cheap and climate change is a scam, to me it’s a simple exercise of cost effectiveness.

Coke

Richard,
Thank you for your insight – Since I made that post, I was browsing the internet looking for possible reasons as to the wavering interest in renewables, and your post was most edifying 🙂

Gore and Strong both got out while the getting out was good.
Pulpit-pounding idealism + cynical pragmatism = Wealth.
Most of us have only one half of the equation. Either side.

Jimbo

Al Gore already left.

Jeff in Calgary

Michael Tremblay: You appear to be mistaken. The Dow Jones Has fully recovered from the 2008 crash (to within 4%). There is almost no correlation between these two indicators

john coghlan

Michael Tremblay……not even close to the truthdow fell by half and has recovered to the 90% level not your Green’s current value of 10%

Michael Tremblay says:
December 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Being skeptical, I notice that this chart is an industrial index chart and that it correlates very nicely with the Dow Jone Industrial Index for the same time period.
I believe what you are seeing is the decline in investment in renewable energy sources which corresponds to the general economic decline rather than evidence of an overall decline in interest in renewable energy sources.

The chart above is down 90% from its peak in 2008. The Dow is down maybe 15% from its peak.
The charts are similar in their big drops in the fall of 2008. The chart above differs in that it failed to recover most of its losses starting in 2009. Instead, it resumed falling.

LJH

Schadenfreude!

johanna

Michael Tremblay says:
December 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Being skeptical, I notice that this chart is an industrial index chart and that it correlates very nicely with the Dow Jone Industrial Index for the same time period.
—————————————————–
Ummm – no. I don’t think the DJII is now worth one ninth of what it was in 2007. It may be that the shape of the graph is similar, but in terms of value, there is no comparison.
I feel sorry for people whose superannuation funds invested in these turkeys.

Here’s text from an article on Seeking Alpha yesterday, for those who want to be fooled twice–or who want a good short sale candidate:

Investors who want to contribute less of a carbon footprint can do their part to invest in the ELEMENTS Credit Suisse Global Warming ETN (GWO), which tracks companies dedicated to staving off further acceleration of global warming through action and research.
………………….
GWO is focused on the U.S., Europe, Japan and Asia, covering companies from much of the globe. Companies focused on efficient energy use, nuclear energy to cut CO2 emissions, fuel cell development and bio-fuel creation are included in the note. Since an ETN is a debt note, should the institutions go bankrupt, the investors gains nothing and loses their entire investment. GWO is up 10% over the past six months and has an expense ratio of 0.75%.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1047421-etf-spotlight-global-warming

Doug Huffman

All energy, less nuclear, renews at less than 1350 W·m^-2 ~ 5kWh·m^-2·day^-1 More demand than that indebts the future as fossil fuel has done.

We took the Longyuan in the Enel all right but the Gamesa has nearly Rennix course.

Mike

This is just further evidence that the world needs a unified emissions market to correctly price fossil fuel use in light of cloaked future environmental costs. A realistic pricing mechanism for fossil fuels is critical to driving rapid and far-reaching development and implementation of renewables. Without such a mechanism renewables will always be vulnerable to short-term price fluctuations and short-term government policies.

Great graphic on this post: indeed, the artificially high price of green energy is the pointless burning of hard-earned dollar bills.

A green bubble, to accompany our late real estate bubble. What’s next?

RACookPE1978

Sounds good. Let’s correctly price fossil fuels according to their value in modern life
Let’s cut the highway fuel taxes to lower gasoline prices by $1.50 per gallon.
Cut the 75% “tax” paid to the oil barons in the Mideast, Russia, and the NOrth Sea on every barrel of oil.
Cut the 39% income tax paid by the oil companies every year on what they have earned as profits for their risks and their expenses.
Cut the DOE budget – and save money for us all.
Cut the EPA budget to, say, 2002 levels of funding. To their 2006 levels of interference in energy production and wasted regulations.

Mike

Great thinking there RACook. It’s forward thinking folk like you the world needs… Er, actually, no the world doesn’t need people like you at all – actually, the less people with suicidally short-sighted opinions the better. What, you weren’t satisfied with the hottest, most drought and flood stricken decade in human history, you want more? Insane.

D Böehm

Mike says:
“This is just further evidence that the world needs a unified emissions market…” &etc.
The world needs no such thing. CO2 emissions are completely harmless. If you disagree, I challenge you to post solid, testable evidence showing global harm as a result of rising CO2.
You don’t have a clue about either science or economics. You are simply one of the head-nodding lemmings, following the climate alarmist crowd by repeating their debunked talking points. Get a clue.

