The American Spectator : Obama's Solar Smoot-Hawley

Text Size

Obama’s Solar Smoot-Hawley

By Green Lantern on 12.22.11 @ 6:09AM

Setting off a trade war with China that could have worldwide repercussions as if it were 1931 again.

Watching President Barack Obama ruin the economy by repeating every mistake of the 1930s, the one thing you could say was, “At least he hasn’t passed a Smoot-Hawley.”

Not anymore. The great amateur autocrat has now put his foot in it, kicking off a back-and-forth with China that is threatening to envelop other countries of the developing world, leading to who knows where. And what has set off this world trade war? Wouldn’t you know, it’s that wonderfully soft and beneficent solar energy, so clean, green and non-environmentally threatening, the darling of every liberal politician. In order to protect a domestic industry that literally lives off government subsidies, the President has embarked on a path that could take us directly back to 1931.

In case you haven’t been following, here’s what happened. Embarrassed by the loss of $500 million on Solyndra plus the bankruptcy of two other companies, Evergreen Solar and Spectrawatt, which together totaled one-sixth of U.S. solar manufacturing, the Department of Commerce has decided that China is to blame. The department has ruled that the Chinese have subsidized their solar panel industry by lending it $34 billion, thereby flooding the international market with cheap products. This has led the price of solar electricity to drop from $3.30 per watt in 2008 to $1.80 last January to $1.20 today. In retaliation, Commerce is considering slapping a tariff of anywhere from 50 to 250 percent on Chinese solar panels.

Now first notice this. Everywhere you look environmentalists and clean energy enthusiasts are celebrating the rapid fall in price of photovoltaic panels, arguing it heralds a glorious renewable future. Google just spent $94 million buying a solar station in California, claiming renewables will soon be “less expensive than coal,” according to Forbes. “The price of solar panels has fallen 40 percent since the beginning of the year,” exulted Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, only last week on Huffington Post. The European Union just announced confidently that by 2050 all forms of renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear and will be replacing all those nasty things. So is the price of solar really coming down or is it just the Chinese dumping subsidized products on the market, in which case the Administration’s purpose is to jack them back up again?

Well, it’s hard to tell. In any case, the President has elected to punish the Chinese and teach them a lesson. Are they being appropriately contrite? No, as anyone would have predicted, the Chinese have responded by accusing us of unfair trade practices by subsidizing the thin film industry, the main component of solar panels. So now we’re in an escalating situation. Will it stop there? Not likely. This week the Indian Ministry of Commerce announced it too would yield to a petition from its solar industry and will investigate unfair trade practices by both China and the United States, targeting Arizona-based First Solar, our largest make of thin-film panels, and Suntech Power Holdings Co., the world’s largest producer of solar panels based in China. So now it’s a three-way trade war and growing fast.

Will that be the end of it? Don’t bet on it. Remember, when President Herbert Hoover called Congress into special session in 1929, he was only responding to a plea from two Western Senators to protect farmers in Utah and Oregon. By the time Congress got finished, every industry in America had carved out its own special protected niche. The late Robert Bartley argued persuasively that it was Smoot-Hawley that turned a normal two- or three-year recession into the Great Depression that lasted for the next decade.

There’s a more important point to be made here, however, because it’s gong to be with us a long, long time. Every country in the world is going to be subsidizing its renewable energy sector. Spain did it, Germany is doing it, Denmark and Britain are doing it, and just about every country on the planet will eventually. Why? Because none of these technologies are economical in a market environment. Wind, solar and biofuels are all hopelessly inefficient and expensive and always will be. All must be propped up by the panoply of “renewable mandates,” “feed-in tariffs,” production tax credits, investment tax credits, government loans and outright grants that governments are providing everywhere.

The result is that every government in the world will be able to accuse every other government of subsidizing its renewables industry. The possibilities for future trade wars are literally endless.

So let’s call a truce. In order to avoid worldwide trade wars, let’s just have everyone admit that solar, wind, and all the other renewables will never get anywhere without massive government intervention in the economy. That way we can experience the “wave of the future” and still have a world economy left when we’re done.

About the Author

Green Lantern is the pen-name of an East Coast writer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (138) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

c. j. acworth| 12.22.11 @ 7:10AM

Hard to see how solar in all it's high-tech forms will ever be a viable provider of base-load electricity in the absence of economical storage technology. The old-fashioned forms of solar use the power of falling water (stored behind a dam) or heat from burning what the greenies call biomass, but we here in New England call cordwood. I heat my house through a long New Hampshire winter with 2-3 tons of wood pellets, myself. About 6 miles north of me sits the Lempster Mt. Wind Farm, a small installation of 12 turbines of 2MW capacity each, for a total capacity of about 24MW. If we're lucky, we actually get about 20-25% of that. One of the new designs of nuke from outfits like Hyperion has the same capacity, will produce closer to 90% of it and would fit in my barn instead of being spread out over a mile of ridgeline. Mo' Nukes!

Moe Blotz| 12.22.11 @ 8:36AM

Right, and a little Nukie can't hurt you.

Ryan| 12.22.11 @ 9:09AM

Since Chernobyl, when has radiation from a nuclear plant truly hurt anyone?

George S| 12.22.11 @ 9:56AM

Solar kills.. More people got cancer from the sun than from all nuclear reactors ever built.

JohnM| 12.22.11 @ 10:15AM

Japan...Earthquake...Tsunami...

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:50PM

Look back at Chernobyl. Reports of deaths greatly exaggerated. Not to say a couple of hundred did not die. But the history of that "accident" shows two things it was the result of a political appointee overruling the technologists in the running of a very risky test and the relatively few deaths. No question the real estate values in the area were vaporized.

In Japan real estate values are being vaporized to a large degree by ridiculously conservative allowable dose limits. It was a natural disaster that caused a lot of death and destruction. The destruction is being greatly increased by regulatory over-reaction.

Sort of like a trade war.

TrueBlue| 12.22.11 @ 3:19PM

The earthquake didn't damage the reactor, the tsunami did. It was fine until the wave hit. That said, the levels are well within tolerable limits, and just like pretty much everything else, radiation in moderation is actually not that bad for you (funny thing, the levels considered toxic by those regulations are below what naturally occurs). Also, we don't really have the issue of tsunamis hitting most of our reactors here in the states, they can be put up far inland (most already are) to negate that danger. Requirements for the reactors today already take into account earthquakes, and even tornados.

As for the leftover "waste," most of it is because we cannot use what are called breeder reactors due to an executive order by... Jimmy Carter! So our waste is government inflicted, not the fault of our nuclear scientists and technicians.

If someone isn't following guidelines, SLAM THEM. But don't blame the technology if someone is cutting corners.

carnot| 12.22.11 @ 8:35PM

probability...probability...probability.....

markenoff| 12.23.11 @ 2:18AM

Compact Fluorescent Lights.....containing mercury....in your home.....

Tony Butler | 12.22.11 @ 11:12AM

Those 12 turbines are unable to power themselves from the electricity they generate, have to be wired into the grid. The blades have to heated, their yaw and pitch altered to suit the wind direction. The cowling on the turbine also has to be heated and dehumidified, its gears driven by grid power, but ... as this supply is a freebie, unlike the supply to you or I, it is not metered.
No one will say whether wind turbines use more free energy to keep their blades turning, than they produce, and which they sell back to the grid?
If the atmosphere was stacked in a mile high column, and all of humanity's CO2 eliminated, the height of the column would be reduced by 1/4" .
For every singe anthropogenic CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, Nature contributes thirty-two, but according to AL Gore's 'Tipping Point, our single CO2 moleclule causes global warming, while
the other 86,780 air molecules that surround it do not.
It's crazy!

