President Biden Announces the Build Back Better Framework
President Biden Announces the Build Back Better Framework
"...
Specifically, the Build Back Better framework will:
Deliver substantial consumer rebates and ensure middle class families save money as they shift to clean energy and electrification. The consumer rebates and credits included in the Build Back Better framework will save the average American family hundreds of dollars per year in energy costs. These measures include enhancement and expansion of existing home energy and efficiency tax credits, as well as the creation of a new, electrification-focused rebate program. The framework will cut the cost of installing rooftop solar for a home by around 30 percent, shortening the payback period by around 5 years; and the framework’s electric vehicle tax credit will lower the cost of an electric vehicle that is made in America with American materials and union labor by $12,500 for a middle-class family. In addition, the framework will help rural communities tap into the clean energy opportunity through targeted grants and loans through the Department of Agriculture.
Ensure clean energy technology – from wind turbine blades to solar panels to electric cars – will be built in the United States with American made steel and other materials, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs here at home. The Build Back Better legislation will target incentives to grow domestic supply chains in solar, wind, and other critical industries in communities on the frontlines of the energy transition. In addition, the framework will boost the competitiveness of existing industries, like steel, cement, and aluminum, through grants, loans, tax credits, and procurement to drive capital investment in the decarbonization and revitalization of American manufacturing.
Advance environmental justice through a new Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator that will invest in projects around the country, while delivering 40% of the benefits of investment to disadvantaged communities, as part of the President’s Justice40 initiative. The framework will also fund port electrification; facilitate the deployment of cleaner transit, buses, and trucks; and support critical community capacity building, including grants to environmental justice communities. In addition, the framework will create a new Civilian Climate Corps – with over 300,000 members that look like America. This diverse new workforce will conserve our public lands, bolster community resilience, and address the changing climate, all while putting good-paying union jobs within reach for more Americans.
..."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/28/president-biden-announces-the-build-back-better-framework/
OCTOBER 28, 2021
______________________
PRINT 17
RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 117–17
TEXT OF H.R. 5376, BUILD BACK BETTER ACT
[Showing the text of H.R. 5376, as reported by the Committee]
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-17.pdf
OCTOBER 29, 2021
SIDE 1320 -> SIDE 1321
______________________
PRINT 18 - SENESTE
RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 117–18
TEXT OF H.R. 5376, BUILD BACK BETTER ACT
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-18.pdf
NOVEMBER 3, 2021
SIDE 1561 -> SIDE 1562
"
..
‘‘SEC. 45AA. ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION CREDIT.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—For purposes of section 38, the advanced manufacturing production credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to the sum of the credit amounts determined under sub13 section (b) with respect to each eligible component which is— ‘
‘(A) produced by such taxpayer, and
‘‘(B) during the taxable year, sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person. ‘‘
(2) PRODUCTION AND SALE MUST BE IN TRADE OR BUSINESS.—Any eligible component pro20 duced and sold by the taxpayer shall be taken into account only if the production and sale described in paragraph (1) is in a trade or business of the tax23 payer. ‘‘(3) UNRELATED PERSON.—For purposes of this subsection, a taxpayer shall be treated as selling components to an unrelated person if such compo nent is sold to such person by a person related to the taxpayer.
‘‘(b) CREDIT AMOUNT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), the amount determined under this subsection with respect to any eligible component, including any eli gible component it incorporates, shall be equal to—
...
‘‘(C) in the case of solar grade polysilicon, $3 per kilogram,
"
___________________
Preliminary Estimates Show Build Back Better Legislation Will Reduce Deficits
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/preliminary-estimates-show-build-back-better-legislation-will-reduce-deficits
NOVEMBER 4, 2021
"
The Build Back Better Act invests meaningfully in American families and workers, while laying the foundation for meeting imperative climate goals. When the President released the Build Back Better framework last week, he proposed $2 trillion in savings that would more than pay for the critical investments in the legislation – and in fact generate net deficit reduction. With the release of the text of the Build Back Better Act in the House and scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation, we can update the estimate of fiscal savings.
The legislation would, as the President proposed, generate more than $2 trillion in savings. These savings come from ensuring large multinational corporations and wealthy Americans pay their fair share and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. These provisions will not raise taxes on any taxpayer making less than $400,000.
The table below includes the latest estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congressional Budget Office, and the Treasury Department of the revenue raising and savings provisions in the bill. The bottom line is that the Build Back Better Act under consideration in the House of Representatives will be fully paid for and reduce the deficit.
