Green-friendly President Bush signs Energy Policy Act of 2005

Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm?news_id=9269

When President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law on August 8th, he set the stage for the first federal tax credits for solar energy systems on homes in 20 years. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), homeowners and businesses will receive a credit of up to 30 percent of the cost of installing a solar power system or a solar hot water system. The solar energy tax credit is capped at $2,000 for each type of system, and applies to the cost after accounting for any state and utility incentives. It applies to systems that are placed in service in 2006 or 2007. Homeowners will also earn a tax credit for installing fuel cells, and businesses will earn a tax credit for installing either fuel cells or microturbines. See the SEIA summary of the solar tax credits and see pages 1373 to 1390 of the energy act

Note in bold that this is after any state or utility incentives.

This is the kind of responsible environmentalism that we need and could only be brought to you by a rational conservative legislature. Don't just smack restriction upon restriction on energy suppliers and expect that to keep energy cheap and the pollution down, help give the people calling for lower energy costs and less pollution a way to start making it happen themselves.

I'm sure in Cali, I have a few other incentives to take advantage of, so I could very well be putting one of these in next year.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
I shall invoke Godwin.

Hitler was kind to his mother. That doesn't make him a poster child for humanity.

Don't get me wrong, I like these credits, and hat's off to whoever added it.

IIRC Bush hasn't vetoed a spending bill yet. I have no idea if he was for or against this specific part. Considering how his administration has stacked "scientific" commisions with non scientists to guarantee a specific outcome, I am doubtful that this was a priority.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,500
6,044
126
Sounds good, but will wait for the part that mucks it up in some fashion. Hopefully it spurs some interest and use by those it targets though.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Sounds good, but will wait for the part that mucks it up in some fashion. Hopefully it spurs some interest and use by those it targets though.

It should target everybody. The savvy will see this as a chance to lower their bills and increase the value of their home since solar panels last practically forever. The environmentally sensitive, who hasn't already taken the plunge, can afford to do it now.

But what I love about it is it gives the power to the people. Go wave angry signs at marches all you want, this is a chance to put your money where your mouth is if you're an enviro-nut and stop bitching and waiting for big government to solve all the world's problems.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I shall invoke Godwin.

Hitler was kind to his mother. That doesn't make him a poster child for humanity.

It's funny, whenever I bring up Nazi Germany during an abortion debate the board concensus is that I've taken the argument to an irrational level, but using Hitler as a metaphor for Bush is just fine.

Mother Theresa sinned once. That doesn't make her Hitler.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Do you always give bush credit for congressional bills to the president and give congress the blame when you dont' like the outcome? Oh wait, that's not true, it was always clintons fault, and it's always bush's victory regardless of what happened, who passed the bill or what it's contents were.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Do you always give bush credit for congressional bills to the president and give congress the blame when you dont' like the outcome? Oh wait, that's not true, it was always clintons fault, and it's always bush's victory regardless of what happened, who passed the bill or what it's contents were.

Do you always blame Bush for every decision made by the government including, for example, the almost unanimous decision by Congress to use military force against Iraq?
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: rahvin
Do you always give bush credit for congressional bills to the president and give congress the blame when you dont' like the outcome? Oh wait, that's not true, it was always clintons fault, and it's always bush's victory regardless of what happened, who passed the bill or what it's contents were.

Do you always blame Bush for every decision made by the government including, for example, the almost unanimous decision by Congress to use military force against Iraq?

No I don't, but I do like pointing out your hypocrisy. Thank you drive through.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
The only green thing President Bush is friendly to comes in denominations of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100.



Come back to this thread when you have something useful to add.

I beleive this bill also had more subsidies for power and other green energy sources.
 

MicroChrome

Senior member
Mar 8, 2005
430
0
0
Wow...

I just can't believe it! I figured Bush would go out of office and I'd still be telling myself he has not done ONE good thing...

But, now... I guess there is something that he did that is in the right direction it seems.

Hmmm, maybe he will start using the outter edges of his brain and we might be able to eek out a few more good things?

;)

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Wow...

I just can't believe it! I figured Bush would go out of office and I'd still be telling myself he has not done ONE good thing...

But, now... I guess there is something that he did that is in the right direction it seems.