TrueBlue| 12.22.11 @ 3:25PM

Don't forget that those turbines can only be operated within a relatively small range of wind speeds. Too slow and they don't work, too fast and they have to be shut down or risk burning out the motors. Also they need to be constantly cleaned, AND our battery technology is not currently sufficient to store the energy that isn't being immediately used.

Both wind and solar power can only be used in very limited regions across the country, and both of them take up FAR more room than our current nuclear, coal, or hydroelectric plants do. Until our battery technology drastically improves neither of them even have the possibility of being viable, and even IF that occurs there is still no guarentee they'll be effective except in the few regions that are ideal for their use. Solar may work great for Nevada, but it will NEVER work in the Pacific Northwest for example.

jagscl | 12.22.11 @ 7:12AM

If we don't eject Obama from the Presidency in 2012, this country will never recover and the Great Depression will look like good times.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.22.11 @ 7:35AM

You forget. He's not siding with the "Industry". He's protecting his Biggest Campaign Contributors, and the best place in town, to get his Money Laundered.

The Cost of Solar Panels will go up? Really? And this affects him, how, exactly? The Solar "Industry" is just a Front. Like an Italian Social Club, or the Corleone Olive Oil Store. Duh.

Say Baptist| 12.22.11 @ 8:15AM

You've all missed the best joke. The French Physocrats,300 years ago as a joke,presented a petition from the candlestick makers for protection against the sun. As those of us who used to go to double features say,"this is where I came in.!"

VonMisesJr| 12.22.11 @ 8:39AM

Hayek in "socialism and War" writes essays on why centrally planned economies must always resort to war to cover their failures. They need a "Cats Cradle" Bokonon to demonize lest the natives will revolt killing the Dear Leader.

Von Mises also discusses in "Human Action" why trade promotes peaceful existance, while socialism and protectionism leads to war. If you trade with your neighbors, division of labor benefits everyone and you need your trading partner. But if you are a central planner, the economy tanks and you must invade your neightbors to feed the masses.

rhoetus| 12.22.11 @ 8:40AM

How many solar panels does it take to power up a steel mil?

George S| 12.22.11 @ 9:58AM

... or to power up a solar panel mill.

TrueBlue| 12.22.11 @ 3:35PM

Now there's a test. If a solar panel factory cannot power itself with their own panels, why are we using them in the first place?

vb| 12.22.11 @ 8:57AM

A major German solar company just went bankrupt, and BP is closing its solar division. It's really time to reevaluate all the greenie schemes we've been sold for years and come up with a rational approach to energy. Obama has to dump the ideologues.

Jordan| 12.22.11 @ 1:28PM

One thing I hate hearing is the supposed millions of "new" jobs that were going to be created if we go the "green" route. Those types of statements from environmentalists, Obama/Pelosi et al. are completely correct but totally wrongheaded.

Yes, if solar, wind and hydro become the predominant forms of energy creation then millions of new jobs will be created. But what these people never tell us is that the same number, if not more jobs, will be destroyed; just like what happened in Spain.

Think of all the jobs associated with extracting fossile fuels from the ground and then processing the minerals/oil into workable forms of energy and then going through the process of turning coal/petroleum/natural gas into electricity; compare that to the temporary building then maintenance of nuclear power plants, hydro dams or wind turbines that will cost more per whatever measurement of energy than coal. So not only are more jobs destroyed than created, but in most parts of the country, especially with solar and wind power, the energy is going to cost more than coal which leads to less consumer spending.

And don't even get me started on solar power; the minerals we need to build the darn photovaltaic sheets are either all in China or literally running out. Doesn't make a lot of sense to construct millions of homes with solar panels then learn in 20 years that the minerals to repair/build more have already been used up or are more expensive because China is hoarding them.

Ultimately the only way to appease normal people and environmentalists/radical liberals is nuclear energy. It's environmentally friendly apart from the uranium mining, regardless of the fluke meltdown in Fukushima or Three Mile Island they are safe, and apart from the capital costs (which are well over $10 billion) it is just as inexpensive as coal.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:55PM

Portugal tried this in the early 2000's and found that each green energy job destroyed 2.5 other jobs. This is no secret and is well understood. Don't think the algores don't know this. They were just trying to corner the carbon credit market. Algore belongs in the cell below Bernie Madoff's, whose toilet should discharge directly into algore's cell. At least Bernie didn't force his chumps to give him their money - he was an honest crook.

paul streitz| 12.22.11 @ 9:04AM

Do we have to listen to this discredited nonsense.
"The late Robert Bartley argued persuasively that it was Smoot-Hawley that turned a normal two- or three-year recession into the Great Depression that lasted for the next decade."

This has been the BIG LIE of Free Traders for fifty years. Totally untrue. Not even Milton Friedman in his book, The Monetary History of the United States, attributed the Great Depression to anything but monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

The United States had been a protectionist country from its founding up until the 1960's, when it turned to Free Trade. The result has been the deindustrialization of the United States, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and massive debt to China. These facts are blithely ignored by articles such as this that ignore the fact that China thinks we are in a trade war and does everything possible to make itself rich at the expense of the United States.

"why trade promotes peaceful existance, while socialism and protectionism leads to war." Another blatant lie. Germany and England traded massively with each other, than went off to two wars.

This whole article is a delusional fantasy that ignores the facts and history of economics. For a great book on the subject, Ian Fletcher's book title says it all, "Free Trade Doesn't Work."

Ryan| 12.22.11 @ 9:12AM

How can citizens in third world economies do business without free trade, then?

That's the problem that protectionists have always dealt with - developed countries who protect their products with tariffs - which are anti-free-market tools - do a LOT of damage to undeveloped countries who need industry and can make things cheaper.

Dagny Taggert| 12.22.11 @ 9:32AM

P.S. thank you for highlighting the other BIG LIE: "The result has been the deindustrialization of the United States, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and massive debt to China." The manufacturing jobs we have lost to asia are the commoditized, least-value-added manufacturing sectors of our economy. When machinery companies like Deere, Caterpillar, Danaher, Gardner Denver, Watts, Roper etc, etc are thriving it is precisely because they dominate the new technologies in manufacturing and export them to emerging economies. They stay strong by importing the continually cheaper commoditized products from the China's of the world. The only manufacturing we've lost are the markets we don't want to be in. And if you REALLY wanted to hold onto those jobs, you'd have to loosen the union hold on artificially high wages the manufacturing sector is forced to pay for eventual buggy whip industries.

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 11:06AM

Dagny, et al:
See editorial page of todays' WSJ re Lisa jackson and the EPA. Ouch.

jdmeth| 12.23.11 @ 7:21PM

Yes, lets protect the modern buggy whip manufactures, iPhone's, plasma screens, laptops. The list is endless, we don't need those any more. What, hard drives aren't low tech?

Third world peoples will continue to live as they have for thousands of years. We take nothing from them by having our workers make these items. We owe them nothing. We can buy raw materials from them. If their rulers use the money to help the people good, if they put it all in Swiss bank accounts, not our problem. Fourteen million unemployed is our problem. High taxes for welfare and unemployment checks is our problem. Millions of poorly educated or low intelligence people need simple assembly jobs. I did stoop labor on a farm as a teenager, it didn't kill me. I worked alongside a 300 pound woman, it didn't kill her either.

We could use 90+% tax rates with full deductions for domestic factory investment to stimulate the economy without government borrowing.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 9:42AM

paul,

You planning on eating the rich then?

