Wind’s PTC: The Opposition Mounts (117 groups and counting)
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 12:27 PMWind’s PTC: The Opposition Mounts (117 groups and counting)
by Robert Bradley Jr.
June 11, 2014
June 11, 2014
“The U.S. wind industry has … demonstrated reliability and performance levels that make them very competitive.”
- Statement of Michael L.S. Bergey, American Wind Energy Association, 1986.
“The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and would become commercially viable. However, after nearly 40 years of subsidies for wind energy R&D and 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks — together totaling over $100 billion.”- Glenn Schleede, “Republicans for Obama Energy (Senate Finance Committee Okays PTC/ITC Subsidies),” April 16, 2014.
Concentrated benefits/diffused costs.
The cronies, rent-seeking profits calculated, lobby government in the
capitals. Most of the rest of us, just paying a fraction of a penny for
their many dollars, stay home. That’s how government grows and bad
public-policy rationales get going.
Wind power and other qualifying
renewables got their government largesse long ago. Even before
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA) was promising coming competitiveness with just a bit more
subsidy, a little more time. Then the taxpayer favor could go away, they
promised time and again.
The open-ended, outsized tax subsidy
for qualifying renewable energy, a mainstay of Obama energy policy, is a
Republican, not only Democrat, problem. Texas, for example, thanks to Enron
in a bootlegger-and-Baptist coalition with pro-wind environmentalists,
is a Republican friendly state for AWEA et al. Note the support for wind
from, for example, Sen. John Cornyn.
New Coalition Letter
Earlier this week, a coalition letter (reprinted below) urged Congress not to renew the wind PTC in these words:
“On behalf of our groups
and organizations, together representing millions of Americans, we write
to express our strong opposition to renewing expired wind tax
incentives.
“Over the past 20 years, American
taxpayers have seen little return from the forced investment in wind
energy. This handout consistently fails to deliver on its promise of
long-term job creation, economic activity, and affordability. It
promotes government favoritism in the energy marketplace, threatens the
reliability of the electric grid, and a 1 year extension costs $12
billion over 10 years. Recent reports and studies have also shown that
subsidizing wind energy results in higher electricity costs for American
families.
“American taxpayers deserve a portfolio
of energy solutions that are economically viable, not those that have
to be propped up by carve outs in the tax code.”
See more at:
The myth of the climate change 97%
By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer
Secretary
of State John Kerry, President Obama
and others frequently claim that climate change
will have “crippling consequences,” and that
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that
climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The
so-called consensus comes from a handful of
surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from
scientific papers – all of which have been contra-
dicted by more reliable research.
and others frequently claim that climate change
will have “crippling consequences,” and that
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that
climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The
so-called consensus comes from a handful of
surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from
scientific papers – all of which have been contra-
dicted by more reliable research.
There is no basis for the claim that "97% of scientists" believe that man-made
climate change is a dangerous problem.
climate change is a dangerous problem.
To read the entire WSJ article, go to:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Ohio SB 310: ENERGY USERS BEAT THE CRONIES! (GE, AWEA, etc.)
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 10:39 AMOhio SB 310: Energy Users Best the Cronies (GE, AWEA, etc.)
by Kevon Martis
May 30, 2014
May 30, 2014
“But the
truth is that Ohio’s renewable energy mandates have largely benefited
only one group: entrenched monopoly fossil utilities like AEP,
Iberdrola, and corporate behemoths like GE.
But what should we expect? It was their idea in the first place.”
Senate Bill 310’s attempt to freeze Ohio’s renewable energy mandate
has elicited the typical partisan howls from Ohio’s green energy
profiteers. They have been quick to paint the supporters of SB310 as
slavish supporters of the much maligned Koch Brothers, FirstEnergy or
other “dark fossil corporate profiteers”.
Curiously, these environmental group’s normally exquisitely tuned
“corporate conspiracy radar” appears to have developed a massive
wind-turbine-sized blind spot.
Consider:
- In 1998 it was Enron’s Ken Lay who implored George W. Bush to extend subsidies for wind energy. A quick scan of his letter reveals talking points that today could easily be mistaken for the Ohio Sierra Club: “Wind is the fastest growing new electrical generation technology in the world today and has rapidly decreased its production costs until it is close to being competitive with conventional generation technologies.”
- But as shown by Sierra’s willingness to take $26 million from gas driller Chesapeake Energy to fight coal, their policy positions can be very nimble indeed-for a price.
