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.
Chris Horner from the Competitive Enterprise Institute is at it again, doing his best Sherlock Holmes imitation. After a Spanish study warned that renewable energy policies destroy more jobs than they aim to create, the Department of Energy released a strong rebuttal, claiming the report lacked rigor. A CEI-submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request shows how the DOE’s critique of the foreign study came to fruition.
What transpired is difficult to discern with precision, as DOE continues to withhold numerous responsive documents. But it is clear that senior staff in Ms. Zoi’s office, and another under her authority, were told by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) of its concern over the foreign economic analysis because of the media and policymaker attention it was receiving.
The questions raised about green jobs also threatened the vast increase in Department of Energy spending to pursue green jobs. The Obama administration has poured cash into renewable-energy efficiency and renewable energy with abandon. One such program at the department has grown from a budget of $1.7 billion in 2008 to $18 billion in 2009.
What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests.”
More on the timeline of these events can be found on Horner’s blog post at PajamasMedia. One would be foolish to think that President Obama could do away with special interest politicking in Congress. Founding Father Ben Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” As lobbyists work with government to maker America’s energy decisions, more money will be available for handouts and preferential treatment. It is clear this government is committed to transitioning to a “clean energy economy” whether the economics stands behind it or not.
Meanwhile the administration is dragging its feet on something the public and the economics support: offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Despite the fact that nearly 70 percent of Americans are in favor of offshore drilling, “Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dropped some hints Wednesday about his long-awaited policy on offshore oil-and-gas drilling in federal waters, which he hopes to announce later this month. Salazar said Interior’s next five-year offshore leasing plan will run from 2012-2017, rather than upending the current 2007-2012 program.”
President Obama said in his State of the Union address that the government needs to make “ tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” Offshore exploration and drilling increases energy supply, creates jobs and bring in federal and state revenue. The tough part must be convincing the American people why we’re delaying these activities.