...
"
___________________
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO) ESTIMATES
https://www.cbo.gov/cost-estimates
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title I, Committee on Agriculture, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57618
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title II, Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57622
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title III, Committee on Energy and Commerce, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57623
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title IV, Committee on Financial Services, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57619
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title IV, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57681
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title V, Committee on Homeland Security, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57607
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VI, Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57625
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VII, Committee on Natural Resources, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57621
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VIII, Committee on Oversight and Reform, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57611
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VIII, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57678
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title IX, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57608
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title X, Committee on Small Business, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57605
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title X, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57680
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XI, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57490
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XI, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57679
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XII, Committee on Veterans Affairs, H.R. 5376, Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57604
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XIII, Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57626
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
"...
Specifically, the Build Back Better framework will:
Deliver substantial consumer rebates and ensure middle class families save money as they shift to clean energy and electrification. The consumer rebates and credits included in the Build Back Better framework will save the average American family hundreds of dollars per year in energy costs. These measures include enhancement and expansion of existing home energy and efficiency tax credits, as well as the creation of a new, electrification-focused rebate program. The framework will cut the cost of installing rooftop solar for a home by around 30 percent, shortening the payback period by around 5 years; and the framework’s electric vehicle tax credit will lower the cost of an electric vehicle that is made in America with American materials and union labor by $12,500 for a middle-class family. In addition, the framework will help rural communities tap into the clean energy opportunity through targeted grants and loans through the Department of Agriculture.
Ensure clean energy technology – from wind turbine blades to solar panels to electric cars – will be built in the United States with American made steel and other materials, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs here at home. The Build Back Better legislation will target incentives to grow domestic supply chains in solar, wind, and other critical industries in communities on the frontlines of the energy transition. In addition, the framework will boost the competitiveness of existing industries, like steel, cement, and aluminum, through grants, loans, tax credits, and procurement to drive capital investment in the decarbonization and revitalization of American manufacturing.
Advance environmental justice through a new Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator that will invest in projects around the country, while delivering 40% of the benefits of investment to disadvantaged communities, as part of the President’s Justice40 initiative. The framework will also fund port electrification; facilitate the deployment of cleaner transit, buses, and trucks; and support critical community capacity building, including grants to environmental justice communities. In addition, the framework will create a new Civilian Climate Corps – with over 300,000 members that look like America. This diverse new workforce will conserve our public lands, bolster community resilience, and address the changing climate, all while putting good-paying union jobs within reach for more Americans.
..."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/28/president-biden-announces-the-build-back-better-framework/
OCTOBER 28, 2021
______________________
PRINT 17
RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 117–17
TEXT OF H.R. 5376, BUILD BACK BETTER ACT
[Showing the text of H.R. 5376, as reported by the Committee]
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-17.pdf
OCTOBER 29, 2021
SIDE 1320 -> SIDE 1321
______________________
PRINT 18 - SENESTE
RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 117–18
TEXT OF H.R. 5376, BUILD BACK BETTER ACT
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-18.pdf
NOVEMBER 3, 2021
SIDE 1561 -> SIDE 1562
"
..
‘‘SEC. 45AA. ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION CREDIT.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—For purposes of section 38, the advanced manufacturing production credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to the sum of the credit amounts determined under sub13 section (b) with respect to each eligible component which is— ‘
‘(A) produced by such taxpayer, and
‘‘(B) during the taxable year, sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person. ‘‘
(2) PRODUCTION AND SALE MUST BE IN TRADE OR BUSINESS.—Any eligible component pro20 duced and sold by the taxpayer shall be taken into account only if the production and sale described in paragraph (1) is in a trade or business of the tax23 payer. ‘‘(3) UNRELATED PERSON.—For purposes of this subsection, a taxpayer shall be treated as selling components to an unrelated person if such compo nent is sold to such person by a person related to the taxpayer.
‘‘(b) CREDIT AMOUNT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), the amount determined under this subsection with respect to any eligible component, including any eli gible component it incorporates, shall be equal to—
...