Hmmm, maybe he will start using the outter edges of his brain and we might be able to eek out a few more good things?

;)



This howver is not the first green friedly thing he has done.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: charrison

Come back to this thread when you have something useful to add.

I beleive this bill also had more subsidies for power and other green energy sources.

:roll: That's quite a meaningful contribution you made yourself there, tiger!

I just didn't want to disappoint "HeroofPellinor" by failing to rise to his ridiculous troll title. There has NEVER been a less "green-friendly" president than President Bush.

This is a good example of his Orwellian "green-friendliness":

The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing relaxed grazing limits on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.

A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less-stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.


A BLM official acknowledged changes were made in the analysis but said they were part of a standard editing and review process and were based on "good science."

Critics often complain that the Bush administration has made a practice of distorting scientific studies to weaken regulations to serve its political objectives. Philip Cooney, a White House official who previously worked as an oil-industry lobbyist, resigned last week amid accusation that he repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplayed links between greenhouse-gas emissions and global warming.

Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land in 11 Western states, set the conditions under which ranchers may use that land, and guide government managers in determining how many cattle may graze, where, and for how long without harming resources.

The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The BLM now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals."

Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general."

Also removed was language saying how the rules changes could affect endangered species adversely.

"This is a whitewash; they took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees," said Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist in Nevada and a 30-year BLM employee who retired this year. Campbell wrote sections of the report pertaining to impacts on wildlife and threatened and endangered species. "They rewrote everything. It's a crime," he said.

Former BLM hydrologist Bill Brookes, who assessed the rules' impact on water resources, said in the original draft that the proposed rule change is "an abrogation of (BLM's) responsibility under the Clean Water Act."

"Everything I wrote was totally rewritten and watered down," Brookes said Thursday. "Everything in the report that was purported to be negative was watered down. Instead of saying, in the long term, this will create problems, it now says, in the long term, grazing is the best thing since sliced bread."

Campbell and Brookes were among more than a dozen BLM specialists who contributed to the environmental-impact statement (EIS). The others could not be reached or did not return calls seeking comment.

Ranchers hailed the rules.

"We're hopeful that some of the provisions will strengthen the public-lands grazing industry and give our members certainty in their business," said Jenni Beck of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "We are encouraged that this EIS demonstrates the benefits of grazing on public lands."

Vast acreage is needed to support a comparatively small number of livestock because topsoil is thin and grass generally is sparse in the arid West. Only 2 percent of U.S. beef is produced from cattle on public lands.

The new rules, published yesterday by the BLM, a division of the Department of Interior, ensure ranchers expanded access to public land and require federal land managers to conduct protracted studies before taking action to limit that access.

The rules reverse a long-standing agency policy that gave BLM experts the authority to determine quickly if livestock grazing is inflicting damage. The regulations also eliminate the agency's obligation to seek public input on some grazing decisions. Public comment will be allowed but not required.

Concerns about the condition of much Western grazing land have been heightened by persistent drought that has denuded pastures in some areas, causing BLM managers to close some pastures, and leading many ranchers to sell their herds.

The new rules mark a departure from grazing regulations adopted in 1995 under President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Those regulations reflected the view of range scientists that a legacy of overgrazing in the West had degraded water resources, damaged native plant communities and imperiled wildlife.

"It's an explicit rollback," Thomas Lustig, staff attorney for the National Wildlife Federation in Boulder, Colo., said of the new rules. "What (Interior Secretary Gale Norton) did was take Babbitt's regs and found parts where they could put a hurdle in to undermine the reforms."

BLM officials said the new rules represented a step forward in improving the agency's management of livestock grazing.

Bud Cribley, the agency's manager for rangeland resources, said the report was written by specialists from different BLM offices. When it was finished, in November 2003, the agency believed it "needed a lot of work," Cribley said.

"We disagreed with the impact analysis that was originally put forward," he said. "There were definitely changes made in the area of impact analysis. We adjusted it.

"The draft that we published we felt adequately addressed the impacts. We felt the changes we did make were based on good science."
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: charrison

Come back to this thread when you have something useful to add.

I beleive this bill also had more subsidies for power and other green energy sources.

:roll: That's quite a meaningful contribution you made yourself there, tiger!