- After Enron’s epic fail their wind business was scooped up by General Electric. GE’s power generation unit saw great opportunity in the growing alarm over global warming.
Traditional coal plants last a very
long time, 60 years or more. It is hard to sell new plants when they
obsolesce so slowly. But if new CO2 regulations could begin to force
premature retirement of still-serviceable coal plants, GE could fill
that generation void with new gas generation. Every megawatt of retired
coal generation could then be replaced with new (GE) gas generation.
That is a fine start but what if there were a way to sell two or
three or four megawatts (MW) of new capacity to replace one MW of
prematurely retired coal generation?
Intermittent wind energy that is wholly reliant
upon gas generators for grid integration was the key. But how to create
a market share for expensive wind energy which typically arrives at times of low demand and low price?
Enter state renewable energy mandates like Ohio’s SB221.
GE’s business is generators. As board members
of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) they have been at the
vanguard of promoting and protecting renewable energy mandates. Since
wind energy is variable and intermittent in output due to the vagaries
of weather, one cannot simply replace 1,000MW of baseload coal
generation with 1,000MW of wind generation.
Replacing such a coal plant with wind generation requires one to
construct approximately 1,000MW of gas-fired generation to balance and
backup wind’s erratic output. For GE that is win-win. They get to sell
2MW of new generation to replace 1MW of perfectly serviceable coal
generation being prematurely retired by EPA regulations.
But even better for GE is the fact that wind turbines last 20 years- at best.
Thus, over the 60 year life of a typical coal plant, not only do
ratepayers need to pay for a new 1,000MW (GE) gas generator, they are
also compelled to buy 1,000 MW of GE wind turbines AND replace them at
least two more times over 60 years.
Thus, through the magic of EPA regulation, coupled with high level PR
air support from willing accomplices like Sierra Club and furthered by
renewable energy mandates like the one SB310 hopes to freeze, corporate
giant GE has struck a largely tax free green bonanza.
Our “corporate conspiracy” search does not end there. A quick review
of the AWEA’s board of directors reveals an interesting cast of fossil
fuel characters indeed.
Iberdrola Renewables’ corporate parent is among the largest fossil
utilities in Europe. An aggressive opponent of SB310, Ohio wind operator
Iberdrola also owns significant fossil fuel generation in the US. Wind
works well for Iberdrola: in just one year their US wind investments
allowed them to strip mine $1 billion from the US tax code and export it to Spain.
Along with German utility E. On Energy and FPL/NextEra, Ohio’s
fossil giant AEP also enjoys a place on the AWEA board. Could it be that
wind subsidies are really just more fossil subsidies?
There are many solid reasons for Ohioans to support freezing renewable energy mandates.
SB221’s instate renewable energy generation mandate violates the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution. Worse, Ohio’s wind resource is anemic
relative to its western peers. This means OH wind is roughly twice the
price of Iowa’s or Minnesota’s.
Still worse for Ohio’s environment, the center/left Brookings Institute, deeply concerned about climate change, now reports
that wind and solar energy mandates like SB221 are the most costly and
least effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Anyone can play “find the (Koch) bogeyman”.
But the truth is that Ohio’s renewable energy mandates have largely
benefited only one group: entrenched monopoly fossil utilities like AEP,
Iberdrola, and corporate behemoths like GE.
But what should we expect? It was their idea in the first place.
The good news appears to be that Ohio will stop the renewable
charade. Tom Stacy, an “Ohioan for Affordable Electricity,” offers his
plaudits for Substitute SB 310 that passed the Ohio House and Senate
and now awaits gubernatorial approval to become law.
Appendix: Tom Stacy on Ohio Win
“This is a win for ratepayers, Ohio’s economy and its environment,” he said. “Ratepayers can rest assured that rates won’t rise due to ‘self inflicted measures’ at the state level even while their federal government’s EPA has us in a head lock.”
Ohio’s bread and butter industries and
employers are energy intensive, some consuming as much as $200,000 worth
of electricity per employee per year. Escalating costs could have
catastrophic effects on wages, benefits, expansion plans and even
employment if any one of those manufacturers ‘pulls the plug’ on Ohio
operations due to escalating energy costs and projections.”
“From the environmental side, it is
unfortunate groups such as Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned
Scientists, Natural Resource Defense Council and others whose stated
mission and public image is environmental improvement often have agendas
that prevent pursuing such laudable goals in the most cost effective
ways. Some appear to despise wealth in general – even earned and well
deserved wealth.
