<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Economy, Part 2:  The Green Investment Portfolio</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:45:22 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jennfer b</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23506</link>
		<dc:creator>jennfer b</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:23:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23506</guid>
		<description>Green Collar Jobs need more than $125 million a year.  Green Collar Jobs should figure more prominently in your scheme.  All income levels have to see the benefit in the massive investment talked about here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Green Collar Jobs need more than $125 million a year.  Green Collar Jobs should figure more prominently in your scheme.  All income levels have to see the benefit in the massive investment talked about here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Robins</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23354</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Robins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23354</guid>
		<description>Since you&#039;re interested in green investing, I have one of the most popular sites on the web on the subject. It also covers the latest related global news and research too. It&#039;s at http://investingforthesoul.com/

Best wishes, Ron Robins</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you&#8217;re interested in green investing, I have one of the most popular sites on the web on the subject. It also covers the latest related global news and research too. It&#8217;s at <a href="http://investingforthesoul.com/" rel="nofollow">http://investingforthesoul.com/</a></p>
<p>Best wishes, Ron Robins</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prabhjit Singh</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23324</link>
		<dc:creator>Prabhjit Singh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23324</guid>
		<description>I completely agree with your comments on the current energy crisis along with the current economic crisis.  The only way for us to deal with both these issues is to have a robust economic stimulus plan which encompasses both!

I do though believe that we want to make sure their is not as much pork as the last one.  Unfortunately, when reading through the last economic stimulus plan - it had SOO much pork that had nothing to do with economic stimulus.  I always do get scared of large robust stimulus plans.

So what do I think?  I think that we need to create economic stimulus plans that are piece by piece that get passed.  That way we can test the waters with the first part, based on its results we can pass the second one.  When they are smaller I believe their is a better chance that they won&#039;t have as much pork!

Thanks for a great post!


&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rempower.com/blog&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Prabhjit Singh&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree with your comments on the current energy crisis along with the current economic crisis.  The only way for us to deal with both these issues is to have a robust economic stimulus plan which encompasses both!</p>
<p>I do though believe that we want to make sure their is not as much pork as the last one.  Unfortunately, when reading through the last economic stimulus plan &#8211; it had SOO much pork that had nothing to do with economic stimulus.  I always do get scared of large robust stimulus plans.</p>
<p>So what do I think?  I think that we need to create economic stimulus plans that are piece by piece that get passed.  That way we can test the waters with the first part, based on its results we can pass the second one.  When they are smaller I believe their is a better chance that they won&#8217;t have as much pork!</p>
<p>Thanks for a great post!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rempower.com/blog" rel="nofollow">Prabhjit Singh</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard pauli</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23314</link>
		<dc:creator>richard pauli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:54:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23314</guid>
		<description>The first investment needs to be in attitude change.  

Americans have a century of advertising messages that glorify carbon fuel products.  Only recently this has become a heavily funded PR campaign.  Totally contrary to our long term interests.

This is an easy choice to make if we use logic, or if we decide as a species whether we want a future.  However, we are cursed by our persistenly nurtured emotional, delusional, reptilian thinking.  

The first thing we need is to learn to think clearly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first investment needs to be in attitude change.  </p>
<p>Americans have a century of advertising messages that glorify carbon fuel products.  Only recently this has become a heavily funded PR campaign.  Totally contrary to our long term interests.</p>
<p>This is an easy choice to make if we use logic, or if we decide as a species whether we want a future.  However, we are cursed by our persistenly nurtured emotional, delusional, reptilian thinking.  </p>
<p>The first thing we need is to learn to think clearly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: red</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23310</link>
		<dc:creator>red</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:02:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23310</guid>
		<description>The Houston Chronicle has an editorial &quot;Stimulus can help NASA reach goal&quot; with a similar theme - using the economic stimulus to take care of other problems at the same time.  NASA&#039;s Johnson Space Flight Center is in Houston, so you might expect the article to advocate efforts like continuing the Shuttle.  In fact, the Center for American Progress report that advocates keeping the Shuttle is briefly mentioned.  However, surprisingly the suggestions aren&#039;t of that (bad, IMHO) sort at all.  A number of them propose to either increase NASA&#039;s contributions to solving environment and energy problems, or increase encouragements to commercial space, a progressive policy which is likely to lower launch and other costs and thus indirectly help enable environment and energy space efforts (among others).  I agree with those suggestions (although I&#039;d broaden them a bit); the NASA Science (including Earth observation), Aeronautics, and R&amp;D budgets has suffered a lot in recent years to shore up expensive government manned rockets (Shuttle, Ares), and should be made whole again.

