Tom Friedman and ‘Renewable’ energy ..he just cannot get it straight

Tom Friedman and ‘Renewable’ energy ..he just cannot get it straight

In a column today about the natural gas boom,  Friedman complains…

because natural gas is still a fossil fuel. The good news: It emits only half as much greenhouse gas as coal when combusted and, therefore, contributes only half as much to global warming. The better news: The recent glut has made it inexpensive to deploy. But there is a hidden, long-term, cost: A sustained gas glut could undermine new investments in wind, solar, nuclear and energy efficiency systems — which have zero emissions — and thus keep us addicted to fossil fuels for decades.

That is why on May 29 the British newspaper The Guardian quoted Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, as saying that “a golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate” — if natural gas ends up sinking renewables. Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the I.E.A., urged governments to keep in place subsidies and regulations to encourage investments in wind, solar and other renewables “for years to come” so they remain competitive.

First of all, there is nothing to indicate that ‘renewables’ as they exist can do anything but destroy the very economies which we need to EAT tomorrow. Unless they can REPLACE fossil fuels at equal or less cost they are pointless boutique experiments fit for something like my yard on the lake where nearly continuous wind and low demand make their abilities ALMOST a replacement for the wire coming in from Bangor Hydro. Assuming I can shoulder the cost of construction.

These technologies as they exist have ALREADY been the object of huge subsidies,  investments such as Solyndra, and First Solar and are ALL failing.

Why?

Because the money for basic research and newer technologies, the engineering needed to translate the new inventions and discoveries is the place for 100% of the govt monies to go to today.

No US moneys should be spent to underpin manufacturing of technologies whose product no one in the american middle class can afford without major changes in their lives. Like no TV. No commuting.

We are not going to ride bikes to work from freezing and dark houses in February because we have shot our bolt on Solyndra’s instead of scholarships at Cal Tech or MIT and the equipment needed for basic research.

There would be a gigantic voter revolt and we’ll be burning high sulfur coal without regard to anything but cost because it’s that or economic collapse and starvation as we progress from the boiled frogs we are to enraged Americans ready to commit all acts to survive.

And this???

Why not a carbon tax that raises enough money to help pay down the deficit and lower both personal income taxes and corporate taxes — and ensures that renewables remain competitive with natural gas? That would ensure this gas revolution transforms America, not just our electric grid.

We now have the lowest percentage of american working who CAN WORK in how long? 50 years? 60 years? And you want to tax in effect the generation of electricity, and the gas going into our tanks, and the heat we need in the winter?

How many more layoffs will pay for that loss of revenue at the top line in businesses large AND SMALL? How much will prices rise to encompass that? How much reduced revenue in taxes will result from the further removal of disposable income from Americans?

MORONIC