Slashdot Mirror
The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The NYT writes in an editorial that for the last few months, the Koch brothers and their conservative allies in state government have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, by pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive. 'The coal producers' motivation is clear: They see solar and wind energy as a long-term threat to their businesses. That might seem distant at the moment, when nearly 40 percent of the nation's electricity is still generated by coal, and when less than 1 percent of power customers have solar arrays. But given new regulations on power-plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants, and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions, the future clearly lies with renewable energy.' For example, the Arizona Public Service Company, the state's largest utility, funneled large sums through a Koch operative to a nonprofit group that ran an ad claiming net metering would hurt older people on fixed incomes (video) by raising electric rates. The ad tried to link the requirement to President Obama. Another Koch ad likens the renewable-energy requirement to health care reform, the ultimate insult in that world. 'Like Obamacare, it's another government mandate we can't afford,' the narrator says. 'That line might appeal to Tea Partiers, but it's deliberately misleading,' concludes the editorial. 'This campaign is really about the profits of Koch Carbon and the utilities, which to its organizers is much more important than clean air and the consequences of climate change.'"
Actually, the real worry is the $20 trillion in stranded assets that the oil companies stand to lose if solar gets cheaper than carbon fuels quickly enough. So it's crucial that they keep their subsidies and prevent anyone else from growing through subsidies. This is a very real problem—it's not just some rich people being assholes, but rather some rich people who stand to become substantially less rich if things go the way they seem to be going.
They are not against energy subsidies, they are against renewable, and in particular solar, subsidies. They love their own subsidies, which means the title is very correct.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Unless the U.S. starts, pretty damned soon, to find an alternative to fossil fuels, it's economy is in for a beating, the likes of which few have scarcely imagined.
Since our economy is far less dependent on heavy manufacturing than it used to be, we're not in nearly as much trouble as other nations. Seen any satellite views of China recently?
Since our economy is far less dependent on heavy manufacturing than it used to be, we're not in nearly as much trouble as other nations.
As a percentage of they overall economy yes but in absolute size the US manufacturing sector is enormous. Depending on how you measure it the US manufactures $2-4 Trillion in goods each year which is roughly the size of the entire GDP of Russia. The only country with a manufacturing sector even close to that in size is China. The "death" of manufacturing in the US has been greatly exaggerated. Manufacturing is a large and vital portion of the US economy and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
gotta love conspiracy theorist.
but as long as it's a left wing conspiracy it's okay.
Do you really not perceive that the US military and intelligence agencies are used to make the world safe for American business? Why did the CIA overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954? Why did they overthrow the Iranian government a year earlier? Do you still think we invaded Iraq because Saddam was such an asshole and we just felt so bad for those poor Iraqis?
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's how the world works. Get your head out of your ass.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There's no reason to think Solyndra was anything other than an investment that didn't pan out because the market changed. Accusations of cronyism weren't sustained by any evidence, and if there were evidence it would certainly have surfaced given the brightness of the spotlight that was shone on that failure. The Waltons also invested heavily in Solyndra, and took a beating. That loan program has a lower-than-average failure rate. And Solyndra failed because regular solar panels got cheaper, so glass tubes were no longer economical.
The part of the Nevada desert where that solar plant was going to be built is over a hundred miles from the desert tortoise habitat.
But hey, why let pesky facts get in the way of talking points?
One company that went bankrupt which had received a subsidized loan, out of forty such companies, is exemplary of the whole program? A successful program which beat it's own return expectations by $2 billion?
Okay, let's suppose that that's true. And let's suppose that some story about nepotism for Harry Reid's son (I've never heard of this) is just as bad as the Koch brothers buying our government, and let's suppose that corruption is exactly equal on both sides of the D / R line, all exactly as you say. So what? All things being equal then, I'd much rather have the clean energy than the dirty.