MattS

If renewables had any hope of becoming economically feasible any time in the foreseeable future they would be vulnerable to short term government policy. It’s the vary fact that they can’t compete without far greater subsidies per unit energy produced that makes them so vulnerable to government policy shifts. Your posited artificial price increase on fossil fuels is just another form of subsidy which does nothing to solve renewables vulnerability to government policy shifts.

Mike

Really?
1) Carbon dioxide has a variable radiation absorption profile. It is transparent to sunlight, but opaque to infrared.
2) The earth’s heat balance is determined by the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth vs the amount of infrared radiation radiated.
3) Excess carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to power industrial actiivity has accumulated in the atmosphere, raising the concentration of CO2 from ~280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 394 ppm now, and the rate is still rising.
4) This CO2 concentration is higher than any level experienced in the history of humanity.
5) CO2 has drastically lowered the amount of infrared radiation radiated into space by the earth, causing the earth to rapidly accumulate heat.
6) Excess heat is causing increased surface temperatures and climate instability. 2000-2010 was the warmest and most natural-disaster prone decade in record. 2010-2020 will almost certainly surpass it, resulting in at the very least billions of dollars of economic damage – in fact, Munich Re, one if the largest reinsurance companies in the world, has identified greenhouse emission-driven climate change as the cause of increasing extreme weather and resultant insurance payouts, and as an extreme challenge to both the insurance industry (society’s principal risk identification and management industry) and to the global economy in general.
Hardly harmless, I would say.

Teresa

I think the luddites are pulling a scam with “green” energy. If they were honestly concerned about CO2 induced warming they would embrace nuclear. But they killed nuclear when it showed potential to give the world cheap energy (energy truly is power) and are annoyed that those darn engineers found a way to make oil and natural gas so abundant that energy has still gotten fairly cheap. If someone invented a scheme tomorrow that could store wind energy so it was really useful these faux greenists would suddenly be up in arms about all the birds killed, the amount of mining needed to make the towers and blades, etc etc. Look at how they oppose hydro-electric and not just new dams, but the existing ones.
What they really fear is everyone having the same access to power that they do. They understand that electricity and horsepower give people personal power and they don’t like the idea of everyone being able to afford more power as it will diminish theirs in a relative sense. So every new thing that would give power to the masses must be opposed.

Gnomish

poor mike – another shattered victim of pre-traumatic stress syndrome

davidmhoffer

Mike;
What, you weren’t satisfied with the hottest, most drought and flood stricken decade in human history, you want more? Insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well Mike, I don’t know what the world needs, but I do know that there have been a lot of people in history who were certain that they knew what the world needed, and it didn’t come out well for the most part. But let’s put that aside and talk about what WUWT needs.
We need some good quality trolls Mike. You see, we’re in danger of becoming an echo chamber. Itz very tough for us not to become an echo chamber when all we get from the other side is assertions like the ones above. So, while I could respond by pointing you at facts and data which show that your claims are without merit, I decided to take a different approach this time, and simply ask you to provide facts, data, and reasoned arguments to show that your assertions are valid.
Can you do that? It would help us out a lot here. Can you provide factual data and reasoned argument to support your position? Provide evidence based science to substantiate your claims and perhaps change our minds on one issue or another?
‘cuz Mike, if you can’t, then doing what you say we should be doing would be…. insane.

John F. Hultquist

I assume the index replaces the failed companies with others that have not yet failed. As some of these fail, they too will be replaced. Soon the RENIXX will be a list of the world’s 30 smallest companies with an average life of about 6 months.
———————————-
RACookPE1978 says:
“Let’s cut the highway fuel taxes to lower gasoline prices by $1.50 per gallon.

Can you explain how you got this number and/or where you are?
http://www.washingtongasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
I’ve also read that gas taxes have not risen as rapidly as the costs of highway maintenance and construction, including, but not limited to, wages and materials. And states want to get some money out of electric vehicles by using an in-vehicle GPS.
http://www.plugincars.com/states-consider-taxing-evs-make-lost-gas-tax-revenue-106946.html
Of course if all the roads fall apart the majestic art of equine travel could re-emerge.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3160/2691152429_ca6df34921_z.jpg

Eve

“the hottest, most drought and flood sticken decade in human history” Mike are you talking about the Archean?

Steve from Rockwood

tallbloke says:
December 6, 2012 at 3:00 pm
We should never stop researching and developing clean and renewable power sources.
Rolling them out on an industrial scale was utter folly.
——————————————————————————
What would have made sense is one state-of-art facility for solar and one for wind with annual published costs per kWh, separating original investment, ongoing operating costs and long term maintenance. All with the eye of lowering these costs until they could compete with fossil fuel. At that point there would be a natural transition from fossil to renewables. But that’s not what happened.

