Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Why we need an energy bill (in one graph)

randdenergy.jpg

And much of that R&D money, of course, goes to researching new ways to pull fossil fuels out of the ground. It's not all going to renewables.

Source.

By Ezra Klein  |  September 9, 2010; 3:04 PM ET
Categories:  Charts and Graphs , Energy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forum: Andy Stern's plan to create 12 million new jobs
Next: You're not so special

Comments

I must be confused. I was under the impression, after a number of posts during the healthcare debate, that you thought that pharma companies spent too much on marketing and nothing on R&D.

Posted by: TWAndrews | September 9, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I'd be interested to see who it is that you think said that Pharma spends nothing on R&D. That 18% goes to R&D doesn't mean that there's not a significant chunk going to marketing. And those debates usually were in the context of whether drugs were overpriced and pharma could survive if Medicare bargained for lower prices. Even with 18% R&D, my recollection is that those companies are plenty profitable.

Posted by: MosBen | September 9, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

One thing about you - you never stop trying to think of ways the government should spend my money.

Posted by: ostap666 | September 9, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"you never stop trying to think of ways the government should spend my money."

Actually, he stopped long enough to post something about how companies spend their cash. There's no Government and there's no should.

And to the broader point - Government is going to spend your money (unless you'd prefer to live in say Somalia), so wouldn't you prefer it be spent wisely? Or would you prefer it be wasted on ineffective, inefficient boondoggles. If so, why do you bother reading the blog of a policy wonk like Ezra?

Posted by: jeirvine | September 9, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

A couple things:
All those other sectors create new products on regular cycles. To compete within their sectors and in the larger economy, those cycles have to be fueled by new materials, ideas and information. None of that is true in coal, natural gas, electricity, or nuclear.
Also, I wonder what actually comprises the "energy sector." It may be that energy businesses are simply siphoning off any R&D insights they can glean from the non-business scientific community, allowing them to keep their own R&D expenditures to a minimum.

Posted by: andrewlong | September 9, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

why we need one....in 7 words!
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/and_the_winner_is_1.html

Posted by: MeghanNRDC | September 10, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company