Big Green

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Robert Bryce Big Money on Climate Policy

We constantly hear that politicians are in the pocket of “Big Oil” but it turns out it is the other way around.  Political spending on Energy policy by Big Green is more than four times that spent by Fossil Fuel/Nuclear advocates.

That comes from a mix of those cynically cashing in on wind and solar manufacture, utilities hungry for subsidy dollars, and a caste of American and European Oligarchs who fly around in private jets unconcerned with the impact of $5 gas and expensive food and electricity for the serfs.

So, in this David and Goliath battle, it turns out that Exxon is David.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

78 thoughts on “Big Green”

  1. Here, to my mind, is the money quote from the article (asterisks added):

    “Indeed, the surge in the size and funding of the anti-industry industry represents a threat to the long-term prosperity of the United States. Its policies are already imposing regressive energy taxes on the poor and the middle class. The anti-industry industry is yet another sign of America’s decadence. It’s an unaccountable parasitic force that employs thousands of lawyers, strategists, pollsters, and fundraisers, many of whom will spend their careers treading the revolving door between academia, media, government, and the NGOs. It relies on technocrats who went to exclusive universities, live in heavily Democratic coastal cities, have never been to Branson, and don’t give a f*** about the people who live in flyover country, wear name tags at work, or turn wrenches for a living.”

    NGOs are a problem in and of themselves even outside the world of climate policy. The National Endowment for Democracy, for example, is a government-funded NGO that sponsors anti-free speech projects.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Not to worry, I’m sure Biden and the Democrats tell the Big Green donors they can’t take their money because they’ve already taken their “fair share” from Big Oil.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Wait! Let me get my tiny violin! I need to play the world’s saddest song!

    I thought the right wing was just fine with big money talking. Isn’t that what Citizens United is all about? “Money is speech!” Its freedumb to say whatever it wants to say is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    Or is big oil money starting to worry about the speech of big green money? Are the Oil Barrons going to go the way of the Railroad Barrons? The Whale Oil Kings? Off to the side of the road with the old stuff nobody uses much anymore?

    As for the “impact of $5 gas,” who do you think has the power to lower that price? Hmmm… lemme see? Oh yeah! Big Oil! Yeah, they could do it!

    As for “electricity for the serfs,” I had solar panels installed over a year ago and the highest electric bill I’ve had since then was $53. So, speaking as a serf, I say, “PLAY ON BIG GREEN!”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Seeing as how my electric bill is routinely abt $110 a month on a 3800 sqft house and I didn’t pay $44,000 DOLLARS for solar, I would you got ripped off big time…er made a really bad investment…er gave a crap load of money to big green for nothing but a laughable dream that it will ever pay for itself. And you will not get the investment back at sale unless you can find someone equally as gullible.

      Like

      Reply

      1. My electric bill was $198 per month before Solar. Last year I got a $4,000 tax return because of solar. This year I got another $4,000 tax return. That will continue until I get the full $16,000 tax rebate. Blue Raven has sent me a check for $149 every month for the last year. Keep paying $110 a month… unless of course Dominion goes up on your rates… and suck on that sucker!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. So, you are forcing other taxpayers to pay $16,000 of your electric bill.

          That is theft just as surely as though you put a gun to their heads.

          But you got yours, to hell with others who can’t afford the capital investment.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I’m not “forcing” anybody to do anything. I don’t need a gun. The same deal is available to everyone… even you. And you won’t have to put your gun to anyone’s head to get the money.

            But you don’t want the little-guy taxpayers to get subsidies. Subsidies are for big oil.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. You are getting a subsidy from the government through the tax system. Other taxpayers have to pay for that. That is theft by proxy.

            You may not like to hear it, but your subsidy is taken by force from others. The government may hold the gun for you, but it is theft nonetheless.

            Like

          3. Oil companies get big bucks from taxpayer-paid subsidies. Neither you nor I have access to those kinds of subsidies. However EVERY taxpayer has access to rebates for solar panels… and home insulation… and energy efficient appliances.