Steve from Rockwood

John F. Hultquist says:
December 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm
———————————————-
In Ontario, for a gas price of $1.22/litre the tax works out to about $1.47/US gallon.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/driving-it-home/ontario-drivers-pay-taxes-lots-and-lots-and-lots-of-taxes/article2246486/?service=mobile

Michael Tremblay

Sorry, I stand corrected on the relationship to the DOW – but there is still a correlation between the sudden drop and the crash in 2008.
The evidence to me is that the RENIXX reacted like it was a bubble market, in that it was highly speculative supported by extensive government subsidies, and when the market collapsed the index returned to reality. The continued decline is more of an economic response to the viability of the so-called ‘green’ initiatives and the economies falling back on cheaper and more reliable energy resources instead of investing capital in large costly alternatives. I don’t think it is an example of this being the end of the search for alternate, cheaper, forms of energy, but more of people returning to core investments in response to an economic problem.

KevinK

It was all a scam from the beginning;
A few examples;
The fundamental efficiency of a photo-voltaic cell is determined by the band gap of the semiconductor material. All of the semiconductor materials have been evaluated for this performance measure years ago. They vary a little, but in general the ones that perform the best are also the most expensive (scarcity of raw materials, difficulty of manufacture, the cost of disposing of very toxic waste, etc.). Sure, there are a few alloys (man made combinations of fundamental elements) to try yet, but the chances of finding one with a conversion efficiency greater than 100% are ZERO.
Even if some really smart person found a PV material that could convert at say 99% efficiency (precluded by those pesky laws of thermodynamics,by the way) it only means that instead of covering BOTH North and South Dakota with solar cells to meet our needs we would only have to cover North Dakota. That’s OK since we would still need to fill South Dakota with storage batteries to take care of when the sun don’t shine.
And NO, Moore’s law about faster microprocessors DOESN’T apply to solar cells, it simply states that as transistors in integrated circuits get smaller (a result of better fabrication processes) the calculating power goes UP. Smaller solar cells collect less light; hence less electricity.
Sadly, there are no “breakthroughs” waiting to be found in the solar PV technology field.
These same basic laws of physics apply to the other solar energy schemes, the energy available to be collected is too diffuse and unreliable to power a modern world.
Moving on the storage batteries; if you look at the history of these devices you find that they started with Lead, Then moved to Nickel (and it’s alloys) and ended up at Lithium (about 30 plus years ago BTW). Now if you look carefully at the periodic table of elements you might notice that there are NO entries in the Lead, Nickel, Lithium column above Lithium. So until somebody finds that missing element (Lithium-Light perhaps ?) there are not likely to any “breakthroughs” in the energy density of electric storage batteries.
I won;t even discuss the stupidity of wind based “not-power” approaches.
Cheers, Kevin.

I am a teacher. I am watching this “fad” unfold in every public school in the nation. It is just starting.
In the US, forty-five states adopted the Common Core standards in 2009 and 2010 under heavy incentives from the Obama administration.
The national Common Core state education standards list what math and language-arts information and skills children should master in each grade.
The Common Core next expands into Science standards, finalized last year; integrating global warming and other overplayed worries about human impacts on the planet, starting in kindergarten to “create a foundation for ideas that build on long links of suppositions: catastrophic, man-made global warming; the evils of fossil fuels (“explain differences between renewable and nonrenewable sources of energy” in fourth grade) and the need for the Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies to strangle human liberties in order to “save the planet.”
Fifth-graders are to examine Earth’s temperature increases and believe they destroy penguin habitat and erode coral reefs.
Middle schoolers will have to accept that “human activities have significantly altered the biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere” and agree continuous monitoring is necessary to undergird “social policies and regulations that can reduce these impacts.” They also must acknowledge the “disciplinary core idea” that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (‘global warming’).”
High schoolers will have to understand that “though the magnitudes of human impacts are greater than they have ever been, so too are human abilities to model, predict and manage current and future impacts.” WashingtonTimes
Finally, in December the new Social Studies standards will be law. Capitalism is to be studied as a problem that we are now solving.
“U.S. History Standard 20 reads: The student will understand that as the United States shifted from its agrarian roots into an industrial and global power, the rise of big business, urbanization and immigration led to institutionalized racism, ethnic and class conflict, and new efforts to reform. The key concept in this standard is “institutionalized racism,” an extremely loaded construct used by those who condemn the American “system” in its entirety.” Fonte
All school children will be tested on these ideas. Schools must teach them.
I submit that Environmentalism is the fastest growing religion in the West. The dogma is strict. The priests are ruthless.(McKibben) Punishment is severe.
Fonte – http://edlibertywatch.org/2011/05/403/
WashTimes –
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/5/teaching-global-warming-in-kindergarten/

Here are the lessons my father taught me. Never buy into a fund when you don’t know what the fund either invests in, or what their investment philosophy (future strategy) is.
Never invest with a company that jumps onto every bandwagon that comes down the street.
Build your own portfolio of dividend paying stocks, not funds.
Buy dividend paying stocks in companies that have real world products that PEOPLE want.
When the market crashes, go on a buying spree, because it’s a sale on stocks.
I have never invested a dime in solar or wind, as neither is being used for it’s intended purpose, i.e. either back up power, or primary power to a small installation in some isolated corner of the world.

