![]() | Oilwatch Monthly - June 2008 | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil Media: Simmons Says Raised Saudi Oil Output Is 'Drop in Bucket' on Bloomberg | ![]() |
38 comments on Senate blocks debate of clean energy tax credits
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
38 comments on Senate blocks debate of clean energy tax credits
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base.”
—Bruce Sterling
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I wonder which would save the US more fossil fuel energy - stopping the 2 million immigrants we have each year, or continuing a credit that facilitates people putting up windmills and solar arrays in their backyards? In order for them to be equal in value I think the bill would have to encourage 2 million new people a year to produce enough energy from backyard renewables to equal 100% of the energy they consume each year. Or 4 million a year to get half. Or 8 million a year to produce a quarter of the energy they use from backyard renewables.
It reminds me of the article in which Tad Patzek suggested that talking about energy solutions without addressing population growth was like mopping the floors with the faucets still running. It also brings to mind Albert Bartlett's wonderful talk regarding mankinds' failure to understand the exponential function.
You need an analysis of cost effectiveness. What would it cost to stop all 2 million immigrants we have each year (accepting that figure)? It's not just an "equal value" question as you have it. It might turn out that stopping 2 million immigrants costs 100 billion dollars, while encouraging a reduction-in-demand of 0.66% nationally (the equivalent of 2 million people going off-grid) would cost 10 billion dollars.
Further, putting just 10 billion dollars towards tighter borders might be totally ineffective - as most border control measures have proved to be so far. So spending on energy efficiency might make sense even if coupled with relaxed immigration policies. Not saying that's so, just pointing out it's a more complex equation than you suggest.