McCain once again tries to tar Obama with the controversies of others.

– by Viveca Novak and Justin Bank - FactCheck

Summary
A McCain-Palin ad says that Obama was "born of the corrupt Chicago political machine" and implies that the candidate himself is corrupt by association with four local political figures. But the ad's implication and many of its supporting details are false. In fact, this is a particularly egregious example of ricochet sliming:
William Daley, the first figure mentioned in the ad, is indeed related to the other famous Chicago Daleys, but he's never been accused of any wrongdoing. And the former commerce secretary isn't Obama's only economic adviser, as the ad implies.
Emil Jones, Illinois state Senate leader, may indeed have been Obama's "political godfather." But he, too, hasn't been charged with or even seriously accused of misdeeds despite the ad's claim of an "ethical cloud."
Obama did have a past relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, but he is no longer Obama's "money man." Obama hasn't been associated with him since his indictment for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion, and Obama donated all of the disgraced businessman's previous campaign contributions to charity.
Rod Blagojevich has been touched by plenty of scandal but his relationship with Obama doesn't extend much beyond being "his governor." In fact, Obama has worked on ethics legislation triggered by some of the Blagojevich's questionable moves.
Most important, the ad offers no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama himself in connection with any of these relationships, however close or distant.
Analysis
The McCain-Palin campaign's new ad, "Chicago Machine," tries to tie Barack Obama to four Illinois powerbrokers. The campaign says it will air nationally. We'll take a look at the merits of each individual's "corrupt" status as well as their connection to Obama in turn.
Daley and Nightly
The ad begins with a statement that Obama was "born of the corrupt Chicago political machine," then shows Obama saying that Chicago toughened him up. The announcer returns, saying, "His economic adviser: William Daley. Lobbyist. Mayor's brother."
First off, Obama wasn't born in Chicago and didn't grow up there. He didn't arrive in the city until 1985, after he finished college. As a community organizer, he often fought City Hall. His rise in politics there wasn't a product of grooming by the Chicago machine, though he made allies of some machine politicians along the way.

Second, William Daley isn't "his economic adviser." He may be one of his advisers in that area, but look at some of the others: Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, former National Economic Adviser Gene Sperling, former chairpersons of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson and Joseph Stiglitz, former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, and Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett.

Not that Daley is without qualifications himself. He's a former secretary of commerce. But the ad's likely intent here is to remind viewers of the mayoral administration of Daley's father, Richard J., which, though the elder Daley himself was never indicted, was riddled with corruption and patronage politics. The Boss died in office in 1976, almost a decade before Obama arrived in Chicago.

William Daley's brother, Richard M., is the current mayor of Chicago. He hasn't been charged with any wrongdoing, though some members of his administration have been.

But William Daley, the Daley mentioned in this ad, has had no such scandal or corruption allegations leveled against him. The implication to the contrary is false.
Rezko Redux
The ad lists convicted Illinois businessman Tony Rezko as Obama's "money man," "client" and "patron." Rezko was convicted on 16 counts of wire fraud and mail fraud in June. But Obama has not been seen with Rezko for some time, and he donated the former businessman's $11,500 in campaign contributions to charity in 2007.

As we concluded back in December 2007, "Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper."
The Godfather
The ad then turns to Obama's "political godfather" Emil Jones, who the ad says is "under ethical cloud." Jones certainly has been a close confidant of Obama and has used the "godfather" verbiage himself – though the relationship wasn't always so cozy. Obama described him as an "old ward heeler" in his memoir.

But the ethics charge could use a bit more explanation.

The words "under an ethical cloud" do appear in a June 16 Associated Press story about Jones. The full quote is:
AP: Another Obama mentor, state Senate President Emil Jones, serves under an ethical cloud. He has several family members on the state payroll and uses his clout to aid their business interests.
Another AP report said: "Jones has relatives on the state payroll, steers state grants to favorite organizations and uses his clout to punish enemies and bury GOP legislation." But there have been no indictments, investigations or serious inquiries into any improper behavior by Jones.
O Governor, My Governor
Finally, the ad turns to "his governor, Rod Blagojevich" and his "legacy of state and federal investigations." His governor? Ooooh. (Cue scary organ music.)

The Democratic governor certainly has been besieged by investigations, controversy and other charges of impropriety. But his connections to Obama are not substantial. Obama is just one of more than 13 million Illinois residents of whom it could also be said that Blagojevich is "their governor."