‘‘(C) in the case of solar grade polysilicon, $3 per kilogram,
"
___________________
Preliminary Estimates Show Build Back Better Legislation Will Reduce Deficits
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/preliminary-estimates-show-build-back-better-legislation-will-reduce-deficits
NOVEMBER 4, 2021
"
The Build Back Better Act invests meaningfully in American families and workers, while laying the foundation for meeting imperative climate goals. When the President released the Build Back Better framework last week, he proposed $2 trillion in savings that would more than pay for the critical investments in the legislation – and in fact generate net deficit reduction. With the release of the text of the Build Back Better Act in the House and scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation, we can update the estimate of fiscal savings.
The legislation would, as the President proposed, generate more than $2 trillion in savings. These savings come from ensuring large multinational corporations and wealthy Americans pay their fair share and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. These provisions will not raise taxes on any taxpayer making less than $400,000.
The table below includes the latest estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congressional Budget Office, and the Treasury Department of the revenue raising and savings provisions in the bill. The bottom line is that the Build Back Better Act under consideration in the House of Representatives will be fully paid for and reduce the deficit.
...
"
___________________
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO) ESTIMATES
https://www.cbo.gov/cost-estimates
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title I, Committee on Agriculture, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57618
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title II, Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57622
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title III, Committee on Energy and Commerce, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57623
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57619
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title IV, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57681
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title V, Committee on Homeland Security, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57607
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VI, Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57625
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VII, Committee on Natural Resources, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57621
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57611
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title VIII, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57678
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title IX, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57608
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57605
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title X, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57680
DECEMBER 8, 2021
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57490
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XI, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57679
DECEMBER 8, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XII, Committee on Veterans Affairs, H.R. 5376, Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57604
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title XIII, Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57626
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
Redigert 09.12.2021 kl 20:27
Du må logge inn for å svare
velkjent
30.06.2022 kl 19:47
6296
Har ikke sterke meninger om abort eller våpen, men at høyesterett vil begrense farten med hvilken landet blir økonomisk bankerott, har jeg forståelse for. Noen må jo bruke vett.
Småplukker
30.06.2022 kl 20:42
6136
Hva du mener gir jeg vel blanke f i??? Hvem innbiller du deg at du er? Ihvertfall en som ikke er istand til å diskutere sak. Så jekk deg kraftig ned.
Uff og uff, og dette kommer fra en som kaller meg navlebeskuende! Uansett, det virker ikke som at du gir blanke f i hva jeg mener. For å diskutere en sak så er det viktig å forsøke å belyse alle sider ved saken. I akkurat denne saken så kan jeg dessverre ikke forstå på hvilket juridisk grunnlag beslutning som høyesterett har fattet er gal, ei heller hva slags utfallsrom du mener beslutningen kan ha. Du ser en enkel konsekvens, javel. Men i en sak kan det være mange konsekvenser, både negative og positive. For å belyse dette har vi et diskusjonsforum. Alle skal få si sin mening, uansett om den er dum eller intelligent. Du bør kanskje tenke deg om neste gang, småplukker, før du kaller noen navlebeskuende. Det var en gang en klok mann som sa at det er mange veier til Rom. Har du hørt om han:)
Redigert 30.06.2022 kl 21:18
Du må logge inn for å svare
Småplukker
30.06.2022 kl 21:27
6010
Du kommer nok engang ikke med ETT motargument til det jeg skriver. Ikke ETT. Du kommer tidligere med noe vås om at "USA er et stort land". Nå noe liksom-intellektuellt svada om juridisk grunnlag/utfallsrom/konsekvens som ikke har det ringeste med hva som er saken - betydningen for klimamålene i USA.
Når nivået er der bør jeg selvsagt ikke ta meg bryet med å respondere. Det er eneste selvkritikken jeg tar.
Når nivået er der bør jeg selvsagt ikke ta meg bryet med å respondere. Det er eneste selvkritikken jeg tar.