Caleb

RE: Teresa says:
December 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Very insightful comment, however when you say, “…They understand that electricity and horsepower give people personal power and they don’t like the idea of everyone being able to afford more power as it will diminish theirs in a relative sense…” I think you give such people more credit than they deserve.
Not that you are wrong about such people. They seem to me to be exactly as you describe. However the amazing thing is they don’t know it. They don’t see themselves in the manner that seems so obvious to others.
Just because their behavior is transparent to you does not mean they are not fooling themselves.

pat

5 Dec: Bloomberg: Torsten Fagerholm: Norway’s First Wind Farm on Hold After Lack of Political Support
Norway put development of its first planned offshore wind farm on hold until further notice, with the company involved citing a lack of political support, a setback in European efforts to boost renewable energy production.
“The necessary support for offshore wind from political leaders is absent,” causing wind power developer Vestavind Offshore AS to halt the construction of a 350-megawatt wind farm until further notice, Wenche Teigland, chairman of the board, said today on the company website…
“Either political priorities need to change, or we must wait for technological developments to make offshore wind power competitive,” Teigland said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-05/norway-s-first-wind-farm-on-hold-after-lack-of-political-support.html
7 Dec: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Fund May Use $100 Billion a Year to Encourage Carbon Price
Climate projects may be able to get private-sector finance augmented by guarantees from the fund, alongside discounted loans from government or development banks, Ishii (chief executive officer of the Global Environment Facility in Washington) said. The 24- member board of the Green Climate Fund may make loans or guarantees conditional on the recipient having the right environmental policies in place, she said.
“I know that conditionality is a very sensitive word, but from the donor point of view, if the money is to be impactful, there must be some policy environment put in place,” Ishii said…
*** Renewable subsidies in 2011, including biofuels, amounted to $88 billion, the International Energy Agency in Paris said Nov. 12. Over the period to 2035, they need to amount to $4.8 trillion, over half of which has already been committed to existing projects or needed to meet 2020 targets, it said.
The Green Climate Fund use of the private sector may blur the lines between debt and equity or potentially include mandates for outside fund managers, Abyd Karmali, head of carbon for Bank of America Corp. in London, said Nov. 2 by phone…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-06/green-fund-may-use-100-billion-a-year-to-encourage-carbon-price.html

DaveG

Anybody know how the green BBC pension fund is doing? I seem to remember it down by some 2 billion pounds? I couldn’t find anything on the net.
Just wonderin??????

Caleb

RE: John F. Hultquist says:
December 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“…I’ve also read that gas taxes have not risen as rapidly as the costs of highway maintenance and construction, including, but not limited to, wages and materials…”
In certain states, such as Massachusetts, highway workers are notorious for being the slowest, laziest and most inefficient workers imaginable. During ww2 sections of highway were built in a matter of days, while in Massachusetts there are sections of highway that have been being worked on for years, and still are not close to being finished. I think it was in Massachusetts that the expression, “To finish a job is to kill the job,” was invented.
At some point the gravy train must derail. When people can no longer afford increased gas taxes, highway workers will face reduced wages, and benefits, and pensions. It may not occur in terms of actual dollars, but rather may occur in terms of an inflation wherein a $90,000/year pension can’t buy a loaf of bread.

n.n

No, but its applications are limited and circumstantial. The methods to produce energy cannot be reasonably isolated from the environment. The technology produces energy at low densities and requires an unjustifiable dedication of land, which displaces whole populations and deprives them of their means to survive. The recovery and processing of materials to construct their components causes environmental and human damage. They are also finitely accessible. Their operation has definite and extensive impacts on both nature, wildlife, and people. The term “green” technology is an oxymoron and is merely a marketing term to obfuscate the underlying fraud.

Mooloo

2) The earth’s heat balance is determined by the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth vs the amount of infrared radiation radiated.
Give us numbers. It’s all hand-waving without numbers. Your assertions could be totally true, and yet meaningless without the scale.
Also, you appear to have left out the elephant of feedbacks. Unlike your warmist sites, we know here that the catastrophe part of AGW theory depends water feedback being large and positive. We need you to show that it is large and positive.
Most here believe the water feedback is likely to be negative. Which ruins your handwaving.