In a July 2008 New Yorker article, Illinois Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel did tell a reporter that "he and Obama 'participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod [Blagojevich] was running for governor.' " But there hasn't been evidence of much contact since then. In fact, the ethics bill that Obama spearheaded while in the Illinois Legislature was a response to some of Blagojevich's transgressions. And the Chicago Tribune reported that:
Chicago Tribune (Sept. 19): The embattled Illinois governor was shunned by the Obama camp at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last month while several potential opponents to a possible Blagojevich third-term bid were showcased with floor speeches.
Hardly favorable actions from Obama toward "his governor." And no less an authority than Karl Rove said on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" yesterday, "Blagojevich only has the most tenuous ties to Obama."

New False Claims in McCain's Cascade of Lies

Keeping Quiet?
By Lori Robertson - FactCheck September 24, 2008
A McCain-Palin ad claims Obama has been "mum" on the economic crisis. That's false.

Summary
A new McCain-Palin ad says that "McCain and his congressional allies led" on the financial crisis while Obama was "mum." That's simply not true:
* Obama has in fact made several statements about the crisis on Wall Street in recent days, delivering his most specific remarks on how government regulations should be changed on Sept. 22, a day before this ad was released.
* McCain gave his most detailed speech on a response to the crisis on Sept. 19, a few days before Obama did. Obama, however, had been pushing for what he called a “21st century regulatory system” back in March.
* The "mum" quote is from a Sept. 20 Washington Times story, which went on to say Obama did "not to divulge details of his recovery plan ... fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters." The ad falsely says that Obama stayed quiet because "no one knows what to do."
* The ad ends by saying: "More taxes. No leadership. A risk your family can’t afford." Actually, most "families" would pay less taxes under Obama's tax plan. An independent analysis shows 95.5 percent of households with children would get a tax cut under his tax proposals.

Analysis
The McCain-Palin campaign released a new ad Sept. 23 that claims McCain has done all sorts of things to stem the economic crisis while Obama has said nothing about it. That's false.

Not So "Mum" After All
The ad says Obama has been “mum on the market crisis,” as that quote appears on screen. But on Sept. 22 (that’s a day before the ad was released) Obama gave a speech in Green Bay, Wisc., laying out a six-point plan for expanding oversight of financial institutions, streamlining government regulatory agencies, investigating and punishing market manipulation, and establishing a “financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the president, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face.” These are the same six points Obama was pushing back in March when he called for a “21st century regulatory system.”
Earlier last week, on Sept. 18, Obama was certainly less specific but still proposed a Homeowner and Financial Support Act that he said would give capital to the financial system and mortgage adjustment assistance to homeowners. (A news article mentioning that proposal was even included in the McCain campaign support for its ad.)
On Sept. 19, he said that “given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal,” adding that their work should be “unimpeded by partisan wrangling.” Yet he talked about aspects he would like to see in such a plan, saying that it shouldn't reward "particular companies or the imprudent decisions of borrowers or lenders" and that it shouldn't "enhance the personal gain of CEOs." He also said it should be a temporary plan with new regulations on financial institutions and one that is “a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
On Sept. 21, he made another statement saying that the plan should protect taxpayers’ investment and homeowners and that over time the regulatory structure should be changed. All of these comments led up to his lengthier Sept. 22 speech.

That doesn’t sound like Obama being “mum” to us.

The actual “mum” quote comes from a Sept. 20 Washington Times article that went on to say Obama “opted Friday not to divulge details of his recovery plan for the financial crisis after a morning meeting with his top economic advisers — fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters.”

The McCain ad also claims Obama was silent “because ‘no one knows what to do.’ ”

But those weren't his words. They came from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who is pictured in the ad) in an article saying that Congress may not take action on the financial crisis before it adjourns for the election. The Bloomberg article said, “While they haven’t ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.”
It's true that McCain gave a speech outlining his six-point economic plan on Sept. 19, while Obama's most specific speech came a few days later, on Sept. 22. But, as we said, the regulatory principles Obama laid out in that talk were the same ones he had espoused for nearly six months. A few of the two candidates' proposals are similar.
In its support for this ad, the McCain-Palin campaign also points to press reports noting that Obama wouldn’t say whether or not he agreed with the federal government’s decision to bail out insurance company AIG. But is silence any worse than flip-flopping? It should be noted McCain himself said he opposed a bail out one day, then softened his position the next day and said he "didn't want to do that" but millions of people "were at risk." Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, also initially said he opposed the idea. Obama told NBC’s “Today”: “I think Joe should have waited as well.”