Funny, we followed the free trade philosophy from 1980 through 2000. Our economy led the world and pulled away from our strongest competitors, Europe and Japan. In the last four years we have reverted to the policies followed quite closely in the 1930's - we are seeing 1930's level of performance. Sounds sorta like causality, that.

It was not free trade that was discredited, it was Keynesian policies and protectionism that were discredited.

Paul, you are circulating a lie, a big LIE. Your little author's conclusions are wrong. Free trade does work! Do you?

The only remaining question is: are you confused because this is all beyond you, or are you confused because you are trying to win a battle by sowing confusion?

Let me put it to you another way: Are you a "useful idiot" or an unrepentant Communist?

That IS the same question.

Confusion to paul and our enemies...

John C| 12.22.11 @ 9:57AM

So-called free trade has sold out our sovereignty to foreign powers and ruthless dictatorships. The fruit of the free trade is a gutting of our vital manufacturing base and hi-tech industries along with their good paying American jobs.

Free trade is libertarian International socialism and anti-American.

Our Founders were protectionists of their beloved America. Protectionism is protecting our nations independence, which is the hallmark of conservatism.

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 10:41AM

The real problem with free trade is our unwillingness to compete in the international market. Labor costs and regulatory imposts raise the price of American goods beyond what the international market will bear.

I suppose we could just mandate an end to imports and make ourselves live off what we produce at home. We could let market prices set wages and we could remove costs imposed by regulations. Perhaps the question is how does a national economy work best? Is it, A; central planning or B; free market competition? Perhaps the way an individual answers that question might determine their entire political ourlook.

John C| 12.22.11 @ 11:24AM

The answer is simple -- free markets and healthy competition #Within Our Borders#. Tax foreign imports and reduce taxes on domestic goods and the onerous federal income tax.

The open-border, cheap-labor wing of the libertarian GOP is decimating our vital industry and building up Communist China, both economically militarily – suicidal globalism run amok.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 11:54AM

No!

If you don't compete in the world you cannot compete in the world. You can try to stay home but the world WILL NOT leave you alone. You must compete. Pretending to not compete is like pretending that the 9/11 attacks were really just a weird coincidence.

You can only stay within your borders if they are impermeable - no goods, no information, nothing can get through. How do you think you can seal your border if I can still buy software from overseas through the Interweb? Or if I can trade overseas using the phone and a credit card?

Trying to end overseas trade will be LESS successful than nuclear non-proliferation. You might as well do the King Canute thing and command the tide to stop coming in.

And it is not free trade that has put us in thrall to the Chinese, it is the MONSTROSITY that is our federal government borrowing at a rate of 1.5 trillion dollars a year to spend it on keeping a monstrous government whose sole object is ending manufacturing in this country. Don't blame the businessmen, they don't make they rule, they get them shoved down their throats!

Blaming business is blaming the victim! This like blaming the golden goose for dying after YOU (actually the federal government) cut it open to get the latest golden egg!

You want manufacturing in the USA?

Simple, do these few things and it'll explode, right here!

1.Stop the G-D government spending!
2. End the ridiculous governmental interference in property rights that is environmental activism. Let tort law decide what is fair for manufacturers and consumers, the government is manifestly incompetent to figure that out. End CAFE, end OSHA, end DOE - all of them!
3. Expand production of energy sources.
4. Outlaw government unions. All of them. Fearful? Just codify the benefits they have gotten and the criminality goes away - there's no reason for unions in government! Those employees get more than anybody! What do they need a union for?

Actually any two of these would result in an explosion of manufacturing!

Do you really think that doing business in China is fun or enjoyable? It's not, right now it's the only way to compete! But it doesn't have to be. Just follow the simple rules above.

This is not freaking rocket science. Sheesh.

Obama has got to be got rid of if he keeps demonizing the golden goose.

Even FDR knew that the business of America is business!

John C| 12.22.11 @ 12:04PM

I agree with the points that you made. But even if those things were done it will not bring back our outsourced manufacturing base since we cannot and should not compete with Third World slave labor. Outsourcing is anti-American policies favored by Lefties Clinton, Gore, Kerry., W., Romney, and Obama.

Besides outsourcing our vital industry and American jobs is not even trade, which is a movement of goods.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:53PM

John,

We don't compete by driving down wages, we compete by investing in productivity!

Twenty years ago I visited China - their dump truck was five guys with shovels and a flat bed truck. Here, we use power excavators that can out perform a hundred guys with shovels - one guy does the work of a hundred.

Obama sees this a cries out, "Oh, the lost jobs! Those poor guys unemployed by the evil machine! Bad, bad machine!" What eludes him completely is digging ditches with a shovel is really a hard, hard, slow way to dig a ditch AND some of those ditch diggers went and got to be welders or mechanics in the factory making the the big yellow excavator. They are working, at a better job, making better pay, in a better environment.

We do not compete on wages, we actually compete on production cost per item produced. Best way to improve production cost is increased investment in equipment and design, both product and production.

Also if we make products at a lower cost than slave labor, their employers will either go out of the business or increase productivity, either of which will tend to reduce slave labor...Also it creates better jobs in the slave labor market place, too. Oh I guess the slaves' conditions might improve a little too. This is how we got out of cabins into high rises. It just takes a little time and fair competition. And less greedy government.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:11PM

John;

The Founders were not protectionists! They saw overseas trade as one of the few sources of revenue to fund the government.

One of the main complaints against Britain was impressment of American sailors mostly from American trading vessels.

The Founders were NOT protectionists! We were more like China is today, importing whatever machinery and technology we could to improve our own lot and to generate revenue with exports.

Nope, not protectionists.

Especially because protection only incites trade wars and trade wars necessarily reduce trade which necessarily reduces commerce on both sides! Voila! Trade war = recession or depression. Bank on it. It works, every time it's tried.

So does free trade, but in the opposite sense.

The problem is that increased trade means more producers in the market and more producers means more competition and more guys who were comfortable digging ditches find themselves without their comfortably familiar, dirty, dangerous job goes away and they have to find something else.

No free trade is not easy or fun, but if you are on the right side of it, you get a lot more goods for far lower prices. You just have to make sure you keep yourself in a productive occupation and be prepared for it to end as it inevitably will.

Our government and the impediments to business it has erected has put us on the wrong side of free trade. Don't blame the Chinese, don't blame the business man trying to adapt and keep his job, blame the government regulator who never loses his job or has to compete with anybody. That's the problem with free trade today.

Being against free trade is the same as being against freedom!

If a man cannot sell the product of his own labor as he sees fit, then he is not free.

Ask any slave.

Kurt| 12.22.11 @ 1:09PM

I just read about the Finnish navy seaching a ship heading to China with multiple patriot missles aboard. Oh yes, China is our valued friend and trading partner and does not seek to destroy the US! Time for the US to manufacture something other than corrupt sellout CEO's and politicians and gulliable sheeple that believe everything the bought and paid for MSN spews!

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:17PM

Theirs is a 2000+ year old society that views us as upstarts. They are waging economic war on us. Their problem is if they fight us openly, we just repudiate our debt to them and start the shooting in earnest-they are not ready for that. Yet.

Do not doubt this. Just look at what Putin is up to these days. And while you are wondering about where the Patriot missiles were going, more importantly where are the coming from? And how did they get passage to China? By whom?

Dagny Taggert| 12.22.11 @ 10:44AM

See my comments above on the myth of the "gutted manufacturing base." And please explain your 2nd paragraph because it is nonsense to me. You need to read up on merchantilism a la Adam Smith because you have it bass-ackwwards and your conclusion is silly. Your version of independence stifles growth. We can still be an independent nation and have international economic inter-dependence--with growth.

