The right argument on renewables

By Dana Blankenhorn | Nov 24, 2009 |

I am a fan of Al Gore. I do not doubt global warming.

But the wrong arguments have been made on renewables all along.

The current Climate Bill is, in fact, a jobs bill.

Whatever you think of climate change the fact is we’re subsidizing a market sector in hydrocarbons that is not growing, and not producing jobs.

Our Department of Energy still pays for oil and gas research. Corporate taxes are kept low in states with heavy concentrations of hydrocarbons. Energy companies still enjoy accelerated depreciation.

This despite decades of enormous profit, and increased efficiencies which mean that oil, gas and coal don’t really create many jobs. And the cost of using hydrocarbons, pollution and habitat damage, are never accounted for at all.

In contrast, our economic rivals are passing all sorts of incentives for renewable development. China now leads in solar cell production. Germans have used market incentives to construct nearly 24,000 megawatts of wind power.

Energy for the Sun, from the wind, and from the tides is a growth industry. It increases the self-sufficiency of any country that uses these resources. It creates thousands of new jobs. So Germany’s economy is recovering and China’s is back to rocketing along, while we deal with unemployment over 10%.

Transferring market incentives from hydrocarbons to renewables is national security, and it’s sound economic policy. What excuse can there be for continuing to subsidize a failing sector? Next you’ll want to hand money to newspaper barons or the owners of soccer franchises.

Skeptics claim, using hacked e-mails, that all climate science is biased. So what if it is. Anyone think smoke is good for you? Anyone like having mercury in their groundwater? Is there any chance at all that this is good for you?

But ignore that for a moment. Ignore the picture of Mt. Kilmanjaro above, which is visibly losing its ice cap, meaning central Africa loses its last natural climate moderator. Forget that the Arctic Ice will be gone in 10 years, that the seas are visibly rising. Stick your fingers in your ears and go “na na na na” all day long.

What about our national security? What about our economic competitiveness? What about jobs?

Right now, in Auburn Hills, Michigan, in the shadow of the Silverdome that sold for less than a Manhattan apartment this week, a company called United Solar Ovonic is making flexible solar modules. It brought in $100 million last year.

You really think America should be investing in Sunoco instead?

Nothing against Sunoco. I went to college with its CEO. But tax law and market incentives represent investments in our economy.

I’d rather America had its money on Stan Ovshinsky, the CEO of United Solar. I think we’ll get a better bang for our tax deferment buck with him. And with thousands of other entrepreneurs like him.

It doesn’t matter whether we disagree on global warming. We’re talking economics here. Lynn Elsenhans is a great lady, but as a taxpayer I’d rather have my money on Stan.

That’s what the issue should be.

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    Agnostic_OS

    11/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The right argument on renewables

    The CO2 augment is made on very arbitrary data and methods.
    See here (and the links) for how poor the CRU methods were. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1732&tag=wrapper;col1
    Yes the planet is warming but what is needed is more and better (more open?) research. We don't need free wheeling Al Gore jetting around the world proselytizing a view that is NOT a fact - humans started global warming; humans can stop global warming.

  •  
    2

    gbryantiv

    11/30/09 | Report as spam

    The grass is greener on this side of the fence...

    Not sure where to start but you seem to have cause/effect and symptom/problem all mixed up. I'll start with your claim that the government supports the oil/coal industries with tax dollars. In addition to corporate taxes and gasoline taxes, state and federal government get royalty revenue on every resource harvested from government owned land (and offshore production). So when you stop using hydrocarbons a huge chunk of the their budget goes bye bye. With that in mind its pretty easy to see why oil/coal producing states might have lower taxes on their residents/businesses. These states might also see the logic in keeping their corporate taxes low to attract and keep business in their state.

    You seem to be ignoring the very largest corporations always get better tax breaks than smaller ones. Your argument about unfair tax breaks for oil/coal firms ignores their relative size versus that of solar/wind firms. Should bicycle shops get the same tax breaks as railroads?

    If you want to keep the USA competitive today and ready for the future then support research for solar/wind/nuclear (the other green energy which works for France) and let the science mature to the point where market forces take over. The current climate bill does the opposite in that it artificially increases price of hydrocarbons to allow the "renewables" to be competive. This can only cause a net negative to the economy because of the inherent dead weight loss.

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

John Dodge

John Dodge has answered the call of journalism for 33 years, most of the time covering technology, engineering and business. While he's run magazines, newsweeklies and web sites, reporting and writing always took up half his time. He has have plied his craft at the WSJ, Boston Globe, PC Week (now eWeek), EDN, Design News, Electronic Business, Bio-IT World, Health-IT World, the Lowell Sun, Haverhill Gazette and Newburyport Daily News. He would have like to have been around when Boston supported seven or more newspapers (1940s) and while steam locomotives still pulled trains, but that era was nearly over by the time he raced into the world. That said, he has been blogging and shooting and editing video, writing for web and other online contents tasks for years now.

He has won numerous journalism awards in the past two years, including two Eddie Golds, one Neal finalist and the IEEE Award for Distinguished Journalism all for his reporting and coverage of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Besides his family and myriad hobbies, reporting and writing is why he gets up in the morning. His personal blog focuses on netbooks and is called The Dodge Retort.

John Dodge

John Dodge prides himself on completely independent journalism. His opinions, observations and reporting are not influenced by any financial holdings. He holds no shares in computer, electronics, software or Internet companies. He also has no business affiliations with organizations except with those for which he creates content as a freelancer.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.
The Thinking Tech blog focuses on technologies such as virtualization, smart electric grids, enterprise 2.0, open source, data center management, green technology and the intersection between the innovation and application of these advancements.