http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592843603174132.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
As one could infer from the recent elections, the approval rating for the current government is very low. Not all, but a lot has to do with the economy. With the rising tension especially over the budget, the top financial advisers are working day and night to solve this issue. One idea being debated about is cutting funding and subsidies to the renewable energy industries. Obama's advisers explain this move because they say that essentially the tax payers are investing in these projects and they think that their money may be able to go further and have a greater impact elsewhere. If the government were to cut off spending in this area it would be detrimental because as we have learned the tax incentives go a long way and are a major contributing factor to the decision to invest in renewable energy or not. Not only would this be huge news in the renewable energy industry, it would also affect politics with all the lobby groups and influence in congress.
Many people tend to ignore the fact that political incentives play a key role in alternative energy's economic viability. Seth is correct in asserting that without government incentives many business would not invest in alternative energy. As we have seen in the many different lectures covering various alternative energy solutions, each and every one has a government incentive. Therefore, I concur with Seth that, in general, if the government chooses to lower funding for alternative energy, the industry will suffer. However, prioritizing the alternative energy solutions that appear more viable than others (wind/solar- in my opinion) and slashing funding for others (algae and biofuels), would allow America to focus on a few solutions and spread the little money in the budget farther. Considering the tough economic times, difficult and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
ReplyDelete