backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by Boingo Twang.. on Apr 2 at 10:03 AM

The bankruptcy filing caused a halt in Ford Transit Connect production

While the electric vehicle (EV) industry seems to be moving forward in many ways, it has also experienced some setbacks over the last year. Unfortunately, many of these setbacks involve EV batteries, and now, Ford is in the same boat.

Azure Dynamics, a British Columbia-based EV firm, has filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Azure Dynamics is responsible for installing the battery electric powertrain in Ford's Transit Connect.

Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy on Monday, and was forced to lay off 120 employees worldwide. Layoffs occurred in Boston, Michigan, Canada and the United Kingdom.

In addition to layoffs, Azure Dynamics said it will no longer proceed with a planned stock offering because the company just doesn't have the liquidity to move forward with an appeal of a ruling that opposed its planned stock offering.

"We wish to convey to the company's stakeholders our terrible sadness at this outcome," said Azure Dynamics in a statement.

Azure Dynamics received a four-year contract from the Government Services Administration for about $112 million. The contract gave the U.S. military and government agencies the ability to order the Transit Connect EV, and Azure said it had about 2,200 orders. In addition, Azure was attracted to Michigan because of the state tax credit, which is over $1.7 million over a seven-year period, and an 11-year local tax abatement approved by the city of Oak Park valued at $55,400.

On Ford's side of the situation, the bankruptcy means having to stop production of the Transit Connect EV, and it's currently unclear if this situation will be temporary or permanent.


So far, Ford has produced 500 EV Ford Transit Connect vehicles since 2010, when it began its partnership with Azure. Despite Azure's recent news of bankruptcy, Ford is standing behind the company.

"Our priority is to ensure that Azure's Transit Connect Electric customers continue to have support throughout their ownership experience," said Wes Sherwood, Ford spokesman.

Azure definitely isn't the only EV battery company (or alternative energy company) to file for bankruptcy within the past year. In January, EV battery maker Ener1 filed for bankruptcy after its subsidiary, EnerDel, received a $118 million Department of Energy grant in August 2009. Other EV battery issues that have occurred recently include General Motors' Chevrolet Volt, which experienced a series of battery fires last year, and problems with Fisker Automotive's Karma plug-in hybrid batteries, which will be replaced entirely by A123 Systems Inc. for $55 million.

Other failed alternative energy companies that have filed for bankruptcy include solar panel company Solyndra, which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the government despite warnings of Solyndra's viability, and Beacon Power, which received nearly $43 million from the government in August 2010 and filed for bankruptcy in November 2011.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 11:44:51 AM , Rating: 4
Is bursting.

This is the danger of allowing the Government to create a market artificially with public money. That's what is called a "bubble". With no real consumer demand to drive it once the grants or "loans" fueled by public money run out, the company is ultimately doomed to failure.

I know there are people who don't want to hear this, and will make this an instant -1, but we can no longer afford to fuel the "Green Goldmine" with public money in this economy while seeing so few results.

If you want green alternatives to thrive, it MUST come from the private sector and consumers. NOT Government creating a bubble. That's what the private sector does, it chooses the cheapest most efficient and profitable way to get something done. It cannot be forced to happen.




RE: The Green Bubble
By texbrazos on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By Spuke on 3/28/2012 12:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
I challenge you to explain how chump change from the government to oil companies making record profits in the BILLIONS compares to the government almost COMPLETELY funding these startups.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 4:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I challenge you to explain how chump change from the government to oil companies making record profits in the BILLIONS compares to the government almost COMPLETELY funding these startups.


Spuke there's such a massive disconnect between the two, no explanation can exist in the real world.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 4:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
A trade deficit is quite a different thing than saying "industry X received trillions in handouts". Try reading before making comments.

Unless you are calling a trade deficit a handout and blaming a corporation for it existing. In which case we can stop this debate now and label you a troll.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 4:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
Right off the bat you show yourself as a troll with the whole "war for oil" bullcrap. Are you serious with this?

quote:
Tell that to all the Iraq war vets and tax payers financing with blood and money costly wars overseas.


Wow. Not even Liberals are saying we went to war for oil anymore. You need to update your arguments.

You sound like a radical idiot who will not listen to any reason, however, this is your one chance to prove me wrong.

quote:
Try looking into the CBO and links that end with ".gov" instead.


http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43032

Oh my, what do we have here! Apparently the CBO is saying that renewable energy is far more heavily subsidized by tax carveouts than any other energy sector, including fossil fuels. The chart does not, however, take into account the level of those subsidies in proportion to the amount of energy that each sector creates. By that measure, renewables’ federal subsidies are even more lopsided. Wind energy companies, for instance, get about 1000 times the subsidies that oil companies do, per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 7:39:41 PM , Rating: 1
I respect your service and thank you for it. And, not that it should matter in an argument, I was unable to qualify for military service due to a knee disability. Otherwise I damn well would have answered the call.

However when you say things like "black cocaine" you just come off like someone who's running with a Liberal talking point.

Furthermore unless you buy into some conspiracy theory that Bush "started the war" to get his "oil buddies" more profits, the war ultimately helped destabilize the oil supply. Which I fail to see how that would benefit the country in any way. Not to mention that we didn't even secure oil when we easily had the opportunity to.

The industry didn't benefit either. Oil company profits go up and up, true. However on further analysis, we see "big oil" profit margins getting slimmer and slimmer as the cost of crude skyrockets. A situation NO business want's to be in.

In closing following your logical progression and support for alternative energy, does this mean that soon we'll be going to war with China over their rare earths that are needed to fuel the green movement?


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 8:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have to be honest that the partisan politics has been a growing thorn in my side and when I see so so many people polarized by ideology it has been tremendously discouraging and sometimes I pounce.


You and me both brother.

And no worries, we're a lot the same. I appreciate a spirited debate.


RE: The Green Bubble
By ritualm on 3/28/2012 5:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Do you realize that, without any government support, every so-called "green" energy initiative will simply die at the brainstorming stage? There is no public demand for environmentally friendly tech, and the only way to raise that is to make fossil fuel-based solutions look expensive. That it actually costs many times more than its subsidized price is not important, even from a government standpoint.

EVs without subsidies and tax breaks are priced out of reach for most companies, never mind consumers.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 5:58:55 PM , Rating: 1
No he doesn't.

The way these people talk it's almost as if fossil fuels and green energy have always been equally viable, with the only difference being that "they" picked fossil fuels first and "subsidized" it.

What a bunch of baloney.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Paj on 3/29/2012 7:29:31 AM , Rating: 1
No energy industry could survive without government subsidies. This goes for oil, gas, coal, renewables, nuclear.

The International Energy Agency has said that excessive subsidies for fossil fuels is the biggest barrier to greater takeup of renewables.

Pricing of fossil fuels fails to take direct externalities into account - transportation, refining, storage - as well as more nebulous costs such as environmental damage, the human and economic costs of conflict (re: Iraq, Nigeria). These latter factors, while definitely present, are far more difficult to put into dollar terms.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Qapa on 3/28/2012 8:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
That is quite a fallacy...

(I have no idea about the numbers so I'm going to follow yours)

Gov gets 23 cents/gallon @ pump -> from PEOPLE
Gov gives 2 cents/gallon @ pump -> to oil companies

So, it is exactly the same as giving money to finance green initiatives.

Additionally, you'd probably need to take into account, that part of oil is imported, so that is depleting the economy...

So here are the money trails:
- people -> gov (this is what you call profit from oil!!)
- people -> oil -> part to other countries
- gov -> oil -> part to other countries

This doesn't seem positive in any way... and no profit whatsoever except for oil companies, some of which might be domestic, but a large chunk is not domestic.

So, trying to break these money trails seems like a good idea... but not at any cost...

I understand and agree, giving money to finance that, should be done carefully... like, making sure that there is also some (for instance 50%) from other investors, and probably a lot more conditions.


RE: The Green Bubble
By DockScience on 3/30/2012 11:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Let me guess, you think that having the oil companies pay less of THEIR money to the gov't in taxes is the same as the Gov't cutting a check of OUR money to the oil companies.

Please


RE: The Green Bubble
By Qapa on 4/1/2012 11:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
That doesn't even make sense!

As you can easily see in the money trails I posted above:
- there is 0 money going from oil companies to gov't
- there is money going from gov't to oil companies (subsidies)


RE: The Green Bubble
By DoseOfReality on 3/28/2012 1:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
What "handouts" are the oil companies getting specifically?

From what I've seen, the government is not giving the oil industry "handouts". The government is just letting the oil industry get the same tax breaks that are available to other businesses as well. I'm all for getting rid of the tax breaks, as long as you get rid of them for all businesses that get those same types of tax beaks, and not just single the oil companies out because that serves a leftist political agenda.

Oil companies have large infrastructures to put in place, maintain etc., and a lot of risk has to be managed by them for what they do. I would consider these companies to be making excessive profits if they were reaping a much higher average profit margin that most other businesses enjoy for anywhere near the same risk/reward equation. That is simply just not the case from what I've seen.

I don't hate big profitable companies just because it is in political vogue to demonize them.


RE: The Green Bubble
By BobfromLI on 3/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
Your information is patently false at best. I accuse you of flat out lying. Anyone doing even the most minimal research on this subject would find oil companies pay massive amounts of taxes.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/top-3-us-oil-compa...

Little to nothing? Just the top 3 companies paid $42 BILLION in income taxes alone in 2010. Comparing gross profits with taxes paid, most oil companies have a tax rate in the 40% bracket!

Your comment about Exxon is especially absurd. World wide Exxon paid $89 BILLION in taxes in 2010. Tax refund? Prove it please.

Handouts and not paying taxes? Enough of the lies and rhetoric. I want these statements backed up by some facts. If you can.


RE: The Green Bubble
By ConnecticutYankee on 3/29/2012 12:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Bob I congratulate you on being an inventor. This is the spirit and innovation that drives our country forward.

However it is factual incorrect and wrong to claim the oil industry pays little or nothing in income taxes.

Most of the oil companies in the US or operating in the US are publicly traded firms. As a result anyone can pull a 10-k on these firms from the SEC.GOV or SEDAR.COM for Canadian domiciled entities and quickly determine the total tax liabilities these firms pay.

For Exxon - they paid per their 10-K in 2011 a total of $31.05 billion in income taxes, $33.503 billin in sales based taxes, and an additional $43.544 billion in all other taxes and duties for a total of $108.098 billion.

Did Exxon receive tax incentives, tax credits, depletion credits ??? Sure they did, but not enough to offset the total tax liabilities they owe the U.S. and other countries they operate in.

You can argue that the tax system should be reformed. However, to say that the oil majors pay little to no tax is wrong. They pay what they are legally obligated to remit.


RE: The Green Bubble
By knutjb on 3/29/2012 12:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
The handout as you put it is technically wrong. It is a tax deduction NOT a check from the treasury. The oil industry's write off is 6%. Huge you say! All other industrial companies have a 9% write off. Yes, just like GE and their zero tax year. The oil industry still pays tens of billions every year even with the write off. Come up for air.


RE: The Green Bubble
By lebarle on 3/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: The Green Bubble
By corduroygt on 3/28/2012 12:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if that means green house gassing us to death. Hopefully it won't kill all of us. I bet the rich ones will manage to survive.

Once you have conclusive proof that it will be disastrous for the US, we can start taxing greenhouse gases. Not only it's 100 years away, but the worse effected places will be in Africa and the US will fare just fine with a couple degrees of warming.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Spuke on 3/28/2012 1:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only it's 100 years away, but the worse effected places will be in Africa and the US will fare just fine with a couple degrees of warming.
That's very interesting. Can you hit me up with some links so I can learn more about this?

PS-Not being a smarta$$, I'm really interested.


RE: The Green Bubble
By gamerk2 on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By BobfromLI on 3/28/12, Rating: -1
RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 4:22:12 PM , Rating: 1
So the Earth has never had warming trends, increased storm activity, early cherry blossoms etc etc until the industrial revolution came along and/or people started driving cars?

And I don't think only "Faux" is telling us global warming theory is based on questionable science at best, global conspiracy at worse. Tone down the trolling, please.

I also don't see what this has to do with the topic. Electric vehicles are certainly NOT the answer to "global warming" or pollution in general. You're joking right? In countries like China and India, and even the US to a lesser extent, where large amounts of coal are used to generate power EV's would actually cause MORE CO2 production.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Dorkyman on 3/28/2012 8:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
You know what? It's raining today here in Oregon! Must be GW!

And those darn tornadoes, well surely they show us the awful effects of GW!

I'm telling you it's a conspiracy! Those news channel guys (you know, the program with all those hot women) are in bed with the Koch brothers, who live in a cave with lots of machines having lots of buttons and dials!

We're doomed! Doomed, I tell you!


RE: The Green Bubble
By Paj on 3/29/2012 7:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
Why does every major scientific academy in the world agree with the AGW data? Why is America the only industrialised nation to deny global warming?

Everyone else is wrong, only I am right.

This is the way a child thinks.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 8:42:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why is America the only industrialised nation to deny global warming?


That's an absurd statement. China is industrialized and they aren't going "green". They aren't going to be stupid like us and decide to self-suicide by putting the brakes on their economic growth because of an unproven theory.

How exactly are we "denying" global warming though? We're GOING GREEN!!! It's a huge waste of money, hurts our employment and economy, and has us on the verge of an energy crisis. But hey, nobody can say America is denying global warming. Get your freaking facts straight.

quote:
Why does every major scientific academy in the world agree with the AGW data?


Did you hear that on the news? This is an outright lie. Every academy in the world does NOT agree with AGW data.

And last year we discovered the "data" everyone was using collectively on AWG studies was purposefully manipulated to confirm the theory. Yeah that's really solid scientific method there. The IPCC is entirely discredited.

The AWG "hockeystick" made famous by Al Gore? Debunked. 100% massaged numbers and purposefully bad math.

quote:
This is the way a child thinks.


Critical thinking, questioning things, and seeking the truth for themselves? Wrong. A child would believe in AWG just because you said it was so. This is NOT how a child thinks.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Boingo Twang on 3/29/2012 3:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does every major scientific academy in the world agree with the AGW data? Why is America the only industrialized nation to deny global warming?


Maybe they don't watch Fox News in those countries.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/30/2012 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ah.. another day, another jab at Fox News using comedy news show material (that other "real" faux news.. right?). Unfortunately for you, the top "world" news channel belongs to Sky News, a Fox Affiliate. But hey, at least you got your post in and that's gotta stand for something!

Wonder how much Fox influenced all those democrats who voted "Ney" on that Obama budget? Go!


RE: The Green Bubble
By Keeir on 3/29/2012 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
What?

You make no sense whatsoever.

quote:
Why is America the only industrialised nation to deny global warming?


What is your lithmus test?

That the US never ratified Kyoto?

You do realize that Canada, New Zealand, and Australia despite "believing" in AGW and ratifying Kyoto are unable to meet thier oblications?

And of course, lets face it, many of the "countries" meeting the targets, are just shifting productions elsewhere.

The US has also had the largest reduction of C02 emissions per capita from 2000-2010 among any of the "developed" countries. At the helm of a President and Congress "opposed" to AGW. The major "damage" was done againt Kyoto obligations from 1990-2000... when AGW "supportors" were in office.

Or another way to look at it..

Between 1990-2010, the US has grown Greenhouse Emissions by ~ 5% or roughly a reduction of 12% per capita. The GDP has grown overall by ~65.5% in constant 1990 dollars. So the US has reduced Greenhouse emission by 65% per unit of GDP!

The EU27 has reduced emission ~5% from 1990-2010. The EU27 GDP has grown at ~45%. Thus in the EU27, the reduction has been roughly 65% per unit of GDP. (Per Capita its around 12%)

GASP!

The EU27 (nor the EU10, EU15, or EU25) is not doing any better of a job at reducing Greenhouse emissions per unit of GDP. The EU27 IS doing a slightly better job at Greenhouse emissions per person.

So my question is this... if the US and the EU are reducing greenhouse emissions at roughly the same rate when viewed by population and by economic activity... what does all the political rhetoric even mean?

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicat...

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do;jses...

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/datasheet/EU_reaches_500...


RE: The Green Bubble
By Keeir on 3/29/2012 4:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh..

Made a mistake. Forgot the 1-X step.

US reduced Emissions per GDP dollar ~36% from 1990 to 2010.

EU27 reduced Emissions per GDP dollar ~34% from 1990 to 2010.

IE, these figures are -roughly- the same and for EU15 and E10 groupings. It's hard to argue that Europe's "belief" in AGW has prompted them to take a stronger stance...


RE: The Green Bubble
By Boingo Twang on 3/29/2012 4:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US has also had the largest reduction of C02 emissions per capita from 2000-2010 among any of the "developed" countries.


What were the per capita and total (by country) figures for greenhouse gas production during these periods if you know, you seem well versed. Danke.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Keeir on 3/29/2012 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Read the sources.

Table 3.2 of Source 1.

US per Capita Emission 2000 to 2010 reduced overall at a 18.7% rate. Or an annual rate of 2.1%.

EU's best country, Italy, reduced overall at 16.1% rate. Or an annual rate of 1.7%. France runs a close second with a rate of 1.6%.

EU27 average? 4.8% overall and a miserally .5% annual rate.

EU15? 10.3% overall and 1.1% a year.

Its true the US starts ALOT higher per capita some of these countries. But the US is reducing emissions faster than any country per capita and per GDP in the 2000-2010 timeframe. Thanks evil president Bush who doesn't believe in AWG!


RE: The Green Bubble
By Dan Banana on 3/29/2012 7:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the total emissions by country in 2008, the latest I could find. China is number one at over 65 billion metric tons, USA number two at over 58 billion metric tons with Russia way behind at over 17 billion tons. It appears that you're trying to muddy the waters a bit by stating a per capita figure in countries that have widely disparate population figures. That's because in per capita CO2 production we here in the USA are still higher than almost every other country in the world besides Australia but their total impact is low because their population is also low.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...


RE: The Green Bubble
By Keeir on 3/29/2012 8:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
Your the one mudding the waters.

The US have done a very good job over the past 10 years in reducing US emissions in total, per person and per GDP unit. The US is the leader in essentially every reduction category whether by absolute number or by percentage. Yes, the US emitted the most in 2000, but as a country the US has done the most these past 10 years...

Emissions per GDP unit is the most important number. That is what indicates progress. IE producing the -same- welfare with less emissions, not less welfare and less emissions.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Dan Banana on 3/29/2012 10:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Emissions per GDP unit is the most important number.


That's one way to spin it but the real bottom line is how much CO2 the nations of the world are actually putting into the atmosphere not how much they are incrementally improving. Your spin is like an alcoholic proclaiming he's doing really well because he's cut down to drinking a gallon of whiskey a day from his former habit of two gallons. You imply that because we're improving we should ignore how bad we still are in total CO2 production. The USA is is having far more impact than is necessary and a most of that is caused by burning far more than is necessary in motor fuel. This situation also seriously degrades national security and trade balance because much of our oil supply has to be imported from other countries.

The flip side of that is that there's far more future economic growth in those "commie green" ideas than in the "free market" corporations paying off politicians to allow them to string along the internal combustion engine for another 100 years. China's government is spending far more than the USA gvmt. is to support future energy technologies and China also now has the world's largest producing oil company based there (Petrochina). Whining about a pittance spent in support of electric vehicles under those conditions is somewhat absurd.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03...


RE: The Green Bubble
By Keeir on 3/30/2012 12:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your spin is like an alcoholic proclaiming he's doing really well because he's cut down to drinking a gallon of whiskey a day from his former habit of two gallons.


Ummm... no offense, but if I had an alcholic friend who halved his drinking, I would congradulate him for some good first steps.

quote:
The USA is is having far more impact than is necessary and a most of that is caused by burning far more than is necessary in motor fuel.


So are Canada and Australia. Two countries that "believe" in AGW. Furthermore, Transportation accounts for less than 30% of C02 emissions in the US. Personal transportation for less than 25%. C02 itself only accounts for ~80% of the GHG emissions. The #1 factor is power plants, which are quickly moving from Coal to NG, reducing C02 per kWh significantly. Power Plants account for ~25% of the total GHG and all transportation for less than 20%.

quote:
This situation also seriously degrades national security and trade balance because much of our oil supply has to be imported from other countries.


Your pretty ignorant. Coal is a bigger problem than Oil, and its sourced domestically almost 100%. This is also a secondary arguement. C02 emissions are not even close to the same thing as oil importation. There are many many ways we could address the importation of oil. Many of these would lead to increased C02 emissions.

quote:
The flip side of that is that there's far more future economic growth in those "commie green" ideas than in the "free market" corporations paying off politicians to allow them to string along the internal combustion engine for another 100 years.


HAHAHA. You keep focusing on ICE engines, which are a relatively small part of the problem of C02 emissions! Even if we mandated no more ICE, it would take 20 years to reduce this factor of C02 emissions... and it would only be the amount we reduced it in the past 20 years -without- such drastic steps.

quote:
China's government is spending far more than the USA gvmt. is to support future energy technologies and China also now has the world's largest producing oil company based there (Petrochina).


What does this sentence even mean? That the US should domenstically drill for more oil? That you want to live in China?

You realize that the majority of this "future" technology spending is earmarked for Nuclear Power right?

quote:
Whining about a pittance spent in support of electric vehicles under those conditions is somewhat absurd.


Where did I do that?

------------------------

All in all you post is pretty misguided and ignorant. Full of complete non-sequitors.

The fundamental points I am making is that over the last 10 year (2000-2010) according to European Sources, the United States is the country that has made the most progress in reducing thier usage of C02 emitting technologies.

If this is the case, why be so critical of the meaningless words then? The US -is- making similiar if not better progress than many of the countries that endlessly spout thier concerns. Words are Wind...

In fact, comparing US to EU27 over 2000-2010, the US reduced the ton C02 per GDP unit by ~20%. The US now emits less C02 per GDP unit than Canada, Russia, and Australia. The EU27 as a group only reduced C02 emissions per GDP unit ~7% from 2000-2010. If current trends continue, the US will pass the EU27 in ~2040 for GHG emissions per unit of GDP.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Dan Banana on 3/30/2012 7:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that was a lot of typing to completely evade the point. That point is that in the total CO2 emissions by country World Championships, China is the largest emitter and the USA is number two with Russia way behind in third place.

It's great to improve and should be encouraged and good intentions to improve further are nice and all but not at the cost of self delusion. The USA is still the second largest CO2 emitter per capita and is also the second largest emitter by nation in total CO2 emissions.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 3/30/2012 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does every major scientific academy in the world agree with the AGW data?

And by "EVERY," you're referring to whatever Al Gore funds, right? Here's some "sciency" stuff from REAL scientists; but be aware, this goes against everything you were told by MSNBC and CNN. Now, I know your first instinct is going to knock the source as "biased," but do be aware there's plenty of links within the articles to read the scientific data yourself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-212...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-clima...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-pr...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/19/...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8768119/...

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/4460...

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-g...

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-209...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/...


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/2012 12:27:20 PM , Rating: 1
Another politically bigoted statement that scratches the skin of the issue but does not get to the meat.

The real issue is rules that are designed to create unbalanced trade. Contradicting your private/government hyperbole, China controls almost all of the rare earth material trade which is the lifeline of the green industry and Chinese subsidized industries are out-competing American businesses through unfair trade practices. Americans cannot build solar panels or batteries cheap enough because the Chinese government helps Chinese industries unlike the privatized model in the U.S.

It is so stupid to make this an Obama-big-government argument. If most Americans continue this political bigotry instead of addressing REAL issues our economy will continue to decline because of 24-hour cable news addicted, brainwashed voters.


RE: The Green Bubble
By danjw1 on 3/28/2012 12:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
I would also not that both the US and EU recently filed a complaint with ITC, I think it was. So there is some hope this situation can be rectified.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Spuke on 3/28/2012 1:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another politically bigoted statement that scratches the skin of the issue but does not get to the meat.
Did you even read his post? I thought it was very reasonable not to mention he didn't even use the word Obama nor did he say democrats. What is it with questioning the government that ruffles peoples feathers so much? You seem like the kind of person that wouldn't question anything until the Gestapo shows up at your door then you'd wonder why nothing was done before.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/2012 1:09:57 PM , Rating: 1
It is not reasonable in the sense that this was clearly a political attack.