How Un-American! Some hate cronyism – so
do tea parties – but fail to admit that renewables like wind are some
of the worst offenders in that department. And some just hate the idea
that man benefits from fire, something cavemen discovered and we’ve been
better off ever since.”
“The study committee will hopefully add a
so-far-woefully-absent dimension to energy and environment policy:
evaluating both the direct and indirect costs and benefits of various
electricity source options, while recognizing that per unit cost of
intermittent sources of electricity cannot and should not ever be
directly compared to the cost of dispatchable sources.”
“It would be really meaningful for the
study committee to propose an end goal measured in PPM and cents per KWh
instead of just mandating large percentages of somebody’s favorite
technology and then taking their word that it will magically cure all
ails.
The study committee may move us in that
direction. We are confident it will balance everyone’s desire for
standard of living improvement, high employment, low rates and less
wasted taxes. Maybe these are even as important as ever cleaner air and
water and ever less changing climates, considering the US is already a
global leader in emissions standards.”
“This bill has the potential to raise
political and public awareness of not just electricity choices, but the
very closely related choices between socialism and capitalism. The idea
of ‘all of the above’ translates to ‘some of the ridiculous.’ What we
need is an ‘all of the competitive’ energy policy, and Ohio has taken a
small step in that direction through the passage of Am. Sub. SB 310.”
Read the entire article: Ohio SB 310: Energy Users Best the Cronies (GE, AWEA, etc) at:
http://www.masterresource.org/2014/05/ohio-senate-bill-310-why-is-good-news-for-energy-users-bad-are-journalists-as-crony-as-crony-capitalists/
http://www.masterresource.org/2014/05/ohio-senate-bill-310-why-is-good-news-for-energy-users-bad-are-journalists-as-crony-as-crony-capitalists/
Irresponsible Senate Finance Committee Action on Wind Energy Tax Break, by Glenn Schleede
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 3:42 PM
Irresponsible Senate Finance Committee Action on Wind Energy Tax Break
April 11, 2013
Once
again, the Senate Committee that manages to make life miserable for
millions of tax-paying Americans with its manipulation of the US Tax
Code, is acting to aid its friends, punish ordinary taxpayers, and load
another $85 billion in debt on our children and grandchildren.
On
April 3, 2014, by “voice” (no fingerprints) vote, the Senate Finance
Committee reported out an $85 billion tax break ”extender” bill -- which
the Committee calls the “EXPIRE Act.” [1] The bill includes billions in unwarranted tax breaks for special interests, including the wind industry.
As
long as Congress fails to pass a balanced budget, every dollar provided
to special interests in this $85 billion “Extender” bill is a direct
addition to the national debt that will be dumped on our children and
grandchildren. Further, each dollar that Congress adds to the national
debt will be DOUBLED in about 15 years due to interest that will accrue
on that debt.
An
egregious example of an unwarranted special interest tax break in the
Finance Committee’s bill is Senator Grassley’s wind and other renewable
energy “Production Tax Credit” (PTC) and “Investment Tax Credit” (ITC).
Grassley insisted on extending this 20-year old “temporary” tax break
for another 2 years at a cost, according to the Joint Tax Committee, of
more than $13 billion over the next 10 years (and more thereafter).
When
Senator Toomey attempted to eliminate unwarranted energy tax breaks
from the bill, Republican Senators Grassley, Cornyn, Thune, Crapo, &
Portman[2] joined Finance Committee Democrats in voting to keep the massive energy tax breaks in the bill!
The
votes for Grassley’s $13+ billion wind PTC and ITC extension to benefit
“wind farm” owners would result in an equal addition to future
generations’ debt burden! Under Grassley’s measure, owners of “wind
farms” would be able to continue reducing their corporate income tax
liability by $0.023 (adjusted upward for inflation) for each
kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced by their wind turbines
during the next 10 years.
The
wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a
then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would
be environmentally benign and would become commercially viable. However,
after nearly 40 years of subsidies for wind energy R&D and 20 years
of lucrative wind energy tax breaks -- together totaling over $100
billion:
- Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value[3] – with the wind industry providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever become commercially viable (i.e., without large tax breaks and subsidies).
- Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental, economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen and still not admitted by wind industry advocates; and
Eight Republicans[4]
(some claiming to be “conservatives”) and 110 Democrats in the US House
of Representatives have signed a letter to House leaders urging
extension of the wind PTC. The tax-writing House Ways & Means
Committee hasn’t taken up the wind PTC, but one of the wind industry’s
Washington lobbyists has bragged that the wind industry still has "very
strong support from Democrats in the House and strong support from some,
but not all, of the Republicans."[5]
Last
December, Senator Grassley told constituents in Iowa that the costly
wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) would be extended soon. “…Congress will
come back after the New Year and approve four dozen or more tax
credits.” “There are a lot of economic interests”…represented in the tax
credits. Those interest groups collectively “put a lot of pressure on
Congress to re-institute the credits’[6]
In
addition to wind industry lobbyists, Grassley undoubtedly was referring
to such Washington establishment organizations as the US Chamber of
Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and Business
Roundtable. Organizations such as these once championed private
enterprise but now seem to be heavily influenced by member companies
that:
- Have concluded that there is less risk and more profit in “mining” Washington for tax breaks and subsidies than in pursing truly innovative and productive activities in private, competitive markets.
- Have no problem in accepting special interest tax breaks that load debt on future generations.
The
April 3rd action by the Senate Finance Committee certainly helps
explain why a recent Gallup Survey shows that Congress currently has a
13% favorability rating. If the nation’s “Millennials” understand how
the Congress is adding to the debt that they and their children will
bear, they may assign an even lower rating!
Glenn R. Schleede
Virginia
Virginia
[1] Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act.
[2] See “Results of [Senate Finance Committee] Executive Session.040314” download 4/9/14 from: http://www.finance.senate.gov/legislation/details/?id=67094f10-5056-a032-52ff-257830e0a938
[3] Electricity is produced by wind turbines only when wind speeds are in the right range (starting around 6 MPH, reaching rated capacity around 32 MPH, and cutting out around 55 MPH). Electricity from wind turbines is, therefore, low in value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday afternoons when most needed. Reliable generating using conventional energy sources must always be available to maintain stable electric grids and a reliable electricity supply.
[4] King (IA), Lucas (OK), Runyan (NJ), Fitzpatrick (PA), Gibson (NY), Latham (IA), Noem (SD). Cole (OK).
[5] http://www.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-27696241-11565 (downloaded April 11, 2014)
[6] The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA), December 11, 2013.
[2] See “Results of [Senate Finance Committee] Executive Session.040314” download 4/9/14 from: http://www.finance.senate.gov/legislation/details/?id=67094f10-5056-a032-52ff-257830e0a938
[3] Electricity is produced by wind turbines only when wind speeds are in the right range (starting around 6 MPH, reaching rated capacity around 32 MPH, and cutting out around 55 MPH). Electricity from wind turbines is, therefore, low in value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday afternoons when most needed. Reliable generating using conventional energy sources must always be available to maintain stable electric grids and a reliable electricity supply.
[4] King (IA), Lucas (OK), Runyan (NJ), Fitzpatrick (PA), Gibson (NY), Latham (IA), Noem (SD). Cole (OK).
[5] http://www.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-27696241-11565 (downloaded April 11, 2014)
[6] The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA), December 11, 2013.
Renewal of Wind PTC Will Lead to Big Boost in Carbon Emissions
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 10:07 PMA Warning to Congress: Renewal of Wind Energy
Subsidies Will Lead to Big Boost in CO2 Emissions:
... For those who say
this problem is more a product of rock-
bottom natural gas
prices than the PTC, I say think again. Wind
tends to be nocturnal,
blowing during off-peak hours for power
consumption, according to UBS and a 2012 Northbridge study.
consumption, according to UBS and a 2012 Northbridge study.
It’s when people least
need the power, yet that’s just when the
taxpayers are being hit
in the pocket. Natural gas plants are not
setting wholesale prices
in the dead of night, but the wind turbines keep spinning.
So how does all of this
connect to going backwards on climate
change? Easy.
This PTC problem causes the erosion of our existing nuclear fleet,
the low-carbon workhorse. As I mentioned, nuke plants are shutting
down prematurely — Vermont Yankee in Vermont and Kewaunee in
Wisconsin to name two — and more are in danger of following suit.
When that happens, climate scientists say, carbon emissions will skyrocket.
change? Easy.
This PTC problem causes the erosion of our existing nuclear fleet,
the low-carbon workhorse. As I mentioned, nuke plants are shutting
down prematurely — Vermont Yankee in Vermont and Kewaunee in
Wisconsin to name two — and more are in danger of following suit.