John C| 12.22.11 @ 11:40AM

Hi-Tech manufacturing is being outsourced to China too -- Apple & GE are two examples. Research and engineering follow where the product is made. Besides all those outsourced low-tech plants provided good paying jobs to middle class Americans, including those in right-to-work states.

We make very little finished products in the USA and a country that makes nothing is worthless – an economic paper at the mercy of foreign powers..

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 11:59AM

MORON!

It's because of the business environment CREATED by the government and the anti-business nutjobs, OWS.

OWS forebears were the NIMBY's and the NIABBY's. (Not in Any Body's Back Yard) You don't make omelets or omelettes without breaking eggshells. America man up! A little dirt is good for you.

Once again, THIS IS SO SIMPLE OUR CURRENT SITUATION IS JUST PLAIN STUPID!

It is again a case of those ignorant of history having to repeat it, morons!

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:40PM

Okay.

"MORON" was a little strong. But in any event blaming business is playing into Obama's hand class warfare game. We should not, must not help him demonize business and profit. It is profit that moves our society forward!

Kurt| 12.22.11 @ 12:40PM

John C, you are out numbered by morons like dumb Tom and are cleaning these globalist retards arse's! To bad you are one of a very few who actually "GET IT" The rest of the fools, like dumb tom that are spouting fox new's "hogwash" propaganda should be ashamed!

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:24PM

Kurt,

I do not watch Fox News, they are 1/16th of an inch to the right of MSNBC- Just enough to take the entire right half of the broadcast market.

I was a National Review subscriber from 1978 through 2002, I cancelled my own damn subscription in 02.

And if you are an anti-free trader, I say your economic ignorance may be incurable or worse intentional.

And exactly how do you define "globalist." I am waiting to see if I am one.

Doug| 12.22.11 @ 2:24PM

Our founders DEPENDED on trade. Rum/sugar from the West Indies. Refined ores from Europe. Slaves from Africa. They were far from "protectionists".

Davod| 12.22.11 @ 9:25AM

"Every country in the world is going to be subsidizing its renewable energy sector."

They all do now.

But this is not the main problem. I would suggest there is enough history, and several studies, that shows renewables are not a reliable source of continuous output. Yet some countries, the UK for instance (even with a conservative government), are shutting down their fossil fuel and nuclear plants on the basis of over optimistic studies about the energy output from renewable sources.

The US is moving down this path.

snipelee| 12.22.11 @ 10:45AM

The UK, in all it's green zeal, believed enough in AGW to forget to order de-icing fluid for airports!

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 11:05AM

How many square miles of windmills does it take to replace one Hoover dam or nuke plant?

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 9:28AM

So let me get this straight:

1-The President thinks that generating electricity without using the proven, low-cost carbon based fuels is bad because scientific frauds (they have written scads of e-mails on how to make the data look worse than it is, e-mails which have been released) have sworn up and down that in a 100 years it's going to raise the sea level 360, oops I mean 36 inches. (They started saying this in the early 1990's, shouldn't we be a fifth of the way there by now, 7.2 inches? It actually hasn't moved in that time period.)

2. Since this is a new business, the federal government and many of the states have been forcing utilities to use Obama's pet renewables, damn the cost - why would they care? The government doesn't pay it, you stupid sucker taxpayers pay it.

3. Since the utilities HAVE to buy the pet solar products, they are going to go any where to get the cheapest solar panels. Making solar panels involves lots of nasty chemicals which the US government hates (Unless it's elemental mercury in a Compact Fluorescent Light bulb, then they love it - ya know, they just love the excitement of the 'efforting' the HAZMAT swat team when somebody breaks a lightbulb!) so making solar panels is made more expensive here because you have to comply and report your compliance to several federal and state agencies who'sw job it is to worry, then rest assured after the compliance documents have been written, reviewed, re-submitted, filed...The upshot is the US is probably the most expensive place on this planet to manufacture panels. Remember in China, it's easy-if they can't sell the waste products, they just dump them in the river-eventually they go away.

4. Any sane business owner or investor would take one look at the two cost structures, US very high, China very low, and instantly resolve to build panels there, not here. In spite of the structural cost disadvantage, there actually are domestic manufacturers with factories here. Why? Because Obama has to have a convincing backdrop to tell the stupid, stuck taxpayers that 'See, this new energy thing is working.'

5. But no sane business would manufacture here. So in order to have manufacturing here to show that it's working, Obama's DOEnergy starts waving billion dollar bills around that ol' trailer park to see if any business will bite. And they have, a couple. Assuming that these businesses are not terminally stupid, they must recognize that they cannot compete without DOE's billions (oops, I mean your billions, double oops, yours and China's billions - they did lend us about half of it.) So if they are sane and not terminally stupid, they must be dishonest! Uh-oh!

6. And what do dishonest guys do to get your and China's billions? They bribe the decision makers, using modern bribes! Modern bribes? Bundled, mystifyingly found campaign contributions. 'Member Bill Clinton getting $75,000 from monks who had taken a vow of poverty, stuff like that. Ask Rod Blagoyevich, he and Obama ran in the same streets as young thugs learning the tricks of the trade from the same masters. And the rule is if I give you a billion, you give my campaign a couple million. Who's stupid now?

YOU ARE - you are on the hook for every freaking nickel. And if they can't tax it away from you, they'll inflate it away from you. You, hardworking, nose-to-the-grindstone, solid citizen, taxpayer chump. And your kids, their kids, and their kids. Unless the whole thing gets blown up and some of those kids never get to have kids.

This is just ONE of the many scams this boy president is running...But what REALLY aggravates me- is the media are complicit in the whole thing. They just don't get cash from the deal, just fawning from ugly, ugly politicians and pretty, pretty celebrities in on the same thing.

Bernie Madoff was an honest crook, he did it with charm and bologna. Obama does it with a SWAT team waiting for the call.

7. Don't forget China's being told that they are the thieves - they must be cheating! Our insane, terminally stupid, or dishonest businesses cannot make stuff as cheaply as the Chinese. Obama be careful before you bitch too much. They may stop propping up our currency and Europe's currency. It'd take them about a day. Some people call it economic warfare. Most of the world will long for the good old days of the 1930's.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

And Ron Paul is worried about the Fed! HEE HAW!

And you'll pay for it all. Better cancel your dreams.

Don't tread on me.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 9:29AM

Oh, I almost forgot! Merry Christmas, madding TAS crowd!

Tenn Slim| 12.22.11 @ 9:49AM

Again, the article misses the point. The Obama Cof Comm is dedicated to the demise of the entire US private sector. So considering the actual agenda, the Tarriff wall proces is normal.
Semper Fi
end

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:01PM

Yeah but, we have to educate the useful idiots so they'll stop aiding and abetting the unrepentant communists. They are everywhere, both the useful and the unrepentant.

David March| 12.22.11 @ 9:50AM

How can citizens in third world economies do business without free trade, then?

--First off I fail to see how that’s the problem or responsibility of first world countries to help out third world countries?

--Third world economies did quite brisk business when there was protectionism in this world. They learned to use there advantages to get their goods to market and compete. Often they allowed their own stupid internal politics to hold them back.

--Protectionism has its faults and problems. Inefficiencies being one of the drivers and its important to make sure you develop with competition and to open yourself up to a certain extent. But there is no need to spread your legs open wide and act like two dollar hooker. The first world countries should not feel white guilt for third world countries, cause they have a superior ethic than layabouts who cant organize themselves properly.