Jeg begynner smått å lure på om du har lest artikkelen som vi diskuterer, småplukker. Har du forøvrig forstått det jeg har skrevet? Jeg mener, der du kalte meg navlebeskuende. Nå har jo usa en del av Paris avtalen og har skrevet under på denne. Det er sikkert ikke lett å forstå for hvermannsen at gjennom dette ligger det en del forpliktelser. Jeg trodde at alle forstod hva som menes med insentiver og hva som ligger av planer i sema og bbb. Men det er mulig jeg tok for lettvint på dette. Beklager, hvis du ikke forstod at alle mine argumenter lå implisitt i referansen til insentiv ordningen. Jeg har forsøksvis forsøkt å forklare dette over, men du skjønte tydeligvis ikke at dette var et argument. La meg forsøke engang til. Jeg tror og har trodd lenge, og mange med meg her på forumet, at det er vanskelig å kutte ut avhengigheten til kull og olje. For at dette skal skje raskere må man gi insentiver til å produsere andre energiformer. Insentiver er en form for å gi ekstra penger til de som drar nytte av insentiv ordningene. Dette kan være i form av skattereduksjoner eller direkte betalinger, eller annet. USA må forholde seg til forpliktelsene i Paris avtalen. De må betale se ut av avhengigheten til kull og olje, i form av insentiver til alternative energiprodusenter. Desto fortere politkerne blir enige om insentiver, desto fortere kommer man seg over til fornybar energi. Skjønner du? Hvis det ikke finnes juridiske lover eller kraft til å forby kull eller olje så må man finne andre løsninger. Dette er jo litt skolelærdom, men jeg håper det hjelper deg videre, småplukker, i forståelse og videre diskusjoner:)
Småplukker
30.06.2022 kl 22:29
5748
1. Fint at du omsider kommer med argumenter 2. Du kan spare deg den ovenfra og ned-holdningen du legger deg på i innlegget.
Desverre har ikke du lest argumentasjonen min (eller skjønt den): Selvsagt skjønner jeg at incentiver (gulrot) må til for raskere overgang til grønn energiproduksjon.
Poenget mitt, som du altså ikke svarer på er at det ikke er nok med bare gulrot for å få dette til å skje raskt nok hvis vi skal tro forskerne. Og det syns jeg så absolutt vi skal.
Vi trenger pisk også, eller skattlegging, lover som sier noe om maksimalt utslipp, og direkte forbud mot enkelte utvinningsmetoder i løpet av x antall år. Dette er hva høyesterett nå gjør adskillig vanskeligere å få gjennomført på føderalt nivå. Statens virkemidler vingeklippes i miljøkampen.Så for å sitere deg avslutningsvis:
"Dette er jo litt skolelærdom, men jeg håper det hjelper deg videre, Flyers, i forståelse og videre diskusjoner:) "
PS: Poenget mitt når jeg kalte deg navlebeskuende, var at når det kommer en meget trist nyhet for miljøkampen globalt, velger du å kalle det en god nyhet fordi du mener det vil gagne Rec (og aksjekursen). Siden Rec er et selskap som skal bidra med å skape en sunn, grønnere klode litt kjappere, så var kanskje ikke navlebeskuende helt korrekt. Hyklersk ville nok passet bedre, eller hva syns du?
Desverre har ikke du lest argumentasjonen min (eller skjønt den): Selvsagt skjønner jeg at incentiver (gulrot) må til for raskere overgang til grønn energiproduksjon.
Poenget mitt, som du altså ikke svarer på er at det ikke er nok med bare gulrot for å få dette til å skje raskt nok hvis vi skal tro forskerne. Og det syns jeg så absolutt vi skal.
Vi trenger pisk også, eller skattlegging, lover som sier noe om maksimalt utslipp, og direkte forbud mot enkelte utvinningsmetoder i løpet av x antall år. Dette er hva høyesterett nå gjør adskillig vanskeligere å få gjennomført på føderalt nivå. Statens virkemidler vingeklippes i miljøkampen.Så for å sitere deg avslutningsvis:
"Dette er jo litt skolelærdom, men jeg håper det hjelper deg videre, Flyers, i forståelse og videre diskusjoner:) "
PS: Poenget mitt når jeg kalte deg navlebeskuende, var at når det kommer en meget trist nyhet for miljøkampen globalt, velger du å kalle det en god nyhet fordi du mener det vil gagne Rec (og aksjekursen). Siden Rec er et selskap som skal bidra med å skape en sunn, grønnere klode litt kjappere, så var kanskje ikke navlebeskuende helt korrekt. Hyklersk ville nok passet bedre, eller hva syns du?
Redigert 30.06.2022 kl 22:36
Du må logge inn for å svare
Du fortsetter karakteristikken av meddebattanter, ser jeg småtten. Det er vel en smule barnslig? Forøvrig veldig rart å se sine egne utsagn skrevet som motargumenter. Og den floskelløsningen på å løse forurensningsproblemet har jeg hørt mange ganger av et politisk parti som regjerer i Oslo, men gikk på en heidundrande smell i stortingsvalget.