When that happens, climate scientists say, carbon emissions will skyrocket.
Starting and stopping our thermal plants to accommodate these
windy splurges also
causes big increases in all contaminant
emissions, including
carbon. Just as the fuel economy in your
car worsens when you’re
inching along in traffic rather than
cruising at a steady 55
MPH, the so-called ‘cycling’ of gas and
coal-fired plants burns
up more feedstock, pouring CO2 into the
atmosphere. In fact,
Bentek, a Colorado energy analytics firm,
found that the 1,327
cycling incidents in the state in 2009 created
up to 6.8 million pounds
of ‘extra’ SO2, 3.1 million pounds of NOX
and 147,000 pounds of
CO2.....
Read the entire article at:
http://tinyurl.com/l4c7fmb
Serious adverse health effects associated with noise generated by wind turbines
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 9:56 PM
A remarkable paper by Alun Evans, Professor Emeritus Belfast University
In conclusion, there are serious adverse health effects
associated with noise pollution generated by wind turbines.
It is essential that separation distances between human
habitation and wind turbines are increased.
See
Energy Analyst, Glenn Schleede's letter on the PTC to various senators
below. Glenn says, "Feel free to use it in whole or part with or
without attribution" when contacting senators' offices, and to please
don't forget their in-state offices. Their telephone and fax numbers can
be found on members' web sites.
How much will Senator Grassley’s plan to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) add to the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren?
by Glenn Schleede
April 2, 2014
How much will Senator Grassley’s plan to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) add to the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren?
On Thursday, April 3, 2014, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider and report out to the full Senate a bill that would extend various federal tax breaks.
Senator Grassley (R-IA) has announced that he will amend this tax break “extender” bill to continue for two more years the wind “Production Tax Credit” (PTC) that benefits corporations that own “wind farms.” Owners of “wind farms” would be able to reduce their income tax liability by $0.023 (adjusted upward for inflation) for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by their wind turbines during the next 10 years.
The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and become economically competitive. However, after 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks and subsidies valued at over $100 billion:
· Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental, economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen and still not admitted by wind industry advocates; and
· Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value – with the wind industry providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever be commercially viable (i.e., without large tax breaks and subsidies).
Grassley’s proposed 2-year extension of the wind PTC would add more than $20 billion to the huge national debt that Congress is loading on to our children and grandchildren. That $20 billion would be in addition to the hundred plus billions that have already been lavished on the wind industry since the wind PTC was instigated by Senator Grassley in 1992!
Further, since the Government must pay interest on the national debt and Congress has shown no intention of paying off the national debt the burden of tax breaks such as the wind PTC will grow and grow – more than doubling the debt over the next two decades even if interest charges average only 4% per year and there was no more annual federal budget deficits.
Clearly, it is time for all members of Congress, including Senator Grassley, to resist pressure from the wind industry and stand up for today’s tax payers – and even more so for our children and grandchildren who will bear – unfairly -- the debt that is being passed on to them.
Glenn R. Schleede
How much will Senator Grassley’s plan to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) add to the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren?
by Glenn Schleede
April 2, 2014
How much will Senator Grassley’s plan to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) add to the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren?
On Thursday, April 3, 2014, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider and report out to the full Senate a bill that would extend various federal tax breaks.
Senator Grassley (R-IA) has announced that he will amend this tax break “extender” bill to continue for two more years the wind “Production Tax Credit” (PTC) that benefits corporations that own “wind farms.” Owners of “wind farms” would be able to reduce their income tax liability by $0.023 (adjusted upward for inflation) for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by their wind turbines during the next 10 years.
The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and become economically competitive. However, after 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks and subsidies valued at over $100 billion:
· Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental, economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen and still not admitted by wind industry advocates; and
· Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value – with the wind industry providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever be commercially viable (i.e., without large tax breaks and subsidies).
Grassley’s proposed 2-year extension of the wind PTC would add more than $20 billion to the huge national debt that Congress is loading on to our children and grandchildren. That $20 billion would be in addition to the hundred plus billions that have already been lavished on the wind industry since the wind PTC was instigated by Senator Grassley in 1992!
Further, since the Government must pay interest on the national debt and Congress has shown no intention of paying off the national debt the burden of tax breaks such as the wind PTC will grow and grow – more than doubling the debt over the next two decades even if interest charges average only 4% per year and there was no more annual federal budget deficits.