John C| 12.22.11 @ 10:09AM

Lefties Clinton, Gore, W., Kerry, Romney and Obama are free traders and the Founders were protectionists. Whose side do you want to be on?

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 10:36AM

The founders used excise taxes to finance the operation of the government. Import duties were a comon feature of most nations plans at the time. The Whig party made the "American system" of protectionist duties part of their platform. The idea was to promote development of native industry. How can we best promote native industry today? Perhaps by not pricing our products out of the world market through high labor costs and regulatory imposts. How much do the regulatory mandated "features" add to the price of your car?

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:38PM

Is there anybody out there who understands that it is productivity that wins the trade competition? Not low wages, not natural resources.

Taiwan, Hong Kong have neither, are they poor? Are they afraid of free trade? No.

Who is afraid of free trade? Trade unions - because it is their fundamental purpose to decrease productivity and increase costs by maintaining the status quo. So are statist politicians who profit from the trade unions' diversions of dues to their campaigns.

Guys like Clinton, Obama...who does support them?

1. Socialists
2. Trial lawyers
3. The race baiting business
4. Trade unions, especially government unions.
5. Environmental lunatics-who fear CO2 even though CO2 is the source of oxygen for all plant life, amongst other imaginary dangers

And each and everyone was well represented at OWS, except the trial lawyers, they are smart enough to recognize that the successful parasite does not kill the host.

So you anti-free traders are in some select company of ignorant, self-serving groups who would shred the Constitution in fifteen seconds if they could.

If a man cannot freely sell the product of his time and effort as he sees fit, he is NOT free.

Go back and ask a slave.

And I'm the idiot?

TrueBlue| 12.22.11 @ 4:14PM

I think there is a balance here that people are missing. Completely free-trade is bad for a country. Overly high tariffs negatively affect it just as much.

If a company can go overseas and produce something for very little, and then import it someplace else for only the cost of transport, and the combined cost is less than producing it in the country of sale, then they will do it. Tariffs are what even out prices from foreign soil competing against products produced locally. If our business taxes and regulations were lower, the cost to produce here would be lower, and companies would produce more locally. But they won't do so as long as there is no real cost to producing products elsewhere.

Tariffs equal out prices from foreign exporters (also conveniently provide a source of revenue for the federal government) and then it becomes a matter of quality. That's what trade agreements are for, "We'll reduce the taxes on UVW if you reduce your taxes on XYZ." What we have with the majority of our current trade agreements however is completely one-sided. We lower, or completely remove, taxes on products shipped to us from some countries (China being the main one) yet we get no similar deal in return.

The vast majority of China's population cannot afford products made elsewhere, the Chinese government taxes them all to hell. Even if they didn't we would still not sell a whole lot there, we don't make most of the products their average citizen uses.

This is where I make some people mad... I DON'T CARE about those underdeveloped countries right now. When our country is looking at

hardcard| 12.22.11 @ 9:54AM

Dump obamasoros and his emerald city of corruption.

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 10:09AM

My heart tells me we must have a trade war with China but my brain says no way.

Our relationship with China is extremely complicated and a simple trade war will do nothing more than cause an-already perilous situation to become catastrophic.

Like it or not, we will be forever tied to the hip to one another. This is reality.

As it stands now, China is a producer/saver country with an extremely high GDP, but yet, a very poor country with limited natural resources.

The United States, a developed country, has suffered very low GDP numbers, but yet, is still considered a wealthy nation, the largest consumer nation on Earth with abundant natural resources.

We are a consumer society, they are a producer/saver society.

When China attempts to become more of a consumer society it will put an enormous demand on natural resources (commodities) around the World which will drive prices through the roof.

As demand for goods and services increases in China, we must be prepared to meet those needs.

A trade war might make us feel good but will not help our disastrous economic situation.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:12PM

Will a trade war feel "good" to the millions who will lose their jobs because of the loss of business that trade wars always and inevitably cause?!

That makes as much sense as hoping for riots to show people how stupid the leftists are! The costs of riots are borne by those with property in the riot zone. Not the leftists - they get away scot-free! So riots harm property owners, usually small businesses. Yeah, serves them right for trying to do business in crime infested riot zones.

Your heart is a non-thinking pump in your chest. Fire up your brain, willya! Last thing this country needs is a bunch of emotionally based policies. Did you miss the conversation yesterday about "through no fault of their own?" Seems like it.

C'mon! Wise up - use your head! A trade war, like all wars is a disaster for the citizenry, not the for the government! That's because no matter what happens, they can try to fix it with YOUR money! And if their approach doesn't work, they'll just try something else until they actually help out or the media focuses elsewhere, leaving the government still spending more of your money!

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 12:20PM

Er,

I'm not sure which post you are responding to but no mine.

You're preaching to to choir my friend.

You might want to direct your comments to Donald Trump and the like.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:36PM

Bob,

Your opening line stated we must have a trade war with China.

Your last line stated that it might feel good. It won't. It'd be a disaster.

Yes we are in the same choir, but singing in the same key makes for much better music.

Donald Trump is an entertainer. You are more important - you are conservative and a voter.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 10:23AM

Why doesn't AS have an article on why the House GOP is not extending the payroll tax cut - especially right before the holidays this uncertainty is killing the American people. Vote them all out in November

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 10:25AM

Dude,

It's 40 BUCKS!!!

Give me your address and I'll mail you a check if it will make you feel better.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 11:26AM

Not for me it ain't ... try $95/week... u got that?

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 12:18PM

Purp,

Making it up again? The tax cut is a 2% cut (from 6.2% to 4.2%) on a tax which is capped at $106,000 of income. Making $106K or more, your maximum savings are $2,120 dollars or $40.77 per week.

Maybe you are counting your multiple wives, as well?

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 12:23PM

I should have said per pay period, which is pretty d* close - $83 vs $95 - eXCUSE me ... and it's 106,800 max which i go over. so yeah, over 2100.00 out of my pocket - you got that for me? So much for Republicants not raising our taxes ...

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 12:27PM

Wait a minute Purp,
That makes you "the rich" who should be paying more, right?

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 4:57PM

Al Adab,

You beat me to it! Mr. "I make more than anyone here" moaning about $40/week. Do you think he tips well?

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 5:07PM

John,
I suppose whether he tips well or not depends on whether he ever dated a waitress. They are the highest tippers I know. My coffee shop group has helped put a lot of gals through college. More power to them.

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 12:50PM

Purp,

It seems it was the Republicans in the House, with all those radical Tea Party types, which extended the tax cut for a year - instead of 60 days - and want to return it to a year. They've even insisted that the Senate return to take the issue into conference.

Remember High School civics? The bill originates in the House - the Senate may only accept a bill or amend it and return it to the House (unless you count such Kennedy shenannigans as amending the entire contents of a bill to retain the shell, only). If the Senate amends it, the House may vote to accept the amendments, modify it and send it back to the Senate, OR refer it to committee in an effort to stop a ping-pong match. Boehner has chosen to send it to committee.

The only thing you've got is that Boehner did NOT schedule a vote to accept the Senate amendments.

This is rich from the party of Pelosi.

Drunken Sailor| 12.22.11 @ 2:15PM

Purp,
Do you mean that 2 month tax cut that the Senate plans on paying with a PERMANENT increase in all new mortgages and re-financed loans? (Roughly a extra $17 a month for a 200K mortgage) You can get better rates than that from those Payday loan centers.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/.....52027164/1

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:21PM

So Purp here's what just happened:

You have proven what you are, and now you are negotiating the price...

And Bob see what happens when you listen to that pump in your chest? Guys like Purp say, thanks for the help but that's not enough. His next question will be, "How much DO you have, Bob?"

