This movie trailer looks pretty intriguing. It has a 2010 release, but I hadn’t heard of it until now. I don’t like that Van Jones and Thomas Friedman are in it, but it seems to focus a lot on cheap-priced energy as opposed to the science. Then again, it is Jones and Friedman, so who knows how much they’re basing these assumptions on whether the government tries to subsidize it all.
How are they suggesting we get that cheap energy, through the free market?
Well, they keep making the point that it doesn’t even matter if you believe in global warming because you’ll want to do it because it’s cheaper. And then one of the narrators briefly discussed how we keeps his freezer (?) cold for cheaper than it would be with other fuels.
It doesn’t really matter if I believe in global warming because I want to do what because it’s cheaper? Let the free market solve our energy crisis? No, they are talking about some massive government intervention. They think only central planning and state intervention can fix problems, free markets is just doing nothing. Green energy is the 21st century equivalent of collectivized agriculture. It’s socialism for the earth.
And then the whole green jobs ruse. Apparently if we all spend our days maintaining inefficient green energy projects it’s gonna create full employment. I have another idea for full employment: Break all our windows. We’d have full employment replacing them for years to come. But it would create even more jobs to burn down our houses entirely. Even better, burn it all down, just end industrialized society. It’s going to create a lot of jobs building all that up again.
Mind you that environmentalism was wrong. Everything the environmental movement proclaimed in the 70’s was complete bullshit. Every last bit of it was debunked. And it killed like 50 million people. Now they are back with some new claims that we’re supposed to believe because it’s “science”. Quickly, implement a hierarchical society before mother earths wrath hits us! Revert to feudalism! It’s the will of mother earth!
The problem is: are these energy sources really cheaper? Or do they require massive subsidies just to be remotely palatable? Take photoelectric. It’s a great technology which holds immense promise. Problem is government intervention is distorting the sector. Manufacturers have little interest in lowering prices since they expect subsidies to take care of that. Efficiency of entry-level panels (the kind the average homeowner can afford) is still low: higher efficency panels are available but the cost is simply too high for the normal private buyer. Since subsidies and direct government purchases make up the bulk of the business there’s little interest in catering to real buyers putting up their own money. Should subsidies disappear, photoelectric would be back on calculators and little else. There’s a reason Siemens, for all their big words about “green energy”, are so cautious about investing sizeable sums. “Let the market sort it out” is a phrase nobody wants to hear in this sector since the present situation gives them plenty of gravy for relatively little effort.
A few years ago an Australian study group, the Lavoisier Group, published a study about how “green” energy sources compare to coal, oil and nuclear power. The results were quite dismal: it’s simply cheaper to clean out emissions from coal or make nuclear power safer than build windmills and solar power plants, especially when the large outputs required by the modern industry are concerned. Also while there may be concerns about nuclear power and oil price is subject to wide fluctuations, coal is plentiful and cheap. Very cheap. Heavy investments have taken care of the old black plumes of smog and there’s still room for further improvement. Of course there’s a catch: it’s a fossil fuel and fossil fuels are the work of Beelzebub. Or the Industrial Revolution since for Greenish, Atheist types this is the equivalent of the Forces of Hell.
If coal use is subject to restrictions, investors will become less keen on investing to clean up emissions or increase efficiency. What’s the point in investing in an energy source that may be banned alright in a few years?