Leading on the Issue
The McCain-Palin ad says “McCain and his Congressional allies led” and lists a few measures they led on – “Tough rules on Wall Street. Stop CEO rip-offs.” The wording may give some viewers the impression that these are examples of legislation McCain already has introduced or pushed through Congress. But these are proposals McCain made Sept. 19 in a speech in Green Bay (a popular spot, it appears, for big economic speeches).
The “stop CEO rip-offs” claim, for example, is a reference to this line in McCain’s speech: “And corporate governance rules will be reformed so that shareholders have a clear say in determining the pay of CEOs and other senior executives. On my watch, the consequences for corporate abuse will not be more enrichment, but more likely an indictment.”
We make no judgment as to which candidate offers better or more effective solutions to the financial crisis or limiting corporate CEOs pay checks. But the record shows that Obama has not been quiet on such issues and indeed has proposed measures for some time on the same topics the ad claims McCain has "led" on.
The Obama campaign points out that its candidate has called for controls on executive compensation much earlier, sponsoring “say-on-pay” legislation in April 2007 that would have required public companies to hold a nonbinding shareholders vote on CEO pay. McCain hadn’t signed on to the bill, and a senior adviser told the Wall Street Journal that McCain opposed government regulations aiming to fix executive-pay issues:

Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2008): Democrats support a Senate bill that would require public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on top officers’ compensation. Sen. Obama, of Illinois, introduced the measure, similar to one that passed the House last year. ... Obama staffers recently renewed his request for Senate hearings on the measure. If the ‘say-on-pay’ bill doesn’t pass this year, it ‘will be a priority for Sen. Obama as president,’ campaign policy director Heather Higginbottom says. … Sen. McCain hasn’t taken a stance on the say-on-pay bill, and opposes legislative or regulatory cures for executive-pay problems, says senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. ... He adds that the senator believes the private sector could take steps "to end the cozy relationships that surround these pay packages."

In his Sept. 19 speech, McCain also called for the creation of a “Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust — the MFI,” which would “keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets.” Sounds awfully similar to the pronouncements of another presidential candidate.

More on Taxes
The ad ends with a familiar refrain from the McCain camp — “more taxes.” It’s true that Obama says he won’t extend the Bush tax cuts for couples earning more than $250,000 a year. But the ad implies that many more families would be affected by the Obama plan by saying: “More taxes. No leadership. A risk your family can’t afford.”
The vast majority of "families," however, wouldn't be affected by a tax increase on those making more than $250k. In fact, an analysis of the candidates’ tax plans by the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that 95.5 percent of households with children would get a tax cut under Obama’s plan. And overall, 81.3 percent of all households would see a tax cut.
.
.