That's a socialist - you know the "Give me yours" crowd. Until of course, somebody walks up to them and says, "Give me yours" converting them from a "me" to a someone with "yours" to lose. They NEVER like that. They always expect to be the "me." They always expect to get, never to give.

But it cannot work - it never will. If they don't realize it they are "useful idiots," if they do realize it they are "unrepentant communists."

We have a country chockful of 'usefuls' - we need to educate them so they'll stop abetting and aiding the "unrepentant!"

Confusion to our enemies!

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 12:24PM

You're right - it's confusing - what you say is nonsense and ranting without a point.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:31PM

You expect others to pay your way. It's not nonsense it's clarity.

I say you are either a useful idiot or an unrepentant communist. Which is it.

Does this confuse you? That suggests your usefulness.

CPA| 12.22.11 @ 12:24PM

You telling us 2% of your SS witholding in $95.00?

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 10:31AM

The House passed a full extension bill but the Senate rejected it in favor of the administrations ploy for a tqwo month extension. Thay want to have the full debate during the election cycle.

What the Senate also didn't like was the CFL repeal and the Canada pipeline the House extension included. I understand it's a great campaign talking point about those "rich republicans" not caring about people, but the facts are different. The Dem Senate is posturing for political gain, nothing more.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 11:27AM

the pipeline is in the compromise ... House Republicans are killing the GOP ... I love it... right before Xmas ... How many parents are gonna forget they can't by their kids presents because of John Boner?

Drunken Sailor| 12.22.11 @ 12:15PM

Purp = Foot and Mouth, Head and ass, perfect fit.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 12:25PM

Great comeback - no debate, just name calling. Are you 12? surely you can argue a point better than that, come on, you can do it.

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 12:32PM

As stated earlier, a two month extension is a political ploy to ressurect the issue during an election year. Whay is wrong with the year long extension?

When we accept that tax rates have a deleterious effect on the economy and that lower rates increase wealth we might want to reconsider the entire concept of progressive taxation, yes? Is not the idea to allow people to make money and increase their personal wealth?

Note: Facebook is preparing an IPO based on their 2011 earnings of 3.8 billion in advertising revenue. Yes, that is wealth creation.

Drunken Sailor| 12.22.11 @ 12:44PM

Why should I state what everyone else has told you already. Your a troll that talks out both sides of his ass. Merry Christmas.

Doug| 12.22.11 @ 2:31PM

So Xmas presents bought NOW will have to be forgone because of a $20-40 weekly cut NEXT YEAR?

Purp...do you have any idea why Congress had to pass an omnibus bill this month? Do you know how many House passed bills died on Reid's desk? Do you know how to use google?

VonMisesJr| 12.22.11 @ 10:44AM

Talk about uncertainty. Obama and the Senate want every business in America to plan their payroll for two months at a time so they can keep a political boondoggle alive for propaganda sake.

Come on, Purp. I know you are too smart not to know this.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 11:30AM

Nothing changes Jan 1 for business, if the House passes the d* bill. They've been calcing 4.2% FICA all year. Now you're smarter than that. They have 2 months to pass the whole year bill and nothing will change for business at all. It will just hurt the American people. If they don't pass the bill, business has to change everything Jan 1st. Which is worse - Jan 1st or 2 months later? Hmmm?

George S| 12.22.11 @ 12:29PM

I thought paying taxes was the patriotic thing to do. Why, those who can afford it should be able to pay a "little more". Now your are telling me, what, a 2% tax hike is hurting people? Everyone can afford 2%, but paying it is another story. I am so confused.

VonMisesJr| 12.22.11 @ 2:05PM

So when do the IT guys actually do the software code development to make sure the next paycheck goes out on time. If you don't know anything about the private sector, then you don't know these things. Ever heard of PeopleSoft? I sold change management software for peopleSoft in one of my many procdutive jobs. And if my customers or my employer did not have clear direction and time to process, we in the private sector may be waiting for our checks.

Since something like 90% of all mortages are now owned by the government. Will they be patient? If your taxes are due on April 15th, do you have connection to the White House and Congress to grant an extension before penalties and interest?

How about the Accounting Departments having to go to actual data in the final paychecks siince there is no rule to write into the software to get the financial statements ready for the next reporting period. In government, they only have reporting periods for budgets of other people's money, and we haven't had one of those in government for 950 days.

You don't even question why they want two months instead of doing the job. So why would you think of these other problems you and your big government create.

VonMisesJr| 12.23.11 @ 7:55AM

I knew Perp would not anwser a question that proves he knows nothing about how a business works. He has probably never had a job, not less worked in accounting or sold software business operations.
But he knows everything since Obama taught him from his "community organizing books."
Note he replies a couple sections below with liberal drivel. But he avoids the true business questions about meeting payroll cycles and business reporting. Getting a government check doesn't involve creating wealth or following the rules government inflicts on business.

Dagny Taggert| 12.22.11 @ 10:48AM

The uncertainty of kicking the can down the road for a measly two months is the more important issue. Business doesn't like surprises and an 8-week bandaid is hardly the solution to creating certainty for business.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 11:30AM

No, it's whether dads and moms can buy their kids presents for Xmas or get to work or feed their families is more important than some political point of order. Geessh!

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 12:13PM

You talk as though these funds just magically appear like lollipop trees and marmalade skies.

Like Dagny mentioned, how about if we allow the goose more opportunities to lay more golden eggs so those moms and dads can have jobs to celebrate next year's Christmas.

But that's not part of Hopey Changey now is it?

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:23PM

That is Purp's world...

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 12:27PM

No, it's whether dads and moms can buy their kids presents for Xmas or get to work or feed their families is more important than some political point of order. Geessh!
Oh, and don't forget, if they don't pass the 2 month extension, businesses have to change back to 6.2% FICA tax in a week or so. Now what's worse - immediate changes or no changes as long as the whole is year tax cut is passed within 2 months. The business argument is a red herring and we all know it.

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 12:32PM

You have alot of audacity to accuse the republicans of using red herrings.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and others are masters at using red herrings and strawmen.

The bottom line is, ONCE AGAIN, republicans are punished for being the adults in the room.

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 12:35PM

Bob:
Three years into this administration the nation really is in bad shape if, as Purp states, 2% of SS taxes make the difference between Christmas for the kids or not. Doesn't his argument simply reinforce the Conservative position regarding tax rates?

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 12:36PM

Yes, and your comments @12:32 summed it up quite nicely.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 2:10PM

And they are being punished by the irresponsibly childish Democrats...

George S| 12.22.11 @ 12:39PM

Think of the message this sends to kids: if parents buy them Christmas presents with tax cut dollars that means the federal government is doing with less money. Mommy and Daddy need to get their skin in the game.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:43PM

Uh, George,

If mommy and daddy are paying taxes, doesn't the government already have a real good hold on their skins?

And if the government is borrowing that those kids will have to pay with their taxes, do you really have the nerve to suggest that the government is the one getting screwed here?

Please tell us that is not what you meant! Please.

Purp| 12.22.11 @ 12:27PM

Oh, and don't forget, if they don't pass the 2 month extension, businesses have to change back to 6.2% FICA tax in a week or so. Now what's worse - immediate changes or no changes as long as the whole is year tax cut is passed within 2 months. The business argument is a red herring and we all know it.

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 12:39PM

So Purp,
What is the point of the Senate holding out for a two month extension when everyone wants the full year? Something rotten in Den,ark perhaps?

Doug| 12.22.11 @ 2:34PM

And because this has been the law for a year the software programmers and business owners could plan for it.