Det er også veldig rart at du kaller meg hyklersk. Du vet ikke hvor jeg står i klimakampen. Jeg har aldri skrevet et eneste positivt ord om klimakampen og ikke er jeg klimaforkjemper, heller. Hvordan kan jeg være hyklersk. Hegnar opprettet dette forumet for å diskutere aksjer og aksjeverdier. På RECSI trådene diskuterer vi hvorfor Rec skal gå opp eller ned. Dette er ikke en tråd for å diskutere klimakampen. Da må du søke andre arenaer. At du totalt har misforstått konteksten av dette forumet, er jo egentlig helt vilt. Men tilslutt, det som er bra for Rec, er bra for meg. Jeg tror at beslutningen som er fattet av høyesterett i usa, vil få fart på enighet om sol og batteri insentiver💰
Det er også veldig rart at du kaller meg hyklersk. Du vet ikke hvor jeg står i klimakampen. Jeg har aldri skrevet et eneste positivt ord om klimakampen og ikke er jeg klimaforkjemper, heller. Hvordan kan jeg være hyklersk. Hegnar opprettet dette forumet for å diskutere aksjer og aksjeverdier. På RECSI trådene diskuterer vi hvorfor Rec skal gå opp eller ned. Dette er ikke en tråd for å diskutere klimakampen. Da må du søke andre arenaer. At du totalt har misforstått konteksten av dette forumet, er jo egentlig helt vilt. Men tilslutt, det som er bra for Rec, er bra for meg. Jeg tror at beslutningen som er fattet av høyesterett i usa, vil få fart på enighet om sol og batteri insentiver💰
Småplukker
30.06.2022 kl 23:45
5476
Tydelig at du har MDG (som jeg ikke stemmer på) voldsomt langt oppi vrangstrupen, men deg om det.
Forøvrig har du rett i at du nok ikke er en hykler, siden du er åpen på at du driter i miljøet så lenge du tjener penger. Greit nok.
Om ikke annet så rene ord for pengene. Men det at du kun bryr deg om det gagner deg økonomisk (ensporet....?) mens jeg
også ønsker resultater utover min egen personlige vinning, betyr ikke at jeg har "totalt misforstått konteksten" i forumet. Det er fullt lov å
ha flere tanker i hodet samtidig. For noen av oss.
Vel, la oss avslutte, kommer ikke særlig lenger på dette.
Forøvrig har du rett i at du nok ikke er en hykler, siden du er åpen på at du driter i miljøet så lenge du tjener penger. Greit nok.
Om ikke annet så rene ord for pengene. Men det at du kun bryr deg om det gagner deg økonomisk (ensporet....?) mens jeg
også ønsker resultater utover min egen personlige vinning, betyr ikke at jeg har "totalt misforstått konteksten" i forumet. Det er fullt lov å
ha flere tanker i hodet samtidig. For noen av oss.
Vel, la oss avslutte, kommer ikke særlig lenger på dette.
De mange tankene som du påberoper deg å ha, er jeg veldig tvilsom til. På meg virker det som enkle floskeltanker. Det største kullproblemet i verden, er at Kina fortsetter sin bygging av kullkraftverk og skal fortsette med sine massive utslipp til 2030 før de trenger å gjøre noe. Hvis jeg kjenner lusa på gangen, småtten, så tipper jeg at du kjøper billige varer fra Kina. Dette er varer som er produsert med kull og fraktes til Norge med oljeenergi. Hvis Rec går opp i verdi så slipper du kanskje det? Litt sånn ekte ‘jeg bryr meg om miljøet’ handling. At jeg driter i miljøet har jeg aldri sagt, men det virker som om du har et veldig enkelt hode. Fort gjort å plassere folk i bås, er du sikkert opplært til. Kjøpe billig og plassere folk i bås, det er vel stas for deg. Tilslutt, jeg sykler til jobben - 10 km hver vei, tur-retur hver dag, kjører knapt bil, bestiller aldri varer fra Kina, og kjøper minst mulig av det som er produsert i Kina. Fordi jeg er bevisst mine handlinger. Dette er et forum for å diskutere aksjer. At jeg nå skriver om noe annet enn Rec, skyldes at din infame argumentasjon irriterer meg. Tilslutt, håper du kan diskutere Rec aksjer i fremtiden uten å komme med nedverdigende karakteristikker av de som gjør det.
