President Obama has been quite adamant about his push to transition to a clean energy economy, most notably by subsidizing wind and solar energy sources. He argues we need the government to invest in renewable energy to strengthen our economy and reduce the earth’s fever before it’s too late. Despite the Congress’s attempt to address the nation’s economic concerns and the government’s climate concerns, Washington’s policy prescriptions may not be all they’re cracked up to be. Consider a new study from MIT on wind power says that large wind farms could increase temperatures:
Using a climate model developed by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, the researchers simulated the aerodynamic effects of large-scale wind farms — located both on land and on the ocean — to analyze how the atmosphere, ocean and land would respond over a 60-year span.
For the land analysis, they simulated the effects of wind farms by using data about how objects similar to turbines, such as undulating hills and clumps of trees, affect surface “roughness,” or friction that can disturb wind flow. After adding this data to the model, the researchers observed that the surface air temperature over the wind farm regions increased by about one degree Celsius, which averages out to an increase of .15 degrees Celsius over the entire global surface.”
Add in the fossil fuels used to make turbines as well provide back up power and wind may not be environmental solution advocates purport it to be. If wind turbines made sense economically, these points wouldn’t matter as much, but wind energy cannot survive without tax credits and subsidies. In a speech last year to sell the stimulus package, President Obama said, “Take the example of wind power alone: I’m told that if we don’t act now, because of the economic downturn, half of the wind projects planned for 2009 could wind up being abandoned.”
Many businesses and companies held off on projects or contracted in this recessionary environment, but they weren’t artificially propped up. They were allowed to fail and their resources were put to more productive use.
Even so, the stimulus package failed to create as many clean energy jobs as many supporting the stimulus thought it would. Moreover, “Clean-energy leaders and many outside analysts added that green companies won’t begin hiring in large numbers until the federal government mandates renewable power consumption nationwide and dramatically upgrades the nation’s electric grid.”
In other words, if the government subsidizes us, sure we’ll build you some windmills. But don’t expect any until then. This is an unwelcoming sign for every single American who will be stuck financing these projects with higher taxes and higher electricity bills.
If wind can compete absent subsidies, mandates or tax credits, then Americans will benefit from a more robust, competitive energy market. To suggest that windmills will be the answer to our economic and alleged climate problems is nothing but blowing smoke to the American people.
Tired of having to drive safe, affordable vehicles? Can’t make a decision at the car lot and want the government to narrow down the decisions for you? Well then you’re in luck. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a great new regulation in store for you.
The agency is intending to use the Clean Air Act to improve the fuel efficiency to 35.5 miles per gallon fleetwide by 2016 - four years ahead of schedule when President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Sounds like a good deal. Most everyone wants his or her vehicle to get more miles to the gallon. It’s one of the things people first inquire about when buying a car. But there are many other reasons people choose certain vehicles: safety, reliability, horsepower, style, price, comfort, handling, and environmental impact. For instance, Americans use larger vehicles for practical reasons: to take their kids to practice, to tow their boat to the shore, or on small farms to haul equipment or produce. Of course, to meet these new standards, cars and trucks will need to be lighter, making them less safe. The National Academy of Sciences study pegs the cost of downsizing at 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.
But we’re saving the planet, right? Touted as a measure to curb global warming, fuel efficiency standards have very little environmental impact. Newer vehicles with better efficiency standards may emit less carbon dioxide per mile, but increased fuel efficiency often leads to more driving and new cars “constitute a miniscule source of overall carbon dioxide emissions.” Our friends at the Institute for Energy Research note that “the rule will lead to global mean temperature being 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius lower (0.016°C) in 2100.”
But we’ll save money, right? The initial price of the vehicle may be more expensive but over time better gas mileage will negate the increase in sticker price and eventually save money. That’s what President Obama says. George Mason economist Don Boudreuax has some reservations:
We Americans are lucky. President Obama, although having zero experience as an entrepreneur or in the automotive industry, has designed fuel-efficiency standards that (he assures us) will save the average car buyer $2,800 over the life of his or her vehicle. What a deal!
No one in Detroit, in the U.K., in Japan, in Germany, in Korea, in Sweden, in Italy, in France - no one anywhere, not even persons with decades of experience producing and selling automobiles - has figured out how to devise vehicles that are so obviously attractive to American consumers — and, therefore, so rich in profit-earning potential for manufacturers — as are the ones now promised to us by the Obama administration. And we can admire not only Mr. Obama’s industrial and commercial genius, but also his magnanimity in offering to the public, free of charge, his money-saving idea. He could have earned billions of dollars in profit by putting his idea to the test in the market. But no: by simply forcing us to use his idea and charging us nothing for it, he’ll forego this profit. We Americans are lucky indeed.”
Make your voice heard. And IER has done the leg work for you. Visit their site and submit a comment today. The deadline is November 27th. Tell the Obama Administration that America needs affordable transportation to get the economy going again—not more job-killing regulations.