Here&#039;s the key part of the article from:

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6138224.html

The Obama space policy provides a blueprint for leveraging increased NASA funding to meet the new administration&#039;s broader economic, innovation and environmental goals. Key areas for stimulus investments might be:

Increasing research and technology funding for exploration that not only will aim at addressing the challenges in completing the next generation of space vehicles but developing the innovations needed to look beyond the moon to further destinations in our solar system;
Funding commercial space capabilities that will enable NASA to forgo low earth cargo transport and focus squarely on its core mission of exploration and discovery;
Building a robust R&amp;D community around the ISS that will leverage this unique resource to seek advances in energy independence, public health and technology development;
Conducting leading edge research in materials and technologies that will create cleaner, greener, and safer aircraft for the future;
And implementing the most comprehensive Earth observing and climate monitoring network in the world that will be a vital component to understanding and addressing the most pressing problems of our own planet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Houston Chronicle has an editorial &#8220;Stimulus can help NASA reach goal&#8221; with a similar theme &#8211; using the economic stimulus to take care of other problems at the same time.  NASA&#8217;s Johnson Space Flight Center is in Houston, so you might expect the article to advocate efforts like continuing the Shuttle.  In fact, the Center for American Progress report that advocates keeping the Shuttle is briefly mentioned.  However, surprisingly the suggestions aren&#8217;t of that (bad, IMHO) sort at all.  A number of them propose to either increase NASA&#8217;s contributions to solving environment and energy problems, or increase encouragements to commercial space, a progressive policy which is likely to lower launch and other costs and thus indirectly help enable environment and energy space efforts (among others).  I agree with those suggestions (although I&#8217;d broaden them a bit); the NASA Science (including Earth observation), Aeronautics, and R&amp;D budgets has suffered a lot in recent years to shore up expensive government manned rockets (Shuttle, Ares), and should be made whole again.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the key part of the article from:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6138224.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chron.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>disp/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>story.mpl/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>editorial/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>outlook/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>6138224.html</a></p>
<p>The Obama space policy provides a blueprint for leveraging increased NASA funding to meet the new administration&#8217;s broader economic, innovation and environmental goals. Key areas for stimulus investments might be:</p>
<p>Increasing research and technology funding for exploration that not only will aim at addressing the challenges in completing the next generation of space vehicles but developing the innovations needed to look beyond the moon to further destinations in our solar system;<br />
Funding commercial space capabilities that will enable NASA to forgo low earth cargo transport and focus squarely on its core mission of exploration and discovery;<br />
Building a robust R&amp;D community around the ISS that will leverage this unique resource to seek advances in energy independence, public health and technology development;<br />
Conducting leading edge research in materials and technologies that will create cleaner, greener, and safer aircraft for the future;<br />
And implementing the most comprehensive Earth observing and climate monitoring network in the world that will be a vital component to understanding and addressing the most pressing problems of our own planet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Mashey</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23307</link>
		<dc:creator>John Mashey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/30/new-economy-part-2-the-green-investment-portfolio/#comment-23307</guid>
		<description>This is all well-taken, but at the risk of repeating what I&#039;ve written here before, it would be really good if people would be more careful with terms like &quot;research&quot; and &quot;breakthroughs&quot;.

See comments &lt;a href=&quot;http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here in July&lt;/a&gt;, or specifically &lt;a href=&quot;http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16040&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mine on never scheduling breatkthroughs and &quot;progressive commitment&quot;&lt;/a&gt;.

Put another way, we need to spend more money, but we really have to spend it wisely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is all well-taken, but at the risk of repeating what I&#8217;ve written here before, it would be really good if people would be more careful with terms like &#8220;research&#8221; and &#8220;breakthroughs&#8221;.</p>
<p>See comments <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/" rel="nofollow">here in July</a>, or specifically <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16040" rel="nofollow">mine on never scheduling breatkthroughs and &#8220;progressive commitment&#8221;</a>.</p>
<p>Put another way, we need to spend more money, but we really have to spend it wisely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