            You may not like to hear it but that is totally fair. And you know it.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. No, they don’t.

            The depletion allowance is often called a subsidy but it is an accounting convention that applies to all resource recovery from sand pits to gold mines.

            Actual subsidies to oil would not even make up a rounding error. We would buy the gasoline even if the price went up a penny because they were removed. whereas no one but virtue signaling billionaires would buy solar without them.

            Like

          5. Call the depletion allowance a subsidy, call it a tax break, call it an accounting convention call it anything you want. It applies to jet planes for the rich but not to automobiles for the middle class.

            Who said oil subsidies decreased the price of oil? They most certainly do not. Oil subsidies increase the bottom line of the oil companies. Those saving find their way into the pockets of CEOs, not consumers.

            I agree, solar panels on roofs are a middle class commodity. Billionaires are building their own solar farms so that when the balloon goes up, they will be able to power their underground bunkers for years. They know better than to rely on the power grid.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. You are confusing depreciation and depletion. Both are accounting conventions but they are very different.

            You really don’t understand free markets or capitalism at all.

            I would recommend you watch the 10 episodes of Milton Freidman’s

            FREE TO CHOOSE

            and you will understand how the world adtually works much better.

            Like

          7. If you got your understanding of “ethical self interest” from Milton Freidman, you can keep his “Free to Choose” to yourself.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “So, you are forcing other taxpayers to pay $16,000 ”

            She did not force anyone to do anything. She took advantage of government policy democratically arrived out to strengthen our country. You people giddily stealling from future generations with your profligate use of non-renewable resources should drop your childish accusations of “theft” every time you encounter a policy you do not agree with.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Of course it is theft. Where did the $16,000 come from?

            It came from other taxpayers and ratepayers . You cannot accept the spoils of theft without also accepting responsibility.

            That the IRS and the utility company held the gun does not make it any less a theft.

            That doesn’t mean I think Lois knowingly went out to rob her fellow citizens but when you engage in magical thinking to fool yourself into thinking money comes from money trees, you are still responsible.

            Like

          12. “Of course it is theft.”

            Of course, it is NOT theft. That is both stupid and childish. Theft is the ILLEGAL taking of property. Taxes, whether you like them or not, are legal. And the purpose of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is a valid public purpose. Again, whether you like it or not.

            I do not have a boat and yet my taxes go towards maintaining safe and navigable waterways. I will never need to be rescued by the Coast Guard but my taxes help pay for them to be there ready to rescue you. Is that “theft?” And, if we are going to throw out ugly words, don’t get me going about how you steal from future generations with your gas guzzling toys and the machines to pull them down to those safe waters.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Calling every American a thief is ad hominem on steroids. Look hard enough, and I would wager that all of us benefit in one form or another, directly or indirectly, from tax breaks and subsidies. Especially if you eat or drive…or live, for that matter.

            So, brother thief, perhaps consider throwing smaller stones lest you break windows.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          16. So have you. Maybe not 16,000, maybe more or possibly less.

            Without consent? Really? Did you vote in recent elections? If you did, your participation elected the officials you authorize to pass laws.

            I think most of us prefer not to be accused of thievery just because you disagree with some laws. Unless you are looking for an excuse to shoot the mailman again.

            Of course, you are a murderer by your lobbying and or support for our lax gun laws, so there is that. 😇

            Now, can we grow up and recognize that subsidies are everywhere and that either makes everyone a thief or no one. Unlike murder, perhaps.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

        2. So Don has it right, you actually have the gall to brag about screwing your neighbors to subsidize your bad choices? That is the epitome of trash..

          Like

          Reply

          2. Actually being stupid is no shame, you either are or you aren’t.

            Being willfully ignorant is what is shameful.

            You have no clue of how business or even society actually functions.

            Where do you think the money for your subsidy comes from?

            Like

          3. To be proud of being stupid is to be willfully stupid.

            You have no clue of the English language or how ethical businesses and society actually function.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Did I say they should not be allowed?