Redigert 01.07.2022 kl 00:29
Du må logge inn for å svare
manman01
13.07.2022 kl 08:17
2572
‘The time for rhetoric is over’: US solar companies demand movement on budget bill
https://www.pv-tech.org/the-time-for-rhetoric-is-over-us-solar-companies-demand-movement-on-budget-bill/
JULY 12, 2022
"
Hundreds of US solar and energy storage companies have implored US lawmakers to pass a budget reconciliation bill containing solar downstream and manufacturing supports.
In a letter coordinated by industry trade groups, more than 400 solar and energy storage manufacturers, developers, EPCs and other companies called on members of Congress to get on with passing a bill that has been stuck in the Washington D.C. quagmire for months.
It comes amidst an industry-wide ‘day of action’, with clean energy advocates also calling congressional offices with similar requests, as lobbying efforts step up.
The letter, addressed to US President Joe Biden, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, stresses how the US’ solar, storage and other clean energy industries “stand ready” to develop a US power system that is cleaner, cheaper and more secure.
“Please pass the tools in reconciliation to help us make that possible,” the letter reads, finishing simply: “It’s time to get this done.”
"
https://www.pv-tech.org/the-time-for-rhetoric-is-over-us-solar-companies-demand-movement-on-budget-bill/
JULY 12, 2022
"
Hundreds of US solar and energy storage companies have implored US lawmakers to pass a budget reconciliation bill containing solar downstream and manufacturing supports.
In a letter coordinated by industry trade groups, more than 400 solar and energy storage manufacturers, developers, EPCs and other companies called on members of Congress to get on with passing a bill that has been stuck in the Washington D.C. quagmire for months.
It comes amidst an industry-wide ‘day of action’, with clean energy advocates also calling congressional offices with similar requests, as lobbying efforts step up.
The letter, addressed to US President Joe Biden, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, stresses how the US’ solar, storage and other clean energy industries “stand ready” to develop a US power system that is cleaner, cheaper and more secure.
“Please pass the tools in reconciliation to help us make that possible,” the letter reads, finishing simply: “It’s time to get this done.”
"
manman01
13.07.2022 kl 08:18
2571
Dear President Biden, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer,
The solar, storage and other clean energy industries stand ready to help build a cleaner, cheaper, and
more secure domestic energy future for all Americans. Please pass the tools in reconciliation to help us
make that possible.
It’s time to get this done.
Sincerely,
(https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Clean%20Energy%20Industry%20Reconciliation%20Letter%20July%202022_1.pdf)
The solar, storage and other clean energy industries stand ready to help build a cleaner, cheaper, and
more secure domestic energy future for all Americans. Please pass the tools in reconciliation to help us
make that possible.
It’s time to get this done.
Sincerely,
(https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Clean%20Energy%20Industry%20Reconciliation%20Letter%20July%202022_1.pdf)
Stabukk
13.07.2022 kl 08:29
2485
Svaret ligg jo i at senator Joe Manchin og hans etterkommarar vil sikra seg gode inntekter på forurensande kol. Ein må berre håpa at Manchin blir med på eit kompromiss før mellomvalget. Det hastar når politikarane har ferie i august.
Reflect
13.07.2022 kl 09:11
2342
Litt interressant at REC, Sila og G14 ikke signerer. Det betyr vel liten tillit til myndigheter, og som May bekreftet at gjenstarting skjer uansett.
Men det må bli ett mega politisk nederlag for Biden hvis Manchin holder igjen.
Men det må bli ett mega politisk nederlag for Biden hvis Manchin holder igjen.
Reflect
13.07.2022 kl 09:45
2173
Jeg mener at signatur på dennne ville forplikte dem til å vente på avklaring som kanskje ikke kommer. De signerte på det første brev men saken ble stopped av Manchin. - men nå er REC ikke avhengig av SEMA for å realisere oppstart.
Tydelig at andre store aktører også prøver å kjøre på utenfor SEMA.
Jeg synes dette er positivt som Recs aksjonær!
Tydelig at andre store aktører også prøver å kjøre på utenfor SEMA.
Jeg synes dette er positivt som Recs aksjonær!
BIF78
13.07.2022 kl 09:45
2171
Skalleknarp skrev Hvorfor er ikke RECSI med på listen...? (HS er)
Mine bud er, at de enten mener, at det bør være HS der ligger pres på, da ML starter op uanset. Eller de ikke er blevet spurgt. Det kan kun være gisninger.