Tag Archives: ethics

Solar and Wind Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

There was sort of a debate presented in The Wall Street Journal a few days ago concerning the efficacy of Federal subsidies for solar and wind energy companies.  I say “sort of” because the Mark Muro’s arguments in favor of the subsidies demonstrate an utter cluelessness of the basics of economics as well as of how well the subsidies have already performed.

For instance, the WSJ‘s lede cites generic proponents as saying in all seriousness,

There is widespread agreement that pulling the plug on the subsidy at this point could hobble the wind-power industry.  Meanwhile, the biggest federal subsidy for solar power, a tax credit for 30% of the cost of installed equipment, is set to drop to 10% at the end of 2016.  A cash grant for up to 30% of solar equipment costs expired at the end of last year.

Proponents say wind and solar subsidies are needed for a few more years to allow these clean, renewable sources of energy to develop to the point where they can compete on price with electricity produced from coal and natural gas.

Yet, if the technology can’t compete in a free market on its own, if it needs the subsidy to survive, the technology is not ready for commercial use or sale.  Spending taxpayer money—private citizen money—on such a thing is a textbook example of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.  As the proponents admit without realizing it in that second paragraph: “…wind and solar subsidies are needed for a few more years to allow these clean, renewable sources of energy to develop….”

Muro then says in his argument,

Let’s remember the point of these temporary subsidies: to help emerging clean-energy technologies gain toeholds in challenging markets and advance toward unsubsidized price-competitiveness.

And

The ultimate reward is cheaper, cleaner energy and greater energy diversity, which will help guard against price shocks, keep energy costs down through competition and lessen the damage our energy consumption does to the environment….

Except that it isn’t cheaper if it needs subsidies coupled with coal, oil, gas (hydrocarbon) prices that are artificially elevated by government mandates to include “green” additives as the Feds do, or to buy electric power from solar and wind generators, as California does, in order to compete.  Moreover, diversity is reduced, not expanded by limiting us to solar and wind—or even by demanding that we buy a certain amount of solar and wind, regardless of market forces—and actively blocking access to hydrocarbon energy.  And finally, if these really are viable technologies that will deliver cheap energy easily, private investors will flock to invest, and no taxpayer subsidy will be even in the picture.

On top of that, there’s no case for environmental “damage,” given the great amount of cleanup already done, and the falsified “damage” attributed, for instance, to fracking by the EPA.

Muro goes on:

Wind and solar need the help because the barriers for new technologies in the energy industry are tougher than those in any other industry in this country.  Fossil fuels, with the help of their own government subsidies over the years, are thoroughly entrenched, with trillions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure in place.

Never mind that that entrenched infrastructure sits on top of centuries’ worth of economical, unsubsidized hydrocarbon deposits in the ground right here in the US and Canada, and the infrastructure easily can be extended to reach into the deposits in our respective territorial and economic zone waters, as the People’s Republic of China already is doing, filling the vacuum left by the present administration’s slow-walking of drilling permits for American companies.

Additionally, the beef that “the barriers for new technologies in the energy industry” are tough is just a cynical red herring.  Those technical barriers existed for the hydrocarbon industries, also, as they were developing.  Why should solar and wind get special treatment?  Muro has no answer; he merely asserts the “need.”

Muro concludes with this long-standing “promise:”

In sum, onshore wind is likely just a few years away from true subsidy independence, while several forms of solar aren’t far beyond.

Like commercial fusion, we’ve been “just a few years away” for decades.  It’s an empty promise.

As Dr David Kreutzer points out in his argument against these subsidies, though,

Surely some alternatives to fossil fuels will be developed, but they will only work if they are affordable.  Wind and solar aren’t, and that isn’t changed by shifting the costs from consumers and producers to the taxpayers.

Bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be the ones deciding which technologies are the most promising or what timeline is too long or what losses are too deep.  The market will do a much better job of answering the question: are wind and solar power really viable?

Let’s get rid of the subsidies and find out.

When Greed Meets Tinker Bell

Posted on by
Reply

State pension funds are another time bomb of malaise (to the tune of a $1.4 trillion shortfall) waiting to explode, and Rhode Island provides an example of the difficulty we each, in our own state, face in defusing it.

Rhode Island passed a massive overhaul (as such things go; they have a long way, yet, before they’ve completely cured their problem) of their state retirement system last year, including such unheard-ofs as raising the retirement age, suspending pension increases for several years, and generating a hybrid retirement plan that combines traditional pensions with 401(k)-like accounts.  Rhode Island’s General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, says that this reform will save Rhode Islanders $4 billion over the next 20 years (compared to a 2013 budget that proposes spending $8 billion in that year alone, small potatoes, indeed, but a critical start).  This minor reform also seeks to redress astonishing conditions that include 58 percent of retired teachers and 48 percent of state retirees receiving more in their pensions than in their final years of work.

But it’s too much change for some.  The public “service” unions (service: you service me) object: it’s somehow wrong for their members to be responsible for their own retirement funding.  Even a little bit.  Instead, these public “service” unions protest that it’s all unfair.  Rhode Island is reneging on promises to workers, they say.  Bob Walsh, Executive Director of the National Education Association of Rhode Island, goes so far as to insist

What they did was illegal.  We’re deep into a real assault on labor.  It worries me that people who purport themselves as Democrats do this.

Never mind that there’s nothing at all illegal about these changes.  It’s a well-established principle in American jurisprudence that when the conditions extant when a contract was agreed (stipulating arguendo that the agreement was made in good faith by all parties) no longer exist, or have so radically changed that the terms can no longer be met, the contract can be abrogated and either a new one negotiated or the parties involved go their separate ways.  In extreme cases, this is what bankruptcy achieves; although, when the conditions have changed as radically as these have, bankruptcy isn’t necessary.

Never mind, also, these are promises that couldn’t be kept in any event, and both the state government and the public “service” unions at the time knew they could not be kept.  Or they blindly believed real hard in government’s ability to keep collecting funds from…somewhere.  Tinker Bell is alive and well in Public Service Land.

Never mind, finally, that this public “service” union greed at the expense of taxpayers makes “labor” a valid target.

One tear-jerker that the unions are trotting out is this:

North Providence retiree Jamie Reilly left her job as a secretary at age 50 [remember that raising of the retirement age?], thinking her 30 years of state employment would mean good benefits during her later years.  But now she said she may be forced to re-enter the workforce at age 55 because the state has put off pension increases.

“I counted on that money,” Reilly said….  “You work all your life and you plan, and they take it away from you.”

Worked all her life?  She worked 30 years and wanted to be retired for 40.  Workers in the private sector don’t get it that easy; they work until they’re in their mid-60s—a working life 50% longer.

And this one:

Cranston firefighter Dean Brockway said higher retirement ages mean he will have to work several years longer than he expected, and he wonders how he’ll climb stairs in heavy gear in his 60s.

“Could I do something else? I don’t know,” he said. “A lot of us chose to dedicate our lives to public service because to us it’s an honor.  Could I be a carpenter?  I don’t think so. This is what I do.”

Brockway has a legitimate concern, but it’s no different from the concerns of a private sector employee whose work is primarily physical labor.  But if he’s not going to look for alternatives, if he’s not going to try to retrain into something less physically demanding (certainly no stroll in the park for a middle-aged or older person, but assuredly not impossible), he loses sympathy for his plight, which begins to be self-imposed.  Certainly, there’s no more obligation for Rhode Island’s citizens to indemnify him against the outcomes of his choices than there is for them to indemnify similarly situated private sector employees.

Raimondo understands this in all its practicalities—how affordable are the existing programs:

These problems won’t go away.  The longer you wait, the bigger the problems get.  People looking for easy, short-term solutions. … Well, there are none.

Raimondo doesn’t believe in Tinker Bell.

Hmm….

Posted on by
Reply

According to Matthew Payne in The Wall Street Journal, Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Barack Obama held a rally on the University of Wisconsin campus last Thursday.  But there were conditions attached for the students’ to gain permissiontickets to attend.

In order to get a ticket for the speech, students were forced to go to Mr. Obama’s campaign website and pledge their support for the president—in the process giving the Obama campaign a gold mine of contact information in a key swing state.

Worse, the University was complicit in this:

The university even provided direct links to the website—free advertising to 40,000 students in one of Mr. Obama’s most important demographics.

Can we afford four years of a more “flexible” President, even less accountable than he recognizes himself to be today?

More Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News is reporting another example of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s politically motivated distortions.

Recall that Obama, after seeing Congress explicitly reject his DREAM Act, implemented it anyway via an Executive Order in which young illegal immigrants, meeting certain criteria and paying the requisite fees for a special visa, are allowed to stay in the US on temporary work permits.  In a recent interview with the Denver Post, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney had this to say on the matter:

The people who have received the special visa that the president has put in place, which is a two-year visa, should expect that the visa would continue to be valid.  I’m not going to take something that they’ve purchased[.]

Naturally, Obama objected, insisting remarkably that this represented a Romney flip-flop on immigration.  Speaking through his Director of Hispanic Press, Gabriela Domenzain, Obama had this:

Romney’s latest immigration pivot raises more questions than it answers.  He still has not said whether he would continue the Administration’s policy that provides a temporary reprieve from deportation for young people who were brought here through no fault of their own[.]

And then he acknowledged that Romney’s latest remark was entirely consistent with his already established position.  Speaking again through Domenzain, he added this:

We know he called the DREAM Act a “handout” and that he promised to veto it.  Nothing he has said since contradicts this and we should continue to take him at his word.

Indeed.  Romney has had a consistent position on immigration from the jump.  What he said in the Post interview was that, unlike Obama, Romney declines to use the children of illegal immigrants (or any children, come to that) as pawns for personal political gain.

What’s Going On Here?

Posted on by
Reply

US military members tend strongly to vote Republican.  Yet in election swing states, absentee ballot requests are shockingly low.  There are a couple of possibilities for why this is so: on the one hand, our soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, don’t care enough about voting in this year’s elections to request their ballots.  This is hard to credit.

On the other hand, they’re not getting the information they need to get their ballots so they can vote.  We know some things about this.  For instance, we know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in the chain of command for our soldiers, but it is charged with providing the command chain with training, equipage, and support for the commanders’ soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

We also know that the Chairman of the JCS, General Martin Dempsey, is too busy hectoring ex-military and civilians for exercising their free speech rights to have any time left providing that support—which, among other matters, includes making it possible for our soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, to vote absentee.

Here’s how well he’s doing on soldiers’ absentee voting, and how will others specifically charged with the task are doing.  This table, taken from the Military Voter Protection Project‘s report, shows how far the numbers of requested absentee ballots have fallen from the numbers in 2008 (the complete report is available at the MVP Project link).

State

Total Requested
in 2008

Current
Requested
in 2012

Percent
Difference

Florida

121,395

65,173

-46%

Virginia

41,762

12,292

-70%

North Carolina

19,109

7,848

-59%

Illinois

9,858

3,532

-64%

Ohio

32,334

9,707

-70%

Alaska

13,766

6,535

-52%

Colorado

5,104

2,986

-41%

Nevada

4,919

1,750

-64%

We also know some other things about this shameful failure.  DoD spokeswoman Cmdr Leslie Hull-Ryde is insisting that 2012 is much different than 2008: the 2008 elections had contested primaries for both major parties, but this time only Republicans had a contested primary.  That’s their excuse, apparently: there must be primaries by both parties, else the Pentagon is relieved of its duty.  Hull-Ryde added, proudly,

We are in complete compliance with the law.  (The Federal Voting Assistance Program) strives to ensure that every absent military and overseas citizen voter has the tools and resources to receive, cast and return an absentee ballot and have it counted—regardless of who they vote for.

When I was on active duty in the USAF, such “meets standards” performance, noted on an Officer Efficiency Report or an Airman Proficiency Report, was the kiss of death to a career.  We were expected to do better than that.  Moreover, DoD was authorized $75 million for last year and this to set up the mechanisms—including those voting assistance offices—for getting this voting information to its service members.  Yet it has chosen not to, to any great extent, despite the fact that the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires them to.

Pam Mitchell, acting director of the FVAP, compounds the matter, bragging that there are over 220 voting assistance offices seat up worldwide, and claiming with a straight face,

I strongly believe that voting assistance is the best that it has ever been.

Never mind that she has a vested interest in downplaying this failure.  Never mind that the 220 offices of which she’s so proud is a trifling number compared to the thousands of locations around the world at which we have soldiers and spouses, and those who support them—or just soldiers and their support—stationed.  It seems the FVAP isn’t striving very hard.

Despite the Pentagon’s decision to fail [sic] on this, soldiers and spouses, and those who support them, can request absentee ballots at the MVP Project link above and at  the Heroes Vote Initiative Web site, http://heroesvote.org.

One more thing: think the military vote is too trivial to matter?  Aside from the utter immorality of depriving these men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything in order to protect us and our freedoms—including our right to vote—of their right to vote, think about the numbers involved.  Compare the present reduction in military votes cast (again, a segment of our population that tends strongly to vote Republican) with the closeness of past Presidential elections in Florida and other swing states, the 2008 Senatorial election in Minnesota, the gubernatorial elections in Washington, and so on.