Europe should establish a rescue fund like the US

link

By Roel Janssen
The credit crisis is not just an American problem. In Europe too, banks could suddenly find themselves in trouble. Europe needs to find a way of handling this, says ex-banker and finance professor Dolf van den Brink.
Dolf van den Brink is an experienced banker. He has lived through the Latin American debt crisis, the currency crisis that hit the European Monetary Fund, the fall of the British pound in 1991, the Russian crisis of 1997 and the crisis in Asia in 1998. But never has he seen anything to compare with what is happening now. “The last three weeks have been extraordinary,” he says. “This is serious stuff. We have been walking on the edge of a precipice.”
Van den Brink, a former executive board member of Dutch bank ABN Amro, is professor of financial institutions at Amsterdam University. According to Van Brink, the European Union should establish a rescue fund for bad bank loans similar to the one being set up in the US. This would prevent big commercial banks in Europe from collapsing.
“We should do what the Americans are doing. Some banks in the Netherlands, Germany, Britain and other countries are running into difficulty because the money markets are locked. They have to be able to sell off the bad loans on their books. So there has to be a buyer for these bad loans.”
Van den Brink answers a number of questions on the issue:
How big should such a fund be?
Around 600 billion euros.
No European budget that could finance this.
The American government will issue Treasury bonds. The European member states should do the same.
What does that mean for the Netherlands?
If all members of the European Union were to contribute proportionally, according to the volume of their banking business or according to their national income, the Netherlands would have to pay 25 billion euros.
The Dutch cabinet will tell you that this would cut into the budget surplus.
That shouldn’t worry them too much. The Netherlands can cope with that. Our national debt has gone down significantly, so much so that an increase of the debt by five percent of the gross domestic product [currently below 40 percent] shouldn’t be a problem. If a bank collapses, the consequences for the taxpayer would be far worse.
There is no European finance ministry to set this up in the way the US Treasury has done.
There are plenty of people in Frankfurt and Brussels who are more than capable of handling this sort of thing. It could be a joint effort by the European Central Bank and the European Commission.
The European decision-making process is extremely slow. In the US it takes a week to set up a fund, here it would take forever.
They would jump into action if they were put under pressure, look at AIG. The insureance insurance company collapsed within a couple of days. We need to be quick. I take it that people in Brussels and Frankfurt are considering it. They know it makes sense.
Is [the Dutch-Belgian bank] Fortis going under?
No. Fortis is a conservative bank with a solid balance sheet. It doesn’t take credit risks lightly. The solvency of the banks in the Netherlands, France, Germany or Britain is not the issue here. But they could run into acute problems of liquidity because the money markets are locked. We’re on the brink of a worldwide liquidity crisis. A run on a bank in Europe… it doesn’t bear thinking about. The chance that one of the big large retail large retail banks goes under is bigger than anything we’ve seen in the last 70 years.
How is this crisis different from all the other financial disasters.
It is unclear where the risks lie. The leverage effect of many of the financial instruments is much greater than they used to be. This crisis will spread to ordinary mortgages and credit lending to companies. Banks will want to compensate their losses on bad credit by increasing profit. They will raise the interest margins on loans and tighten up credit conditions for private customers and companies. It’s this credit crunch that will drive us into recession.
How long is this going to last?
As long as we don’t get into an acute liquidity crisis, a credit crisis could actually be quite healthy. I expect the banks will need five to ten years to recover from this mess.
.
.

Five Dangerous, Disastrous Things About the Proposed Bailout

The Bush era has been a period of one outrage following the next, but the administration's bailout of Wall Street's wheeler-dealers is the most outrageous yet!
Bush's parting gift to the fat cats who twice filled his campaign coffers to the brim -- when they weren't busy playing fast-and-loose with the American economy -- is a huge pile of tax dollars that will get them out of the problems their recklessness created, while leaving Main Street high and dry and at risk of foreclosure.
Here are five things about the crisis -- and the Bush-Paulson Plan -- that we just can't believe our officials would even have the nerve to contemplate, as well as something you can do to help stop them …

1. They're Making Long-time Wall Street Honcho Henry Paulson Into an Emperor!
We just can't get over this little tiny section in the Bush-Paulson plan. Just 32 words long, it says that the whole thing is up to Paulson's "discretion," and "may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." That's like burning the Constitution! What happened to the separation of powers -- to checks and balances?

2. They Want the Fox to Guard the Henhouse: Wall Street Brokers Will Decide which Wall Street Brokers Get a Piece of the Pie!
Believe it or not, Henry Paulson, who was a key player in creating this mess in the first place as the CEO of brokerage giant Goldman Sachs, wants to "outsource" the buying and selling of all these junk securities to Wall Street money managers. Remember, there are no restrictions on what they can do -- their actions can't even be reviewed by the courts!

3. They Want to Establish American Socialism for the Richest, and Dog-Eat-Dog for the Rest of Us!
Another thing that's sticking in our craw is that this outrage is being pushed by the very same politicians who passed the horrible bankruptcy "reform" bill in 2005. That law actually made the mortgage situation worse, because it kept ordinary people from getting out from under a pile of consumer debt, and many more ended up losing their homes as a result.
When Bush signed the law, he said, "America is a nation of personal responsibility where people are expected to meet their obligations," but that only goes for the Little Guy -- the Big Boys get to make a mess and take no responsibility for it at all!

4. Nobody Knows How Much They'll Really End up Pilfering from the Treasury?
The headlines all say that it's a $700 billion bailout. But the plan that Bush put together only says that Secretary Paulson can hold onto $700 billion in bad securities at one time! He can buy some, sell 'em at fire-sale prices and then buy some more. Even worse, nobody knows what the final bill will be, because nobody knows what all those bad mortgages are worth.