What is worse immediate changes that are permanent or continued uncertainty because who knows if anything will pass in 2 months?

Dixie Pixie| 12.22.11 @ 11:04AM

Meanwhile Obama uses the EPA to shutdown 32 coal-fired power plants with another 36 to be targeted.
Industary experts expect up to 12% of all coal-fired plants to be shut down by the EPA new regulations on particulate and especially mercury emissions.

Can anyone say “Energy Independence” by shutting down big chunks of the electrical power industry?
And you are worried about an embargo on China's manufactured solar power parts.

The embargo is to save Obama the political embarrassment of finding out most of the money spent on the “Solar Investments Produce American Jobs Plan” went to China producing Chinese jobs and wealth at the expense of American workers.
Obama is trying to save his job at the expense of millions of American workers jobs.

Storagesteve| 12.22.11 @ 12:02PM

But it's even worse because we then ship our coal overseas to be used in plants that are dirtier than ours so the net effect is more carbon. We also will have to build more gas fired generation, but what happens when they cut off the drilling in shale formations then price of power will sky rocket.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 12:28PM

Please tell me this is not a surprise to you. Please. Obama said in 2007 that we don't pay enough for energy in this country! And he has repeated it countless times.

Oh, well good to see you are awake. Please call your Congressman and your Senators and bitch them out for allowing this.

Oh, have you stocked up on incandescent light bulbs I believe that a week from Sunday it's no longer legal to sell them in this country...Of course you can probably sneak them in from Canada or Mexico. Just hope they don't catch ya...

Merry Christmas!

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 12:57PM

DTOM,

Good news, and Merry Christmas. The budget does not allocate money to implement the light-bulb ban, the effect being that we will still be able to buy 100 watt bulbs until September.

Those were the only one's being phased out in January. The next phase-out was to be in January 2013 to include 75-watt and, perhaps 60's (I don't recall).

The myth-busters will say that they are not being phased out at all, just that "100 watt" bulbs need to generate the same number of lumens for "72 watts". Sure, but not for 50 cents.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 2:00PM

DOH!

Now I've got to return the gross of 100 - watt bulbs I bought.

Knuckle head Congress, Hee Haw!

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 3:02PM

DTOM,

I'll keep my stash :)

Al Adab| 12.22.11 @ 12:36PM

Right you are Dixie:
See todays' WSJ editorial page re: Lisa Jackson and the ever wonderful EPA.

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 1:01PM

Al Adab,

The EPA is a creature of Congress. It can stop this.

Doug| 12.22.11 @ 2:36PM

The Republicans in the House have tried but the Dems in the Senate are blocking them.

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 3:02PM

Doug,

So true. November, 2012 may be our last hope.

Dixie Pixie| 12.22.11 @ 4:37PM

John...It is a common meme in literature to have the monster escape the control of its creators.

The EPA slipped out of Congressional control when it found out it could pay environmental groups to go to the Judiciary to “sue” the EPA into actions not authorized or even forbidden by Congress.
Even better for the EPA is with a Court Ruling in hand, the EPA could have a Congressional law deemed unconstitutional if Congress tries to restrict the EPA.
This is how the EPA gained regulatory control of carbon dioxide even after Congress exempted CO2 from EPA control.

The EPA monster was deliberately set loose on commerce by Obama to accrue further governmental powers and therefore the wealth generated by the selective enforcement of regulations.
The “Chicago Way” of “Pay To Play or Pray” does extort a lot of money until total economic collapse.

Not that the EPA cares.
No commercial activity means no “pollution” and thus a total victory for the EPA.

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 4:54PM

Dixie Pixie,

And it is a common meme in literature for the monster to never die. I hope this isn't the movies and the creature can really sink into the black lagoon.

If Congress wishes, it can defund the EPA and they can take their judgements and do with them what they will.

Dixie Pixie| 12.22.11 @ 7:55PM

Well John, maybe we can get the author to do a quick rewrite so the villagers win in the end.

My local city government has announced that they are considering a contract with a private company to set up surveillance cameras to fine citizens for transgressions against the public order.
The company intents to split the profits with the city government for the privatized police for profit operation.

How this differs from the 1960's TV show “The Prisoner”, is in the TV show the Village wanted information, in real life the Village just wants money.

If I see big white bubbles bursting out of the ground, chasing people down, I am out of here.

John Navratil| 12.22.11 @ 8:39PM

Dixie Pixie,

You might find Houston's story interesting.

The city council contracted with American Traffic Solutions to install red-light cameras. It was so unpopular a ballot referendum (not easy) forced the issues to the voters who by a narrow, but decisive, margin required the city to remove the cameras. The city sued and the voter's will was rescinded by a judge to noted that the city charter required such referenda to be within 30 days of passage of the ordinance - no one had constructive notice for two years. It became a political hot potato and the council finally, perhaps hearing that buzzing mosquito which they finally recognized as the people, voted to abrogate the contract. Now the city and ATS are in a battle to see who owes what to whom. I would not be a bit surprised, now that the November election has re-elected the mayor, to find the council vote to restore the contract.

The sad back story is the number of people who say the red-light cameras should stay as the are good for public safety.

davelnaf| 12.22.11 @ 1:40PM

No fan of the Bamster. But the unassailable fact is that we're already in a kind of war with the Chinese. Their continued theft of our technology is a ticking time bomb.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 1:44PM

They've been fighting it for a long time.

cicero| 12.22.11 @ 1:52PM

What is the problem here? The Chinese want to corner the solar panel industry. But, in order to do so, they have to subsidize every panel. If we buy all of our (needed?) panels from them, they will be losing money on every one, and we will be able to assemble them into our systems at a huge savings to our taxpayers. They bankrupt their people and their government, while we get the benefit, and our taxpayers don't have to subsidize the Solyndras of thee world.
What are we thinking? Why fight it? If they make enough solar panels at the per unit cost cited in the article, and sell them at the stated loss per panel, it will be no time before we will have saved enough on the panels to buy back our T-bills. They will have to sell them back at discount, as they will needd the money to keep their subsidies going.
Hah! Now we have them. Such idiocy.

DTOM| 12.22.11 @ 2:08PM

cic'

I agree that whenever a country is subsidizing an export you should buy all of that export that makes sense. However, somewhere up above I pointed out that the only reason there is ANY demand for these solar cells is federal and state legislation and grants requiring that utilities use this decidedly non-competitive technoloogy.

And remember, every MW of unreliable renewable energy installed must be matched by by another MW of reliable conventional capacity.

Because if you don't and the grid is meeting demand with unreliable renewables and the clouds come out or the wind dies, they stop carrying the grid's load and if that load is not instantly picked up by other capacity, you lose the whole grid.

So every time they put up a 100 MW of wind turbines or photovoltaic solar cells, they have to install 100 MW of conventional generation capacity, too. Wanna save some money? Skip the unreliable renewable and just install the conventional capacity.

It really is that simple and that stupid.

Confusion to our enemies - clarity to us!

cicero| 12.22.11 @ 2:35PM

Don't get me wrong, I think that the argument for renewables has not yet been made. At the present time, we have figured out to use oil, gas, and coal in a clean and efficient manner. In order to make their arguments, those who only want to wreck our way of life, and the chuckles who worship at the altar of Environmentalism, have decreed CO2 to be a toxin. Last time I was in shcool, it was one of the elemental building blocks of life on earth.
We have the cleanest air, the cleanest water, grow the most food per acre, and have the longest life spans in t he history of the world. And we want to change this why?
The true renewables were Hydro electric dams. But our friends in the Movement decided that minnows were more important than people, and that everything had to go back the way it was, and stay that way. When the Republican Party decides to stand up to the assaults on our way of life, and the Luddite Democrats are faced down for the destructive fools they are, were will be able to have a sane debate on the whole issue. When we stop giving credence to obvious frauds who call themselves scientists, who are only interested in their own lucrative endowments, maybe we can put this great country back on the road to leading the rest of the worrld in the ways of freedom.
Until then, wee will just have to keep up the fight.

