Clean energy and subsidies
Several letter writers to the Daily News have written about converting to 100 percent “clean energy” in Moscow and/or the entire country. Switching to “clean energy” — it needs to be defined — is a good concept but only if it is economically and environmentally justified. Today, neither is true except in special cases.
All the big solar and wind projects are feasible only because of the large federal, state and utility subsidies. The environmental impacts are generally adverse if everything from the mining of the rare earth minerals to disposal of the worn out system products to the land consumption and birds killed is considered. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a reality but we are still far from proving it will bring on the disasters that alarmists have been predicting, none of which have thus far actually occurred. Even if the United States were to drastically curtail carbon use and reduce the population, it would have no measurable impact because China, the biggest carbon dioxide producer, and India, the third biggest producer, are committed to increasing carbon-based energy use for the foreseeable future.
At this time increasing the use of clean energy will not increase jobs. As mentioned, “clean energy” projects will only be built if the government takes money from the populace — which could be used for other productive projects and creating jobs — and gives it in subsidies to “clean energy” projects.
Some 11,000 jobs were lost when the Keystone pipeline was shut down. Many more were lost when federal lands were closed to petroleum extraction. Gas prices are up a dollar a gallon and we are exporting dollars and jobs to foreign countries to buy petroleum. This is irrational action for a country that wants to continue to exist. Support a rational transition to clean energy based on facts and sound science.
Servant to the land
The greatest advantage to a country is when the king/president makes himself a servant to the land.