5. They Want to Borrow All This Cash to Give to Wall Street, and Foreign Banks Too!
And, remember, the government doesn't have that kind of money lying around -- it'll all be borrowed cash, sending the deficit through the roof.
When Bush came into office, he had a budget surplus. Then he got us into a trillion-dollar war in Iraq and at the same time gave all these huge tax cuts to the same people who are most responsible for this mortgage mess. He was set to pass a half-trillion-dollar deficit to the next president -- now, it'll be even higher! If the bailout passes, our children will still be paying for it for decades to come.

And Paulson says he even wants to let foreign banks get their snouts into the trough as well. It's crazy!
This is certainly the greatest outrage yet, and we've got to stop it.
.
Link to more
.

Michael Moore's "Slacker Uprising" Free Download

This is the trailer:

Go to www.slackeruprising.com
.

.

Solar Projects Draw New Opposition

Link
WHAT’S not to like about solar power? Sunlight is clean, quiet and abundant. If enough of it were harnessed and turned into electricity, it could be the solution to the energy crisis. But surprisingly, solar power projects are running into mounting opposition — and not from hard-nosed, coal-fired naysayers, but from environmentalists.
NATIVE Opponents are concerned about the impact on animals like the desert tortoise.
The opposition is particularly strong in Southern California. Aside from abundant sunshine and virtually cloudless skies, the California desert has altitude, so there is less atmospheric interference for the sun’s rays, as well as broad swaths of level land for installing equipment, and proximity to large, electricity-hungry cities.
But it is also home to the Mojave ground squirrel, the desert tortoise and the burrowing owl, and to human residents who describe themselves as desert survivors and who are unhappy about the proliferation of solar projects planned for their home turf.
“We’re tired of everyone looking at the desert like a wasteland,” said Donna Charpied, who lives with her husband, Larry, in Desert Center, Calif., where they have been farming jojoba, a native shrub cultivated for its oil, for 27 years. She is also the policy advocate for the Desert Communities Protection Campaign of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.
The United States Bureau of Land Management said it had applications for solar power projects that would cover 78,490 acres in the area around the Charpieds’ farm, which abuts Joshua Tree National Park. For the entire United States, the total number of applications is far greater, growing from zero less than two years ago to more than 125 projects with a combined electrical potential of 70,000 megawatts, the equivalent of the electrical capacity of about 70 large coal-fired power plants.
Investors, developers and speculators filed so many applications with the bureau that in May it declared a moratorium on new ones. On July 2, overwhelmed by protests, it reversed itself and ended the moratorium.
The land rush is being driven in large part by a California law that calls for 20 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable resources by 2010.
The California Public Utilities Commission said the state was falling behind in meeting that goal. It estimated that California’s electric utilities would have to build or buy 3,000 megawatts of renewable resources over the next two years to meet the 20 percent target. So the utilities are scrambling to find renewable resources, and developers are working furiously to build projects.
Last month, Pacific Gas and Electric, based in San Francisco, signed contracts to buy the electricity produced by projects under development in San Luis Obispo County by two companies, OptiSolar and the SunPower Corporation, which are expected to come on line between 2010 and 2013.
This sudden flood of solar power projects not only caught the staff of the Bureau of Land Management off guard, it also surprised some environmentalists. “Many community groups are up in arms” about the projects planned in the Mojave Desert and Coachella Valley regions, said D’Anne Albers, the California desert associate for Defenders of Wildlife, citing plans by OptiSolar, BrightSource Energy and FPL Energy.
Jim Harvey, a founder of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy, an environmental group in Joshua Tree, said: “Our position is that none of this is needed. We support renewable energy, and we support California’s renewable energy targets, but we think it can be done through rooftop solar.”
Mr. Harvey said that if Germany, which is as far north as the Canadian city of Calgary, could have a successful solar power program that relies heavily on rooftops, so could the United States. Germany’s solar program works, he said, because the government offers so-called feed-in tariffs — fixed-rate payments for electricity generated from solar panels.
The tariff is the equivalent of about 50 cents a kilowatt hour. The average residential retail rate in the United States is about 11 cents a kilowatt hour, according to the Department of Energy.
Mr. Harvey said the tariff would not have to be that high in the United States. Matching wholesale rates would be sufficient to spur a rush to small solar power. “It’s all about policy,” he said. “Our lawmakers have sold out to the big solar lobby.”