Clearly, it is time for all members of Congress, including Senator Grassley, to resist pressure from the wind industry and stand up for today’s tax payers – and even more so for our children and grandchildren who will bear – unfairly -- the debt that is being passed on to them.
Glenn R. Schleede
The Poverty of Renewables
MIAMI – According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “Climate change harms the poor first and worst.” This is true, because the poor are the most vulnerable and have the least resources with which to adapt. But we often forget that current policies to address global warming make energy much more costly, and that this harms the world’s poor much more.
Solar and wind power was subsidized by $60 billion in 2012.
This means that the world spent $60 billion more on energy than was
needed. And, because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.4
billion, the subsidies essentially wasted $58.6 billion. Biofuels were
subsidized by another $19 billion, with essentially no climate benefit.
All of that money could have been used to improve health care, hire more
teachers, build better roads, or lower taxes.
Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the EU’s climate policy will be €209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century.
Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the EU’s climate policy will be €209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century.
The
burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the world’s poor,
because the rich can easily pay more for their energy. I am often taken
aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable environmentalists who
cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or
electricity exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources. That may
go over well in affluent Hunterdon County, New Jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the US population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.
Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase
in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%.
The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63%
more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor
– that is, they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy;
and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of
their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.
In
Germany, where green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year,
household electricity prices have increased by 80% since 2000, causing
6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria
can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish
subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot
afford their own solar panels but still have to pay higher electricity
costs.
The list goes on. In Greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs by 48%, more and more Athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple.
But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people lack access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year – by far the world’s biggest environmental problem.
But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people lack access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year – by far the world’s biggest environmental problem.
Access
to electricity could solve that problem, while allowing families to
read at night, own a refrigerator to keep food from spoiling, or use a
computer to connect with the world. It would also allow businesses to
produce more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.
Consider
Pakistan and South Africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means
recurrent blackouts that wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet
the funding of new coal-fired power plants in both countries has been
widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments. Instead, they
suggest renewables as the solution.
But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over the next two years, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.
But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over the next two years, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.
In
1971, 40% of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then, it has
powered its explosive economic growth almost exclusively with highly
polluting coal, lifting 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China
gets a trifling 0.23% of its energy from wind and solar. By contrast,
Africa gets 50% of its energy today from renewables – and remains poor.
A new analysis
from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the
world’s poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of
poverty for about $500. But, using gas electrification, we could pull
more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By focusing on
our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three
out of four people in darkness and poverty.
Addressing
global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes
green energy affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of
money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.
‘The Road to Serfdom’ at 70: Hayek’s Relevance in the Age of Obama
0 comments Posted by Unknown at 11:40 AM‘The Road to Serfdom’ at 70: Hayek’s Relevance in the Age of Obama:
The fundamental insights and truths of his [Hayek's] analysis about the dangers from an ever encroaching paternalistic and interventionist government are no less valid now than when he wrote The Road to Serfdom in the midst of the Second World War.Consider these things:
Mounting corruption from special interest groups feeding at the trough of government spending;
The misuse and abuse of intrusive power into people’s lives in the name of ‘national security’;
The imposition of a paternalistic scale of values concerning presumed ‘fair wages’ and ‘progressive’ redistribution of income and wealth;
A national health care plan that is so problematic that its short-term welfarism could turn into –single-payer’ (government) socialism;
An ‘all of the above’ energy policy that is rigged against consumer-driven dense energy and rigged for government-enabled dilute energy;
The misguided and dangerous presumption that those in political power know better how people should live than those people themselves; or
The arrogant discarding of the Rule of Law and constitutional procedures and restraints.
All of these fearful trends in modern-day America show why reading and learning the lessons offered in Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is as important now as it was in 1944, when the book first appeared in print.
Read the entire article:
http://www.masterresource.org/2014/03/29891/
Wind Turbines Are Climate-Change Scarecrows
By Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute
For years, the wind-energy sector and
renewable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines
are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and
catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines are
nothing more than climate-change scarecrows...
Over
the past few years, the U.S. and other countries have been subsidizing
the paving of vast areas of the countryside with 500-foot-high bird- and bat-killing
whirligigs that are nothing more than climate talismans. Wind turbines
are not going to stop changes in the earth’s climate. Instead, they are
token gestures — giant steel scarecrows — that are deceiving the public
into thinking that we as a society are doing something to avert the
possibility of catastrophic climate change.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nro-energy/364885/wind-turbines-are-climate-change-scarecrows-robert-bryce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)