Bright Side of the Bail-out

Maybe you’re pretty down about the bail-out bill.  You’re thinking that it will use US money (that we don’t have) to make sure that high-level people in sketchy companies don’t suffer too much, while plenty of Americans continue to lose their houses…and their retirement savings.

Well, if the humor in this skit about the financial crisis didn’t make you feel better, I have something that might do the trick.

Recall that many of us were worried because the tax credits for renewable energy were set to expire this year.  If congress didn’t pass a bill to renew them, many solar and wind projects would be doomed and many renewable energy companies would suffer.  But then the financial crisis hit the floor of the senate and house, and we worried that it would over-shadow the critical and urgent need to renew those wind and solar tax credits.

Well, it seems that a spark of wisdom struck our legislators! What if we kill two birds with one stone?  What if we bolster renewable energy to stimulate the economy???  It’s true, my friends! The bail-out bill includes an extension of the tax credits for renewable energy! The Solar Electric Power Association summarizes the tax extensions for solar:

By a vote of 263-171, the U.S. House of Representatives passed historic legislation that extends the 30-percent federal investment tax credit for both residential and commercial solar installations for 8 years.

This legislation will:

• Extend for 8 years the 30-percent tax credit for both residential and commercial solar installations;
• Eliminate the $2,000 monetary cap for residential solar electric installations, creating a true 30-percent credit;
• Eliminate the prohibition on utilities from benefiting from the credit;
• Allow Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) filers, both businesses and families, to take the credit; and
• Authorize $800 million for clean energy bonds for renewable energy generating facilities, including solar.

Hope this cheers your day!

Who will keep the cancer away?

About a month ago, the nation heard that Deborah Rice, an award-winning toxicologist was removed from an EPA panel investigating the toxicological effects of “deca”,a flame retardant used widely in electronics. Their reasoning? There was a “conflict of interest” because she openly believed the chemical was harmful. Nevermind that her “opinion” was based on years of research. I don’t understand why the chemical companies who pressured for her removal weren’t charged with the “conflict of interest”. Who really has more to lose? If deca gets banned, the chemical companies producing it lose millions of dollars. If deca doesn’t get banned…well, nothing changes. Rice doesn’t lose any money, just peace of mind. Who is really looking out for themselves, and who is looking out for the “common well-being”?

I was really upset to hear more news today that the very organizations that we rely on to protect us from harmful substances (EPA, FDA) are relying on producers with financial stakes rather than publicly funded science to make their decisions. And we wonder why we see such high incidences of cancer today…

Well, I was happy to read that some people have recognized this problem and are trying to do something about it. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is looking into the chemical industry’s influence on science in the EPA. It may be too late to protect us from deca (and hundreds of other toxins already prevalent in our environment), but hopefully this is a step in the right direction. Why do people really value economic profits over the health of our communities? Wealth can help fund research to combat cancer, but we can be so much wealthier and healthier if we prevent toxins from getting into our environment in the first place, like this legislation is trying to do.