In addition to obstructing views and disrupting habitats, large solar power projects take a toll on the desert’s scarce water supply, environmentalists like Mr. Harvey said. Mirrors and solar panels have to be washed, and some solar projects incorporate steam turbines, which require even more water.
In addition, some solar projects call for grading the land and spraying it with chemicals to inhibit dust or plant growth that can reduce the efficiency of solar panels. Others require backup generators powered by fossil fuels.
These environmentalists favor “distributed generation,” like solar panels on rooftops, and they argue that the leadership of national environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council has gone in the wrong direction.
Terry Frewin, the chairman of the Sierra Club’s California/Nevada desert committee, wrote to the club’s executive director, Carl Pope, in July, criticizing him for backing large-scale solar projects.
“Remote solar arrays destroy all native resources on site, and have indirect and irreversible impacts on surrounding wildernesses,” Mr. Frewin wrote. He urged the Sierra Club to embrace distributed generation as an alternative to the “industrial renewable” option.
Carl Zichella, Western renewable projects director for the Sierra Club, said in response to the letter, “We don’t take a back seat to anyone in caring for the desert.” But he said the group’s position was unchanged.
At the current rate of adding 200 megawatts of rooftop solar power a year, it would take 100 years to meet the 20 percent renewable target that California must meet by 2010, Mr. Zichella said. “What they are proposing is not a solution at all.”
One of the first tests of public land use for large, privately owned solar projects is likely to be over BrightSource Energy’s planned 400-megawatt solar project, which would occupy 3,400 acres on the California border near Primm, Nev.
The project would use an array of mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays on a boiler. Steam produced in the boiler would turn a turbine that would generate enough electricity to power 250,000 homes.
John Woolard, the chief executive of BrightSource, cited several ways in which the company was trying to have as little impact as possible on the desert. He said the project would use “dry cooling” technology to condense the steam in the turbines for reuse, keeping water usage to a minimum, and that BrightSource had purposely sought out already disrupted land (it had been used for cattle grazing) for its project.
But in the end, the scale of BrightSource’s project is driven by the efficiencies of the technology. “You get half as much bang for your buck from rooftop solar” as with concentrating solar technology, Mr. Woolard said, adding, “Rooftop solar will never put a dent in California’s renewable targets.”
Currently available commercial photovoltaic technology converts sunlight to electricity at an efficiency rate of 12 percent to 14 percent. (The most efficient power plants can achieve efficiencies of nearly 60 percent.)
Absent an economic incentive, solar power just does not make sense, said Al Forte, principal and director of the clean energy solutions practice at Nexant, an energy industry consulting firm. Lucrative incentives like Germany’s feed-in tariff “tend to warp the reality of the market,” he said.
One of the first battles over a large solar power project was fought on the outskirts of Victorville, Calif., on the western edge of the Mojave. Inland Energy is building a “hybrid” project on 250 acres there for the city of Victorville that will combine solar panels with conventional technology.
In compliance with state law, Inland hired a firm to look for endangered species, including the Mojave ground squirrel and the desert tortoise. No squirrels were found, but three or four tortoises were found. Because no squirrels were found, Inland proposed to the California Department of Fish and Game that it buy one acre of land to offset every acre of lost habitat, said Tom Barnett, executive vice president at Inland. But the department insisted on the three-to-one ratio its rules call for, he said.
“Time is more important than anything else” in project development, Mr. Barnett said, explaining why Inland agreed to the three-to-one ratio. But he noted that it would cost $6.5 million to $10 million to buy and maintain the offsetting acreage for the tortoises.
A family — of human beings — was also living on the site. Inland reached a deal to relocate them at a total cost of $250,000.
“One of the biggest concerns we have,” Mr. Barnett said, “is that ours is just a 50-megawatt project.”
The much larger projects being proposed will be that much more complicated, but Mr. Barnett, who has a master’s in environmental science, is not giving up easily. He has begun work on an identical project in Palmdale, Calif., where the wildlife survey, once again, found no squirrels. He said he was prepared to fight the habitat battle again.
Meanwhile, on the other side off the desert, south of Joshua Tree National Park, Donna Charpied said desert residents of California and Nevada were planning some unspecified action within two months. “The desert will not go quietly into that dark night,” she said.
.
.

Seven Homes With Double Garages: to fill with 13 cars

BARACK OBAMA has ONE HOME and ONE CAR
.
Don't have a double garage? Watch this:

.
.

Joe Biden Speaks to the National Guard

.
.

Michelle in Greensboro, NC: "It's Personal"

.
.

Obama on Changing Washington

.
.

Michelle on Debate Watch Parties

link to the website