From the NewsHour:
Online NewsHour: Report | Investing in Green Business | May 29, 2008 | PBS

The story goes on to cover the current investment climate, noting on the one hand, the massive investments being made,
and on the other hand, the much larger investments needed to bring dozens of technologies into large scale development, from which many will fail.
Now the venture capitalists funding much of the green tech are out of Silicon valley, people who think in revolutionary evolution of technology, of markets, and of society.

With current annual investment of $5B coming from computer, network, and software people who have cashed out and are now looking for something bigger, one wonders where the oil companies are.

Exxon posted over $40B in profits last year.

One might think they would be a decade ahead of "outsiders" who come from software ventures.

And if that were true, Exxon would be building these plants like crazy so they could free themselves from the tyranny of dictators and despots and authoritarians.

But, that would require more risk than depending on governments, like Chavez, Iran, Saudi Arabia, to restrict the supply of oil, and help them make huge profits on the oil they "own".

The risk isn't with the technology, but with the price. If Exxon brings into production even a small biofuel plant from algae, then not only would Shell, Chevon, BP, et al rush to do the same, but so would lots of new startups in energy, but large existing corporations like ADM, Monsanto, and then disaster would happen: the price of fossil oil would fall as supply expands, and Exxon would lose all the profits on the oil it "owns" while getting the same rate of return on its biofuel investments as ADM, Monsanto, Dow, BP, which would be a massive drop in profits.

The solution is a carbon tax on the fossil fuels - that will not only reduce Exxon's current profits, it will forever penalize Exxon if it persists in ignoring the green revolution. So, for Exxon, it must not only fight to prevent a carbon tax, but it must also fight anything that allows its competitors entering the petro market with biofuels, whether it is BP or Chevron or ADM or Monsanto.

Of course, if Exxon does not prevent the green biofuels fom hitting the market, its profits will plummet and almost everyone with a car will be much happier, those who aren't will be Exxon stockholders.

Now the speculators are really those like the heads of Exxon and the House of Saud and Chavez. How long can they keep the price of oil much higher that the cost of biofuel, and what is the price of biofuel in five years? They need to keep the price high until the green tech tippng point of no return, and then flood the market to drive prices down so the green tech looks like a loser, killing off the key investments, and then after a few years, cut production and jack up prices.

In the 70s, OPEC cut production, drove up prices and their profits, then they expanded, throwing investment into a tailspin, then the cut production, but too soon, before all the new investment had been killed. By about 82, new oil was coming online, the switch was on to move from oil for electric to gas and coal to electric, and cars got much better mileage.

In probably hurt OPEC that Europe and Japan really jacked up gas taxes so their oil consumption fell, plus Europe and Japan started massive alternative energy projects.

But Europe and Japan, even with twice the population, consumes half the oil of the US. So, the question is, will the US embark on a green energy revolution and aggressively push to make the US energy balance green, and thus drive biofuels to half the current price of oil for decades? Or will the US stay on the path of low energy price complacency followed by high energy price crisis followed by low prices followed by crisis....?

The latter would likely cause the US to again lose its green energy lead just as Reagan ensured would happen in the 80s.

Have they been able to slow down ethanol in places north of here like MN, NE, IA and MO? I see a great deal of ethanol in those states. I am not sure they can get in the way of this trend, they only cut themselves in the throat when they allow the price of gas to go up every ten cents. It will cost us more money due to oil getting jacked up but eventually the technology and truth to using bio-types of energy will have to overtake this. Too bad Al Gore has not been in the White House since 2000, we would already be moving agressively towards this.

Even if Al Gore had won in a landslide and brought huge majority in the House, the Senate would have killed any attempt to pass a carbon tax phase in that would have doubled the price of gasoline to $2 a gallon, so the pocket book pressure to find alternatives wouldn't have existed.

Only Bush could have imposed the current $3 a gallon carbon tax, and Bush managed to pass this carbon tax in conjunction with 80% this tax money going in foriegn aid to dictators, despots, terrorists, and enemies.

Further, Al Gore wouldn't gotten his carbon tax imposed in almost the entire world like Bush has.

If Al Bore had been elected in 2000 the entirety of NYC would have been bombed into rubble by Islamic terrorists, our oil refineries and distribution system would have followed suit, and the American people would be more concerned with scrapping up their next meal, than worrying about alternative fuels. This country would much more closely resemble Northern Mexico, than a flourishing nation with a GNP of nearly $14 trillion.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Teak, come on now Cat is such a big fan of Gore, the man that couldn't carry his own home state. Saint Al is just too smart for us.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

That's because Islam allows faithful Muslims to use their minds to take knowledge and create bombs and then teleport them thousands of miles away???

I find it amazing that people both say Saddam was incredibly rich and had vast sums of money to build bombs and missiles to attack the US (or Israel) when he failed to do much harm to Iran's centers of power or industry while borrowing hundreds of billions plus spnding billions in oil money over an eight year in war against its neighbor with the US competing with Russia to provide it military aid.

You clearly must feel that your life has been virtually destroyed by the failure to get rid of Castro who has been characterized as the same threat as Saddam was for decades.

But let's focus on what Gore couldn't have accomplished that Bush did:

-Gore couldn't have imposed a $3 a gallon carbon tax.

-Gore couldn't have convinced people that conservatives are either clueless or they hate their children and grandchildren and as a result they are destroying the future.

Rob---I know you are trying to be funny but I am a fan of no one really. Al Gore happens to be the guy who ran against Bush in 2000, insert 'Joe Shmo' against Bush in 2000 and we would have been better off. I doesn't matter at this point, Al Gore is on the other side and you don't like that. Actually, I hate to admit this but it is true, we would have been way better off with having John McCain be the Republican nominated in 2000. He probably would have brought in a much different VP.

And, BTW Teak---there is absolutley no proof that terrorist attacks would have been worse with Al Gore in office. You are being your typical 'dark cloud.' I can assure you that the aftermath of a 9/11 would have been handled much better and Bin Laden would have been caught ASAP bringing much more support for us in the ME.

To be very honest, Gore would have been easily much more 'Mr. Reach Across the Aisle' than Bush ever promised to be. Clinton actually worked with a Republican Congress on a number of things; Bush has been Mr. Veto and not listenening to anyone. Gore would have continued to work with the entire Congress. With how out of control spending got with the Republican controled Exec/Legis Gore would have been a good foil to balance poor spending habits...and likewise a Rep controled congress would have been a good foil to not have Gore impose too many taxes. This has little to do with Gore and more to do with having balanced government in this day and age. In many cases, a government that ties its own hands with balance from both sides is a good one ...they control themselves from spending too much. With all these guys becoming 'professional legislators' having either party in total power is not good. We are about to thave totally controled government from the Democratic side, that is not necessarily good but it is a backlash from the very poor governance we have had with Bush and the current Bush/Cheney/Frist/Delay/Hastert controled disaster that has been going on.

But it has taken Bush to really marginalize Republican moderates and those who dare think independently from the Bush campaign strategists or K-street. Of those Republicans who dared challege Bush, only McCain remained in the fight and survived. But he didn't survive because of Bush or the Republican party leadership left after Bush purged the party of those willing to cross the partisan divide outside the parameters of Bush's political campaign.

Bush partnered with Kennedy in order to win the support of the retired, buying their votes with the medicare drug plan. Of course that plan also met the demands of K Street for corporate welfare for the dug companies.

The coalition of people assembled by Christie Todd Whitman before the 2004 election, which was expanded with Bloomberg further distancing himself from the Republican party and linking up with her and other marginalized moderate Republican coalitions, were the Republican "big whigs" who have been trying to move the Republican party to a new, or perhaps old, philosophy, but they didn't jump firmly behind McCain, nor did McCain join with them.

Clearly the Republican voters rejected those who were in the style of Bush, and then basically floundered in finding an alternative, some settling on McCain, others on Ron Paul who is much more pragmatic than Bush even with his rhetoric.

[[[I'm convinced that if Ron Paul was in a position where he had the responsibiity on something like "fixing" Social Security and Medicare, he and Ted Kennedy would hammer out an agreement that would incorporate Ron Paul's principles and his pragmatism, as well as Ted's goals and pragmatism. Ron Paul, in such a position, wouldn't stomp out of the room and say, "It's my way or nothing - let American go bankrupt if I don't get my way." And Ted Kennedy has worked with Bush and McCain and others with deep ideologic differences in order to do what was possible, rather than doing nothing.]]]

McCain doesn't serve as the new Republican party leader or the person who can unify and rebuild the Republican party. He clearly lacks anything like a majority among the Republicans who were in the party in 1990 or even 2000.

The excitment behind Obama is the potential many see for uniting the Clinton faction, the Democrats who left the party over the past several decades, and the people who supported the "rogues" like Dean, Edwards, et al., and the get along to work together middle of the roader Al Gore.

True 'nuff...having gridlock isn't all bad...better than a rubber stamp in either direction.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

~ Pat Paulsen for President