This may seem a minor matter, as well as an obvious and easy decision for a conservative. The wind tax credit is, after all, industrial policy, the government picking winners and losers in defiance of market signals — industrial policy always is a refusal to heed the market’s rejection of that which the government singles out for favoritism.This is a completely fatuous proclamation, ignorant of history. The federal government has always picked winners and losers when setting industrial policy.
When the government wanted to expand westward it picked winners and losers by granting railroads rights of way that ran roughshod over anyone who happened to be in their way.
When the federal government built the freeway system it picked winners and losers by building a transportation system for the trucking industry, completely undermining the rail system that it has subsidized only decades before and giving automobile and oil companies huge market opportunities.
Oil companies reap huge subsidies from the government, thousands of times greater than the subsidies that wind power receives.
But what about Will's infamous "market signals?" The market has been sending signals about the price of oil for decades. In the Seventies the Arab oil embargo sent a huge shock through the American economy, and allowed the Japanese to gain entry into the American automobile market and almost crush Detroit. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait sent a signal strong enough for us to start a war. Every time Iran says boo about the Straits of Hormuz the price of oil spikes.
Every year or two there's another massive oil spill, sending another market signal. This summer's drought and the high price of corn sends another market signal: the warming climate, caused by excess CO2 from burning fossil fuel, will increase the cost of food and reduce yields.
Will is right about one thing: not all subsidies are equal. But instead of worshiping at the altar of the market, he should pay some attention to the sciences of geology, agronomy and physics. He lumps together the wind tax credit and subsidies for the production of ethanol, which is usually made from corn. He's dead wrong on wind, but right on ethanol.
Geology: there's only a finite amount of oil, and it's going to run out in our lifetimes, especially as Asia and Africa begin to demand the lifestyle Americans enjoy. Its price fluctuates wildly and constantly, and because it mostly comes from countries antagonistic to the United States (the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia), it's critical to ensure that we have other sources of energy.
Agronomy: corn-based ethanol is just about the worst form of fuel possible. It's made from a foodstuff, so every bushel of corn turned into ethanol is a bushel of corn that people and livestock can't eat. Corn requires massive amounts of water and often requires more energy (usually from oil) for cultivation, fertilizer, transport, and so on, than it produces as ethanol.
Physics: once the infrastructure in place wind power is essentially free. The wind will still be blowing strong across North Dakota long after the oil boom there busts and the derricks fall silent.
The government has to be responsible for setting industrial policy for the long term, because multinational corporations have no concern about the future of the United States. They only care about profits in the next quarter and whether the stock price gains will garner the CEO his bonus. Wind power subsidies are ridiculously cheap compared to the amount of money the government spends subsidizing the oil and automobile industries with the highway system alone.
The only reason to oppose wind power subsidies is to hammer political opponents who support them. Wind power isn't some distant pipe dream. The United States has about 48,000 megawatts of installed capacity. That powers tens of millions of homes.
Wind: it's the conservative choice.
3 comments:
The federal government has always picked winners and losers when setting industrial policy.
LMFAO - and usually they pick losers. Remember Jimmy Carter's Synfuels you stupid old fuck?
George Will could be stuttering and retarded and he'd still be twice as coherent as you.
"What's with all the negative vibes? That's a beautiful windmill! Of course the wind will blow just right."
The numbers in this statement, "The United States has about 48,000 megawatts of installed capacity. That powers tens of millions of homes," don't really compute. First off, the "installed capacity" of a windmill or windfarm and the average power produced aren't even close to being the same number. Generally, average real capacity is about 1/3 of rated capacity because the wind doesn't always blow at the optimal speed. Or at any speed in many heat waves or cold snaps. Or it's blowing so hard that the windmill is feathered to keep it from destroying itself.
Also, wind isn't free once the infrastructure is built. Longevity of windmills has so far failed to live up to manufacturer's claims (often by wide margins). They do fail, they do burn up, they do require regular maintenance, as do the power lines supporting them.
Wind is unreliable. Depending on location, wind needs to have standby power generators (usually gas-turbine) on active stand-by because you can't run an industrial society based on the vagaries of the wind. ("Everyone go home -- we've got rolling blackouts due to lack of wind (or too much wind from hurricane)"). Where the wind is steadiest is not usually where the power is needed most. Transmission line losses are not insignificant.
Wind can be a useful adjunct, but it's a lot less useful at generating electricity than it has been at generating subsidies for windmill makers/installers.
Ethanol is even worse. And solar? Snort.
Post a Comment