I just didn't want to disappoint "HeroofPellinor" by failing to rise to his ridiculous troll title. There has NEVER been a less "green-friendly" president than President Bush.

His post certainly did carry more signficance than your previous post.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
well, good :thumbsup:

but doing one thing right can't make up for 10 things done wrong.

but it's always nice to see good things come out of washington -- it happens so rarely.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
You sign enough bills and spend enough money, you're bound to get one thing right.

I wish people would remember the old saying two wrongs don't make a right.

Partisanship really sickens me.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: rahvin
Do you always give bush credit for congressional bills to the president and give congress the blame when you dont' like the outcome? Oh wait, that's not true, it was always clintons fault, and it's always bush's victory regardless of what happened, who passed the bill or what it's contents were.

Do you always blame Bush for every decision made by the government including, for example, the almost unanimous decision by Congress to use military force against Iraq?

They didn't make the decision to use force...Bush did. They simply passed a resolution "allowing" it using the false and doctored intelligence that Bush and the PNAC crew passed to them. Not even close on that one.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Wow...

I just can't believe it! I figured Bush would go out of office and I'd still be telling myself he has not done ONE good thing...

But, now... I guess there is something that he did that is in the right direction it seems.

Hmmm, maybe he will start using the outter edges of his brain and we might be able to eek out a few more good things?

;)

I can think of several good things the Bush administration has done. Tsunami relief, relocated persecuted ethnic minority out of Europe to the US, the recent Moroccan POW issue, etc. They're just not reported often, but his mistakes generally outweigh them.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Opposing Kyoto automatically means someone is green-friendly to me.

Please, Kyoto is a joke and there are damn good reasons not to participate. The solution would have been to dump serious money into alternative research
(fusion) which we haven't done either but that doesn't mean we should have signed Kyoto.
 

MicroChrome

Senior member
Mar 8, 2005
430
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Wow...

I just can't believe it! I figured Bush would go out of office and I'd still be telling myself he has not done ONE good thing...

But, now... I guess there is something that he did that is in the right direction it seems.

Hmmm, maybe he will start using the outter edges of his brain and we might be able to eek out a few more good things?

;)



This howver is not the first green friedly thing he has done.


Was that before or after he said he wanted spend less vs. effienctly...

Ie, make products cheaper but at the expense of using more power to operate them ... IE Washers, AC, Heaters...Etc...etc...
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Opposing Kyoto automatically means someone is green-friendly to me.

Please, Kyoto is a joke and there are damn good reasons not to participate. The solution would have been to dump serious money into alternative research
(fusion) which we haven't done either but that doesn't mean we should have signed Kyoto.

My post was not sarcastic but serious. I believe Kyoto to be anti-environmental (and pro-colonialism).
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,500
6,044
126
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Opposing Kyoto automatically means someone is green-friendly to me.

Please, Kyoto is a joke and there are damn good reasons not to participate. The solution would have been to dump serious money into alternative research
(fusion) which we haven't done either but that doesn't mean we should have signed Kyoto.

Strange, Kyoto would/does force those who signed it to do something, including dumping money into alternatives. You may have rejected that which brings about what you wish for.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Wow...

I just can't believe it! I figured Bush would go out of office and I'd still be telling myself he has not done ONE good thing...

But, now... I guess there is something that he did that is in the right direction it seems.

Hmmm, maybe he will start using the outter edges of his brain and we might be able to eek out a few more good things?

;)

I can think of several good things the Bush administration has done. Tsunami relief, relocated persecuted ethnic minority out of Europe to the US, the recent Moroccan POW issue, etc. They're just not reported often, but his mistakes generally outweigh them.

In terms of environment, he also has the Methane to Markets, which I believe was initiated before Kyoto was finally in action, and has that recent 'Beyond Kyoto' announcement as well.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,504
566
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I shall invoke Godwin.

Hitler was kind to his mother. That doesn't make him a poster child for humanity.

Don't get me wrong, I like these credits, and hat's off to whoever added it.

IIRC Bush hasn't vetoed a spending bill yet. I have no idea if he was for or against this specific part. Considering how his administration has stacked "scientific" commisions with non scientists to guarantee a specific outcome, I am doubtful that this was a priority.

Link that Hitler was kind to his mother?