      Though they have the right, we are constantly told that Big Oil was buying votes and scientists. when in truth, the big money is against them.

      That doesn’t mean we should stop them, but we should be aware of the truth.

      As for your electric bill, add the $53 to the monthly amortized cost of your installation, plus the amortized value of the subsidy, and then tell us how good a deal you are getting.

      And tell us how the average middle class family could afford it.

      Like

      Reply

          1. You throw that word “theft” around mighty carelessly. Pray tell me why a person with a middle-class income is a “thief” for taking a tax deduction for buying solar panels but a billionaire isn’t a thief for taking a deduction for depreciation on their private jet?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Jets do depreciate. It is not a subsidy, it is a recognition of financial reality.

            Your subsidy is a bribe to get you to do something that would otherwise be irrational, paid for by forcing others who did not make that choice to pay for it.

            You may not like hearing it, but you are stealing $16,000 from others to pay for your electicity.

            Like

          3. My car depreciates too, but I don’t get to take it off my taxes. Why is it only the “financial realities” of the rich get subsidized?

            If subsidies are stealing, I’ve been getting ripped off by big oil my entire working life. Maybe it’s time I got a little of that money back.

            Also, solar panels benefit everyone, even you. When the summer heat waves come and the power grid is under stress, my panels not only supply my house with electricity, any extra electricity generated goes back to Dominion to ease the load on everybody else.

            You’re welcome.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. If your car is a business expense, you can depreciate it. Depreciation is actually a tax rip off on most businesses. When I bought dental equipment, I had to depreciate it over 10 years, but I had to pay for it in 3. So, I was paying taxes on profits is didn’t have for 3 years.

            There is no way, even if you have a private jet, that the subsidy fraction of petroleum you have bought would equal the $16,000 you are taking from other taxpayers.

            Intermittent energy sources must be backed up, so no one benefits from your solar array once the grid and backup costs are accounted for.

            Instead give me my share of the $i6,000 back and I’ll buy my own electricity.

            Like

          5. For forty years I drove a car to work. I drove a car across country during changes of duty stations so many times I lost count. I’d call that “business.” It was never deductible.

            Give you back YOUR share of the $16,000? I would but I don’t know how to cut a penny into that many fractions.

            Dominion must think they are benefiting from my solar array. They pay me for any excess power I generate.

            I’m taking a 100% legal tax break. I thought you were supposed to be all about tax breaks. You are whining about my solar panels almost as much as you whined about Obama. You are sounding like black Presidents and tax saving women are a threat to you,

            Liked by 1 person

    3. Did I say they should not be allowed?

      Though they have the right, we are constantly told that Big Oil was buying votes and scientists. when in truth, the big money is against them.

      That doesn’t mean we should stop them, but we should be aware of the truth.

      As for your electric bill, add the $53 to the monthly amortized cost of your installation, plus the amortized value of the subsidy, and then tell us

      By the way, it was Standard Oil that saved the whales.

      Like

      Reply

        1. It took a while but the greens are after them again with those deadly windmills.

          When standard oil found and promoted the usefulness of internal combustion engines and created a demand for gasoline, which then was an unavoidable byproduct of refining kerosine, that made it practical to produce kerosine at scale for lighting and destroyed the market for whale oil.

          The sale of gasoline literally saved whales from being hunted to extinction.

          Like

          Reply

          1. HAHAHAHAHA! Don, you really are a card! Everybody knows that whales were saved when women stopped wearing corsets and baleen was no longer needed. Oil spills and pollution have nothing to do with endangering anything… do they?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Greed is a good thing? Really??

            Agreed that most people would not work out of “human kindness.” But there is a big gap between working-for-profit and greed.

            Buddhists believe a rich man is a man who has everything he needs. Therefore, the way to become rich is not to have more, but to need less.

            People like Donald Trump and Elon Musk will never be rich. No matter how much they have, they will always need more. That is also known as greed. The greedy always need more.

            Rockefeller didn’t stop with “saving the whales.” He went on to monopolies and union busting. Do a little research into the Ludlow massacre. He never had enough. He was greedy. And it got a lot of people killed.

            I know that I don’t know. But one thing I do know. Greed is bad.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Rockefeller had no intention of saving the whales.

            He wanted to sell his kerosine, and he had to sell the gasoline to do it.

            Saving the whales was an unintended benefit, which is very often the consequence of replacing an inefficient resource with a more efficient one.

            There were many other benefits that came from Rockefeller’s desire to sell his kerosene, such as freeing the poor from using candles as they could affor kerosine but not whale oil. Light to read by at night was a luxury for the rich before kerosine. .

            But no, Rockefeller himself was not an intentional hero. but the capitalism he participated in most certainly is.

            Greed, or more accurately, ethical self interest, is good.

            Like

          5. I’m absolutely certain Rockefeller had no intention of saving the whales. There was no profit in it for him. Not only did he not think about positive consequences, he didn’t think about negative consequences. Profit was his only motive.

            Air pollution, water pollution, environmental destruction were of absolutely on concern. In his generation, the ocean was too vast to ever be polluted. The air was only “dirty” in small places and he was never going to live or work in any of those places. Forests and fish and game were unlimited. The environment was taken for granted.

            Just as kerosene benefited the whales, green energy benefits the entire planet.

            Fossil fuels will run out. Nuclear plants produce toxins that have a half life of several thousand years. Where do you store something that will be deadly for a thousand years? Each energy source had its day. Those days are over. And once again, capitalism will be the reason.

            Solar panels and windmills will become cheaper. Oil will become rarer, harder to access, and more expensive. Nuclear plants are already too expensive and too dangerous to keep building. The profits will belong to those who think ahead.

            And greed has nothing to do with ethical self interest.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. “ It relies on technocrats who went to exclusive universities, live in heavily Democratic coastal cities, have never been to Branson, and don’t give a f*** about the people who live in flyover country, wear name tags at work, or turn wrenches for a living.”

    Ah, the Republican victimhood script continues. Are the victims trying to get more Blue state tax subsidies. Don’t worry, they will not forget you at tax time.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

        1. The market cannot cause inflation.

          Inflation is the result of the government increasing the money supply faster than the private sector output of goods and services.

          The market cannot print money, only the government can do that.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “The market cannot cause inflation.”

            That is a very nonsensical statement. With or without government involvement the market is constantly pushing prices upward for lots of different reasons. One of which is the increasing scarcity of resources.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Prices are not inflation.

            Rising prices can also result from shortage or rising wages, but inflation is a dilution of the purchasing power of the currency, which results in rising prices due to NON-MARKET factors.

            The value received is unchanged, the value of the currency itself declined, and only government can do that.

            Like

          3. “Prices are not inflation.”

            You just keep digging that hole deeper. There is no other measure of “inflation” besides prices. A very large part of our most recent inflation had nothing to do with government. It was the market responding to pent up demand as the pandemic eased. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. And the creation of $4trillion out of thin air, unconnected to any increase in goods and services over pre-pandemic levels, did nothing to dilute the value of the currency?

            Only government can dilute the currency.

            Like

          7. “And throwing $4 trillion dollars unrelated to production is a great way to encourage that.”

            Maybe we can act like grown-ups who are not stupid and agree that inflation has a number of different causes. Government and central bank policy is certainly among them. But so are other factors such as the inherently increasing marginal cost of scarce resources, economic disruptions such as pandemic, war, etc. The recent world-wide inflation was NOT the sole work of our government nor any government.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. If the money supply remains tied to production of goods and services, shortages result in higher prices for those items but cancelled out by tighter pricing on others.

            Like

          11. “I stick to gravity and the laws of thermodynamics too.”

            They are supported by evidence found in the real world. Your cockamamie economics is not. Which is the point your reference to natural law seeks to divert attention from.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. A change in supply and demand can raise prices for some things, but it can’t print money.

            People may draw down savings, or incur private debt, or purchase less of other things in response, but those choices do not change the ratio of currency to goods and services, so they do not cause inflation.

            Only government can increase the supply of money without regard to the underlying wealth production of the country and thus dilute the purchasing power of the currency.

            Like

          13. You can double down on your dogma all day long. It is still oversimplified and simplistic.

            I remember the dire predictions of massive inflation when there was “Quantitative easing” by the Fed during the last GOP induced economic meltdown. It did not happen. But there you go again – doubling down on failed ideas.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “Reducing interest rates and printing money are not the same thing.”

            You are really confused. Quantitative Easing had nothing to do with reducing interest rates. It has to do with radically kickstarting the money supply which tends to shrink when people are careful with their money – like when the GOP has crashed the economy or lost control of a pandemic.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. QE is the buying of bonds by the central bank to free capital for other uses. It is not new money, it is redirection of existing assets.

            It is not fiat money for government spending.

            Like

          17. “QE is the buying of bonds by the central bank to free capital for other uses.”

            Uh, no. It is to pump up the money supply to stimulate a laggard economy to greater activity. Money creates demand. Demand produces goods. You seem to think that there is a fixed supply of money and a fixed supply of goods. It is far more complicated than that.

            And, the fact is that when there was very significant Quantitative Easing by the Fed in 2008 you and others relying on outdated a priori economic theories predicted disaster from all the extra money pumped into the system. It did not happen. Accepting evidence from the real world is a bedrock principle of the scientific method.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. QE does not create new money.

            The central bank buys bonds held by others, allowing those others to invest their funds in something else.

            It does not go directly to government spending.

            Neither is a good idea, but QE is less destructive than deficit spending.

            Like

          20. Again, the difference is that it does not finance deficit spending, it redirects private capital to new investments by buying existing bonds from the holders.

            Yes, the money supply is expanded, but not by government spending.

            Like

          21. “Again, the difference is that it does not finance deficit spending . . .”

            You seem to have done a little research but you are still confused. Now you are saying that deficit spending creates money. No it doesn’t. Deficit spending is done by borrowing money from someone who has it. How is that creating money?

            Liked by 1 person

          22. Deficit spending is done by borrowing from the central bank, which creates that money from nothing. The Fed may then sell those bonds or it may hold them.

            The important difference is that QE frees capital for the private sector while deficit spending i for public spending.

            Like

          23. “Deficit spending is done by borrowing from the central bank . . .”

            Uh, no. It is not.

            Government spending draws money from the Treasury. If there is not enough money in the Treasury it sells bonds to the public. The Fed may or may not buy bonds from the public depending on what it is trying to achieve at that moment. If it chooses to buy bonds it does so with accounting entries – the equivalent of printing money. That is what Quantitative Easing is and it is done if the Fed believes the money supply is insufficient. Right now the Fed is in a period of Quantitative Tightening (QT) to reduce the money supply to fight inflation. It does that by not replacing its bonds when they mature.

            Bottom line, deficit spending does not in and of itself increase the money supply as you keep insisting for some reason.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. Absent expansion of the money supply, which only the government can do over time, price increases can be met only by paying less for something else or depleting savings.

            While the price of one commodity might rise due to market factors, only government can debase the currency and cause overall price and wage inflation.

            “Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes.” Thomas Sowell

            Like

          26. ” . . .price increases can be met only by paying less for something else or depleting savings”

            That you are blind to how people in the real world deal with inflation is very telling. Let me help. When prices go up for things that people must have they have no choice but to stop buying things they may want but do not need.

            Like

          28. “Uh, that’s what I said.”

            Uh, no you didn’t.
            You said they cope by “paying less for something else or depleting savings.”
            Giving up things altogether is not “paying less for something else.”

            Liked by 1 person

  5. …”it turns out it is the other way around”…

    Maybe you should consider that BOTH Big Oil and Big Green have their own politicians. It’s just that Big Oil has had them a lot longer.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s