Marc Jeric| 12.22.11 @ 4:57PM

Let me state briefly the truth about "green" energy - it does not exist. 1) It is unreliable; 2) It is extremely expensive; 3) It is environmentally destructive.
To pursue it is suicidal; it reminds one of the medieval pusuit of inventing the philosopher's stone that would give you eternal youth; of of trying to transform lead into gold.

Bob Grant| 12.22.11 @ 5:16PM

You're right on the money. Green energy is modern day alchemy.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:27AM

Newton was an alchemist. At what point does a solar photovoltaic industry growing by 30-100% each year for the past 12 years, with declining costs averaging 7% per year each year over the same period (and something like 100% this year alone) stop being alchemy? Don't forget that how the alchemists evolved into real chemists is a dirty little secrete of history.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:30AM

I know exactly what articles you read, and they are heavily subsidized by the Koch brothers and big oil, coal and gas industries. I read them too. I would respect your argument if you also read neutral academic cost-benefit studies AND independent analyses from the wind and solar energy associations. Which you obviously don't. Choose your information sources to fit your preconceived views and see what you get: ignorant.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:31AM

Marc Jeric| 12.22.11 @ 5:00PM

Well - ther is one way to harness renewable energy - and that hydroelictric dams; by our eco-nazis put the end of that, the only reliable, environmentally sound, and economical oiwer.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:23AM

I agree.

Niniane| 12.22.11 @ 7:23PM

What angers me most is that the Keystone XL project has been upheld, and thus an estimated 20,000 construction jobs plus countless people like the staff at Mom's Diner will be sacrificed in the name of politics and an insane ideology.

What is sad is that we export crude oil and have to buy replacements from other countries. If we have such an energy crisis, why are we exporting in the first place?

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:16AM

I agree. Keystone should have been approved.

Richard Baker| 12.22.11 @ 10:19PM

Bob Grant:
And there is no Philosopher's Stone. Green Energy is a myth in search of that Stone. The reason we use oil and coal is that there is sufficient useable energy contained therein. The Greenies are trying to create a world that exists only in their minds. Will such exist in the future? Ask the people of the 18th century is they could envision electricity powering the world. Maybe in the future we'll find something else but the physics that we know says NO, at present. Solar and wind are not efficient sources of energy and exist only because the liberals pick our pockets to subsidize them similar to light-rail.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:22AM

Are you familiar with the concept of "externality costs" from coal, gas and oil? I mean REAL economic costs? We have accepted these hidden costs to our economy for a Century because, first, we didn't understand them, and second, there were no alternatives. Meanwhile, without subsidies, grid-connected rooftop solar PV systems have reached grid parity in several US states, and the cost is declining each year. Solar will not replace fossil fuels tomorrow, or in ten years or even 50. But what other industry can you think of that has been growing by 30-100% every year for the past 12 years?

Richard Baker| 12.23.11 @ 1:08AM

Bob Grant:
Maybe the Greenies are hoping for Star Trek lithium crystals as a source of power.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:13AM

Real smart comment Dick.

POST American| 12.23.11 @ 1:20AM

"An estimated 1 MILLION are reckoned to
have been killed by Chernobyl during the decade
afterward. NOTE, the each of those flawed
GE reactors in FUKISHIMA were 50X more
powerful than Chernobyl. 5 of them are in
full and total meltdown and will be pulsing
away for the next decade."

And yesterday:

'14,000 estimated dead from the fallout
from FUKSHIMA --in the the west of the
US and Canada. MOST among the newborn."
-INFOWARS

And one and all should take heed,
cancer rates have been skyrocketing
and diversifying ---for decades now.

And BTW---- 'nothin' fries DNA like radiation'.

Functional infertility among males is
now approaching 90% across the western
world.

-----------------------------------------GET REAL!

----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------

Alex White| 12.23.11 @ 4:36PM

It's time to tell the truth about solar power – it isn’t making ANY difference. In the last 10 years more than $1 trillion was spent worldwide and yet new demand outpaced this solar capacity by 3:1.

It’s clear something needs to be done, but even if we spent $500 billion on solar in the next few years the reduction in CO2 emissions would be less than 3%.

We should be looking at burning natural gas cleaner with the proven technology of oxy-fuel combustion (replacing coal and conventional NG), which has very low emissions of CO2 and no NOX. $500 billion invested in that idea would cut CO2 by +70%.

There is a solution. The Introduction is here: http://www.solutioneur.com

Let’s make some real progress and stop pretending solar is going to solve the problem – it cannot.

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:10AM

but... just because solar won't replace fossil fuels completely in the next 30+ years means we should not invest in solar at all?

Charles A. Gardner| 12.24.11 @ 8:07AM

I agree. Obama is repeating every mistake of the 1930s including drastic reductions in Federal spending which will cause the economy to contract, exactly what precipitated the Great Depression (as much as Smoot-Hawley ever did). It is a technicality that Obama didn't start this solar trade war. Rather, several US solar companies (NOT including First Solar). The law requires the Commerce Department to consider their arguments, but that autocrat Obama must have forced Commerce to agree that $32 billion in Chinese government subsidies to its solar panel manufacturers might be unfair compared the the anemic subsidies the US gives to its own solar manufacturers. God forbid we should have a trade war, with each country increasing subsidies for its own industries just as Reagan kept increasing our defense budget until he bankrupted the USSR. And of course, as the Green Lantern says, wind and solar are "hopelessly inefficient and expensive and always will be." The levelized cost of electricity from land-based wind turbines is now the same as coal and gas (if subsidies are removed for both), but there must be some hidden cost, or something wrong with wind, or the coal, gas and oil industries wouldn't hate it so much. The pre-subsidy levelized cost of electricity from home-based rooftop photovoltaic installations is now less than what residents of five US states pay their utilities, and has been declining each year for the past ten years by more than 7% each year (drammatically declining even more in 2011 of course because German and Italy cut their own subsidies plus those nasty Chinese started dumping solar panels on the global market), and the US solar PV industry is the fastest growing industry in the entire country right now, more than doubling installations and employment in 2011, while the cost of new nuclear, coal and gas power plants continues to rise each year, but solar can never ever ever ever compete against the billions of dollars in subsidies that the nuclear, coal and gas industries get each year, so to h%#@ with it. Let's keep burning. Burn baby burn.

john dubose| 12.24.11 @ 11:25AM

There are all sorts of nitche uses of solar power systems. And more will come along. But starting a trade war over them is just stoooopid.

POST American| 12.25.11 @ 11:32PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

Cut to the chase!

"Isn't the only hope for the planet
that the industrialized civilizations
collapse? Isn't it our responsibility
to bring that about? When we get
through with you ---you'll WISH
you were a tree."
-MAURICE STRONG
UN Enviornmental Program Chief
Rockefeller-CFR front op
Traitor
Globalist
Eugenist
--PSYCHOPATH--
Rio Conference 1992

Defund, audit, exit, prosecute
EXPEL and ABOLISH the private,
corporate USURY and EUGENICS borg
'United' 'Nations'.

Time to move

----------------------BEYOND NUREMBERG 2012

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|99 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|117 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri