Economic Stimulus Package: No Stimulus for Green Energy

Green energy is not considered essential to the economy.

When Congress started putting together an economic stimulus package, many hoped that it would include tax breaks for green energy. After all, tax incentives for businesses are included, and many had hoped that wind and solar companies like First Solar (FSLR) would be helped. Such an incentive would also have boosted values of clean energy ETFs like Wilderhill Energy (PBW). While these investments are indeed up right now, much of the market is improving, erasing losses -- especially in the energy sector, thanks to hopes that the economic stimulus package will forestall a US recession.

Stimulating green energy would set the stage for a more energy independent economy down the road. Instead, we are stuck more or less with the status quo. Big Oil companies like Exxon (XOM) remain firmly entrenched in the energy economy, receiving their preferential tax treatment. And, if this economic stimulus does work, oil prices are likely to increase again, bringing further benefit to Big Oil.

But the fact that Congress refused to put in additional funding for green energy illustrates an important point about all this economic stimulus: It's not very forward-thinking. Instead, the economic stimulus in question focuses a great deal on a short-term fix, rather than a long-term fundamental change. It's reactionary when it should be visionary.

Besides, the current economic stimulus efforts completely ignore the cyclical nature of markets and the economy. Rather than fixing anything in the long term, a belief that the stock market must always be rising, and that economic growth must always be at a fast pace, we are introducing more instability into the market. The currency policies set the stage for bigger problems -- problems that can't be fixed with a little "confidence" and some cosmetic "economic stimulus" -- down the road.

While a tax rebate is nice, and it might bring you a little help in your personal finances at this time, it does nothing to address problems of debt that affect the economy. Nor does it do anything to change our energy economy. And that means in a few years we are likely to be in this same place again.

Disclosure: I do not own stock in any of the companies listed above.

Comments

[kingcityguru]

Day4Energy has the most efficient solar panel on the market, but I bet few of the globalwarminmongers who post on HuffPo have even considered installing anything like it -- it is far more satisfying to tell others how much toilet paper to use.
Nuclear generated electricity is also CO2 and air pollution-free, but, again, it is far more satisfying to tell everyone that they should close their businesses and live by the schedule of sunlight.
Please. Solutions to the "problem" are all around, but I have a feeling that the real problem that these environmentalists want to solve is capitalism and industrialization.

[joebhed]

You're right about two things - there's nothing in the $160 LARGE for green energy choices.
And, the whole "stimulus" charade is, well, less than stimulating.
The best hope for making the right funding decisions in support of green or alternative energy options is the carbon-tax.
NOW.
Not to be confused with the supposedly more traditional Emissions Cap and Trade Program(ECTP).
These ECTPs are for those who are fond of risk and payoffs.
They take the money we decide is needed to solve the carbon problem and then they turn it into carbon-futures and derivatives and carbon-fut­ure-hedge-­funds and things and put them out there in some international betting market that we have no control over.
And, hope for the best!
No. We MUST plan our way out of the huge hole we are in when it comes to the carbon economy.
That plan must include decisions on the social, economic and health/env­ironmental consequences of a myriad of higher-cost energy choices.
There must be a flow of capital from consumers and taxpayers for funding investments by producers of our future energy supplies.
The carbon tax is the most direct funding mechanism that is available to the people and its government in order to assure that timely and strategic investments are undertaken in support of achieving our environmental goals relating to climate.
Others may laud private incorporation and borrowing to see that our goals are met. This is fine.
Private and public partnerships can also be pursued wherever they make sense.
Carbon taxes can support a variety of financial marketing schemes as long as they are used to achieve the goals of a carbon-constrained economy.
On the other hand, this is the public's money. It should be used to foster the development of appropriate technology in a manner that results in the least cost to the consumers who are paying for it.
Kind of like an energy cooperative.
The tremendous benefits of greener energy solutions ensure that these developments will be supported.
So, where does the money come from?

[Advocate123]

If you want Green Energy, go build it; it is completely legal.

I'm serious, go find someone who knows how to make it, incorporate with some wealthy environmentalist, or take out a loan, and build it for a profit.

I'm so sick of liberals just lying back and waiting for the government to vote them stuff they had not part in contributing.