Taxpayer subsidies? I got your subsidies right here pal! (And why aren't my free market friends raising hell about this?)

One of the most persistent criticisms of efforts to stimulate clean energy jobs (wind, solar, etc.) is that it requires taxpayer funded government subsidies.

As Russ Harding of the Midland, MI-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy says in
a 2009 column “if the answer is yes (that they require subsidies), the end economic results are more likely negative rather than positive.”

The critics never acknowledge that the status quo is laden with huge subsidies for the coal, nuclear and oil that currently make up the bulk of our fuels.

Now we have some idea how much those subsidies are. And they’re huge.

The Environmental Law Institute has published a report, Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources, 2002-2008. The findings: Subsidies to fossil fuels “totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.”

Most of the fossil fuel subsidies were permanent alterations to the tax code. The largest, $15 billion, was the Foreign Tax Credit – a direct incentive for U.S. companies to invest in energy production outside the U.S. instead of in homegrown fuels made by Americans.

By comparison, most of the $29 billion in renewable energy subsidies were time-limited – a huge barrier to investors who are understandably unwilling to invest in industries that may get their tax breaks yanked at the whim of the next Congress.

So this raises two key questions:
1) As a country supposedly unified in increasing our energy independence and moving away from dangerous, unhealthy fossil fuels, why are we subsidizing the fuels we don’t want, rather than the ones we do?
2) Why aren’t so-called “free market” proponents like the Mackinac Center raising more – or any – hell about the tax breaks for fossil fuels? (Hint: Some of these organizations have funders with names like Exxon Mobil)

If we’re going to subsidize energy production, let’s subsidize clean, renewable, American-made energy. If we’re going to be purist “free market” proponents, let’s work to eliminate all energy subidies – and it makes sense to start with the biggest ones: Fossil fuels.

Anytime someone says clean American energy shouldn’t have to get subsidies to compete, they need to answer these questions. Every. Single. Time.
###

Attacking a wind power plan that no one's proposed. Or, are you calling Google a liar?

He’s baaaaacckkk! Russ Harding of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has penned a new column attacking wind energy as too expensive for Michigan and….get this!....a blight on our scenic vistas! http://www.mackinac.org/12798

There’s nothing wrong with the “blight on our scenic vistas” argument. Lots of people think wind turbines are ugly. And even those of us who don’t generally agree that there are spots where they don’t belong. On top of Sleeping Bear sand dunes, for example.

But it’s just a hoot that the Mackinac Center has suddenly found a soft spot for Pure Michigan. But only when it involves wind turbines. Apparently they don’t see the same aesthetic dilemma with coal plants. Or drilling rigs on the shores of the Great Lakes. Or piles of toxic mine tailings. Or paved over wetlands.

Anyway, Mr. Harding cites a study done for the right wing Heritage Foundation that “predicts that using on-shore wind to provide electricity for a family of four as opposed to coal would increase monthly bills from $188.66 to $339.58. For off-shore wind that climbs to $403.65.”

Good God. Surely this would make clean energy proponents rethink their plan to generate the entire nation’s electricity from wind power. Right?

Oh, wait….NO ONE IS PROPOSING OR HAS EVER PROPOSED GENERATING 100 PERCENT OF OUR ENERGY FROM WIND POWER! But that’s how the Heritage Foundation did the calculations cited by Russ.

No, Michigan’s just hoping to hit 10 percent renewable power by 2015, and only part of that is wind energy. Most plans to cut our dependence on dirty, polluting and expensive coal envision energy efficiency as the most important way to meet our electricity needs. That saves ratepayers money as they use less electricity. Efficiency is followed by a mix of numerous renewable energy generation sources: Wind, solar, biomass, natural gas, geothermal, hydroelectric, and, in some scenarios, nuclear.

I mean, for God’s sake, even Google has a plan to eliminate our reliance on coal by the year 2030: http://bit.ly/8HhdEJ And everyone knows Google rules the universe. The chart shows Google’s plan. Wind is a modest part of the mix.

The cost of wind energy is coming down. The cost of coal is going up. Michiganders sent $1.36 billion to other states in 2008 to buy coal according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. That’s money that would stay in our economy if it were invested in homegrown clean technologies or energy efficiency products instead.

Plus, mining coal requires blowing the tops off beautiful Appalachian Mountains and bulldozing the rubble into the streams in the valleys below: http://mountainjustice.org/facts/steps.php

Now, there’s an aesthetic concern worthy of Russ Harding’s attention.
###