You are completely right that he did not mention Obama nor did he say Democrats, but he outlined all the stereotypes that draw a distinction between Republicans and Democrats on political issues that address the role of government in business.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/2012 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 1
I have to add I do sound harsh and I do apologize. I was annoyed because there is a great deal of ambiguity in his opinion. The part that annoyed me most was the political context while ignoring the primary issue that we simple cannot make products cheap enough when American businesses pay for materials more than their competitors. Both the Chinese government and their domestic industries work together to rig the market in their behalf all the while privatized American businesses fall one at a time.

It is sad that a citizen would praise the demise of a business for political clout.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 1:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is not reasonable in the sense that this was clearly a political attack.


I vehemently object to that accusation. Perhaps an ideological difference, but political attack? No.

Now if you're quite done trolling and putting words in my mouth, deal with the issue at hand please.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Amedean on 3/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Green Bubble
By ritualm on 3/28/2012 5:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amedean wrote:
Contradicting your private/government hyperbole, China controls almost all of the rare earth material trade which is the lifeline of the green industry and Chinese subsidized industries are out-competing American businesses through unfair trade practices. Americans cannot build solar panels or batteries cheap enough because the Chinese government helps Chinese industries unlike the privatized model in the U.S.


Wait a minute, you're blaming China for being farsighted enough to not fall for the immediate allure of short-term profits? What unfair trade practices? China got hold of so many rare-earth mines in questionable locales most Western powers wouldn't dare step foot on.

US EU and others are whining that China now has an iron grip on the stuff because Plan B? What Plan B? Nobody outside China has a Plan B for rare-earths. What unfair trade practices? Yall screwed the pooch and now you're gonna pay for that.


RE: The Green Bubble
By SigmundEXactos on 3/28/2012 12:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
Beacon Power is fine now -- they were bought out by Rockland Capital, who has since rehired all of the employees, reopened their MA plant, and will build a second plant in PA.

Solyndra bet that the price of PV panels will drop by a factor of 3 by the time they go to market. It dropped by close to a factor of 10 -- a combination of better technologies and Chinese subsidies.

The "Green Market" is booming quite nicely. Some will inevitably fail.

We need to invest in these American companies, or else we'll end up in a future where all of the advanced technology will be owned by other nations.


RE: The Green Bubble
By johnsmith9875 on 3/28/2012 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
The government subsidized nuclear power, the rail system, the highway system, water plants, etc...


RE: The Green Bubble
By TSS on 3/28/2012 4:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's more a problem of electing buffoons for leaders. Essentially there's nothing wrong for government to invest in something not comercially viable. You got a lot back from those investments in NASA back in the 60's. That still is hardly commercially viable, yet little good has come from reducing NASA's budget.

Thing is though, with NASA it was a matter of national pride rather then corperate interests. If the same zeal would've been applied to the energy policy, you'd see large loans and subsidies for nuclear reactors, fusion research and none going towards windmills and solar panels (well a little bit, it's good to diversify).

Instead corperate interests have convinced (read: paid off) your political leaders to create a market that didn't exist before so they could profit off it. And somebody has, all that money for loans and whatnot can't simply have vanished into nothingness. Somebody somewhere got very rich. And alotta people got very poor, technically speaking.

You should elect leaders that uphold your national interests above corperate interests. Hint: there's none in the next election. Well maybe ron paul. Only problem with him is he wants to return to a system that is simply not going to work in the modern age. Maybe his son will have better luck only i've got the feeling he's as indoctrinated as the rest of them, just by a different side.


RE: The Green Bubble
By Boingo Twang on 4/2/2012 10:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the danger of allowing the Government to create a market artificially with public money. That's what is called a "bubble". With no real consumer demand to drive it once the grants or "loans" fueled by public money run out, the company is ultimately doomed to failure.


Sure, just like happened with the Toyota Prius after there were no more tax credit/tax cut incentives for purchasing one right? Prius sales continue to rise despite the factory and suppliers being completely out of commission for awhile then slowed due to the 2011 Japanese tsunami, nuclear plant disaster and earthquake.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki