Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Green Energy Wastes Government Money

Democrats always politic on the basis of emotion and their quixotic GreenEnergy wastes government money and this is one of their favorite feel-good causes. Green energy was sought when the cries of global warming was the doom of us all. There is no way to prove, or disprove that global warming exists or that it is caused by humans. 
Scientists are paid to find evidence, so they find evidence. If they do not, their services would no longer be necessary. If there was incontrovertible proof, an evidentiary talking-point would have been constructed, which would silence all non-believers. 

What goes unmentioned is the fact that Global Warming has morphed into Climate Change and the media took no notice. The inconvenient truth is that the globe has not become warmer for the last 18-years. There was a slight warming trend for 20-years, but that ended in 1998. The left will claim that these two trends are proof positive that Climate Change exists. Thinking people call it weather.

The Obama administration has staunchly heralded Green Energy as the brightly lit path for a prosperous future in America. The consensus is that renewable energy and clean energy will not only protect our environment, but it will also save money - eventually.
The Institute for Energy Research reports that the Department of Energy has spent over $26 billion in 2009 on loan programs for Green Energy investments. This exorbitant number is double the Gross Domestic Product of Iceland. These programs created 2,308 permanent jobs at a taxpayer cost of $11.2 million per job created. Green energy wastes government money because they always fail.
This total cost-per-job has many failed Green Energy endeavors embedded in it. Most notable is the otiose Solydra venture that was awarded approximately $530 million from the government. Failing also was Fisker Automotive that received $529 million to build electric cars. They are both gone, and so is the money.
ENER1, A123 Systems, and Nevada Geothermal received a total of $465 million collectively and all three entities have filed for bankruptcy. There are dozens upon dozens of these wasteful government-backed companies that squandered their grant money and filed for Chapter 7. Theses are just a few examples that prove green energy wastes government money.
In 2011, Green Energy companies received a prodigal $24 billion in subsidies, $20.5 billion in Green Energy tax breaks, and $3.5 billion from the Department of Energy Spending Programs. Fossil fuel companies (oil, natural gas, and coal) benefited approximately $4 billion in tax breaks that same year.  
The axiomatic monetary advantage for Green Energy venues escapes scrutiny from the vast majority of media outlets. Big oil companies, however, are excoriated for being successful. If all tax breaks for oil companies were revoked, they would either absorb the loss or pass the costs on to the consumer. There is no wonder which path they would choose.
The mainstream media has President Obama's back insofar as they do notcover Green Energy company failures. Periodically, they will brush over it in the news or bury it on page 17 of the newspaper. Most Americans do not know about most of the wasted taxpayer dollars – nor do they care. Green energy wastes government money and there is no end in sight. 
Photo by Pixabay: Public Domain, Free for commercial use. No attribution required.


  1. Tax breaks for oil companies: the should pass the additional cost onto the consumer. The tax serves to pass on the pollution cost - to be effective the consumer needs to feel the pain. Taxes are an effective way for government to work within the structure of capitalism and market forces to influence behavior. Three questions arise - is the government justified in seeking a particular outcome? is it the proper role of government to attempt to shape society?

    I think government has a role to play in shaping our society. I think we are very near to resolving this issue with advances in battery and renewables technology. We should not subsidize oil. This is a barrier to capital entering emerging markets. If we could get off coal and natural gas and have an electrical grid (with storage), would not the people of the world be better off?

    If these advances can continue to drive electrical prices down (which I believe is inevitable), would not we all be better off?

    Even with the potential upside, I say the government should NOT fund private ventures. More importantly, I feel government should NOT fund (through subsidies) private interests whose success prevents market forces from operating naturally.

  2. Your comment was well thought out and you made substantive points without the presence of anger. If only our politicians could communicate with civility. You hit on a lot of points, but I tend to think that government doesn't do anything well except create, collect and spend my tax dollars. They have too much power and we have created a monster. Gasoline where I am from is taxed almost 50-cents per gallon. The oil companies make about 3-cents per gallon. Something is wrong here. However, I wouldn't want to live in any other country on Earth.