US billionaire Tom Steyer, who made large amounts of money from coal, before going “green”, has demanded that political candidates who want his financial help must support a renewable target of 50% by 2030.
According to the Wall Street Journal;
Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate-change activist, laid out a litmus test for 2016 candidates Friday, calling on them to develop aggressive clean-energy plans.
Mr. Steyer set a high bar for candidates and elected officials seeking his support, asking for concrete plans to increase the share of clean energy in the United States’ power generation mix to 50% by 2030.
“Reaching this goal would more than triple renewable energy in our country – putting us on the pathway to a 100% clean-energy economy by 2050 and millions of new jobs,” Mr. Steyer wrote in a blog post.
The goal set by Mr. Steyer and his advocacy group, NextGen Climate, is more ambitious than President Barack Obama’s pledge to achieve 20% renewable energy other than hydropower by 2030. Mr. Steyer called his newly announced target “a minimum starting point” for candidates who are committed to a clean-energy economy.
My thought – where is the outrage? Why do voters put up with this absurdly specific chequebook politics? If candidates win an election, thanks to Steyer’s financial backing, whose interests will they really represent – will they represent the interests of the people who voted for them, or will their first loyalty be to Steyer?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That sure sounds like a quid pro quo to me.
I’m sure the DOJ is on it.
Neo, I’m not American.
In the UK, my home, we have many rumoured instances (May or may not be true, of course. No smoke without fire??) of cover-ups helping ‘The Establishment’ – however defined at that moment.
Might your last sentence have benefited by a /SARC addendum?
Or are you a complete innocent [Nah – I don’t think so either . . . .]
Or were you angling for a comment like this – if so +lots.
Smarter than me!
Auto
Why not demand 90% anti-gravity-based power by 2030? Let’s see how many politicians are willing to sign up for that. Might stand a better chance.
Well Dr. Roy, as we know, Gravity sucks, and if you have enough matter of the hydrogenous kind sucking itself in, you get fusion energy for free.
But the reactor size required is pretty big, and you need to build it a long way from cities, so the transportation costs and losses are severe.
So I think you might be on to something with your anti-gravity idea; which probably doesn’t suck, but blows instead; pretty much like the Coulomb force blows.
That’s about all we have to work with here on earth.
There’s a problem using EM forces to push things together so they fuse. What is it that you push against; you know, that action reaction thing that old Isaac told us about.
I think I once learned about an “Earnshaw’s Theorem” which basically said there is no point of stable equilibrium in an electric field.
Seems like things that blow, instead of suck, have a way of popping out all over the place.
g
Evidently most people in Green energy who think any expansion of Green energy will employ millions and millions have forgotten how economy of scale work or is implemented.
A 50% change to renewables is quite possible. Just expect a 99.99% chance of grid failure to go along with a failed economy.
Seems to understand money density better than power density.
=================
Please see my on-line publication, “The Green Mirage; Review of Forbes On-line Magazine Article “Solar Energy Revolution: A Massive Opportunity” Which covers the science, math, economics and intellectual fraud associated with Green Energy and specifically solar. It may be found at this link: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/
You’re right with this comment Ric. There is nowhere near enough thought given to what it takes to make a stable electric grid. So many people view it as some sort of large pool that we can put in and take out whenever and wherever we choose. This is not the case. The system frequency and system voltages need to be managed moment by moment. Net energy balance is indicated by frequency deviation, and power flow by system voltages (both magnitude and phase angle). The system is a synchronous system, where stability is maintained by the main generators sensing system frequency and adjusting their output I response to a disturbance. To fill the gap, or to back off. Solar and wind cannot do this; they produce at the whim of the clouds and the wind, and add to system instability.
“nzrobin” An excellent point has been made about the synchronous nature of the power grid. AC power is difficult to manage as loads vary and the injection of more (AC) power is required on the grid over distances. Frequencies and phase angel considerations are difficult and vary as a matter of load dynamics (power factor based on capacitive and inductive components on the load.) And regarding the current “renewables” of solar and wind, they are counter productive as it is difficult to match them to the “spinning wheel reserves” for the above reasons coupled with the thermal momentum and ramp up times needed by large coal fired generators. Storage is another issue, which despite popular claims by people like Elon Musk with his home battery power modules based on Lithium ion technology, can never be safe, reliable, and cost effective. To learn more about the complexities of the power grid and storage systems and the related engineering challenges please see our on-line publication at: http://fuelrfuture.com/grid-scale-energy-storage-systems/
Heh, he makes explicit the usually implicit quid pro quo. Nothing quite like being obvious.
================
There is one country that already has 100% clean energy – France , with 85% nuclear and 15% hydro .It has energy to spare to help (at a price no doubt) pathetic neighbours who have regressed to burning bits of wood to keep warm .
Copy France and the US could be 100% clean long before 2030.
This is perhaps the greatest threat to the State of California and potentially our nation and no one is talking about it. Tom Steyer and fellow crony capitalist Elon Musk, President of Tesla Motors and Chairman of SolarCity, have rammed through California SB-350 in the Senate and now close to passing in the Assembly. SB-350 will be signed by California Governor Jerry Brown, aka “Moonbeam Brown.” SB-350 forces California to adopt this 50% RES requirement by 2050 along with the reduction of the use of oil and gasoline by the transportation industries by 50%. It further requires all California state pension funds to divest all stocks and interests in fossil fuel energy companies. It further can create conditions where utilities are forced to limit power to consumers by remote control using the new utility “smart meters” as installed state wide by the 3 investor owned utilities and most of the big mini utilities like SMUD, Palo Alto, et al. It is simply impossible to obtain 50% of baseload power from RES sources as we know them today by 2030 (unless we reduce total demand to about 20% of what it is today thereby making most California Troglodytes to use Governor Brown’s favorite word) unless and to the extent nuclear fission is qualified thereunder. See CA SB-350 at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350
Australia’s Opposition Labor Party has just adopted new a “aspirational” renewables target because it will produce jobs; however, the Unions expect to be compensation for the loss of jobs!
(behind paywall)
ALP conference 2015: Labor backs 50pc renewable energy target
The Australian- 50 minutes ago
Unions have spelt out their conditions for backing Bill Shorten’s ambitious new target for renewable energy, demanding compensation for jobs lost in mining and energy.
25 July: Australian Financial Review: Labor moves on emissions, adopts 50pc renewable energy ‘goal’
Environment spokesman Mark Butler said Labor would take a 50 per cent ‘goal’ to the election “because we know renewable energy will be part of the industrial and jobs base” as well as a worthy environmental goal.
The difference between goal and target reflects the fact that Labor has not locked itself in to policies which aim to buy substantial increases in renewable energy, or adopt tough prescriptive measures, as has happened in the past…
There was no clearer difference between the two parties now than on the question of climate change, he said.
“There are some who say we cannot win this argument”, he said, as a result of a combination of vested interests and some sections of the media”…
The conference has committed that a future Labor government would set up an agency to assist workers in affected regions and carbon polluting industries to make the transition to new jobs and industries…
The head of the CFMEU mining and energy division, Tony Maher said that the reality was that old power stations were already in the process of closing as a result of an over-valued dollar in the past decade and that the focus must be on assisting workers redeploy through retraining and income support. He emphasized that renewable energy ambition was an “aspirational goal not a mandatory target”.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/labor-moves-on-emissions-adopts-50pc-renewable-energy-goal-20150725-gikfau
Let’s face it – he’s not alone (oh,hello Mr. Soros…) Voters have F-A to do with it Steyer and his ilk know what’s best for the little people – and we all get to suck it up and generally pay the full price for which this character is only placing a miniscule deposit …..
This is a non starter Maurice Strong was interrogated by a lily clean leftist why he gave money to Republicans and he scoffed and replied “I want to have influence” Which may explain why so many republicans have been recruited to endorsing stupid environmentalist technologies and voting in subsidies for their constituencies to pursue them.
This is the way we got ethanol as an option!
Sarah Palin signed off on 50% renewables for Alaska as Governor. Will she qualify?
Apparently THIS billionaire doesn’t believe other billionaires like Gates, or Google but probably he just wants to influence congress:
“Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the Financial Times yesterday,saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be “beyond astronomical”.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/26/gates_renewable_energy_cant_do_the_job_gov_should_switch_green_subsidies_into_rd/
“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
“BFL” makes a strong point. The electrification of the transportation would cause a minimum quadrupling of energy demand in the U.S. based on the current approximate baseload generation capacity of 440 GW. To put this in perspective and see how unrealistic this is to be produced by the only major renewable contender…solar…please read my on-line publication “The Green Mirage; a review of Forbes Magazine Article on Solar Energy as a Massive Opportunity” at: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/
How interesting that the Australian Labor Party came out the same week with the identical 50% by 2030 target. In fact, how interesting that the “progressive” (sic) Left seems to often magically come to the identical policy positions as George Soros at the same time.
It’s almost like these billionaires have some kind of direct line.
The problem isn’t that anyone with a lot of money can try to influence politics. That happens everywhere else on earth, and not in elections. The problem in the United States is that legislators, at the federal level, ignore the charter under which they operate. The Constitution gives the government only certain powers, and forbids it from exerting power in any other area. There is no place in the Constitution granting power to the government to dictate where the people get the energy they use. The people need to grow a pair, and take back this government.
This how I think it works.
Wealthy man sees money or power in CAGW.
Bribes politicians who also want power, by financing their election.
Politicians send budget to academics and government agencies in order to pay off obligation to rich man.
Politicians allow UN Agenda 21 to invade the schools and other agencies as part of above
The academics produce crap academic papers because the want some of that budget in their pockets and could use a promotion for themselves.
Further down the line teachers get bonus if they promote AGW.
“Sustainable” industries attract subsidies and foolish people are convinced that both AGW and subsidies are a good thing.
As the empirical evidence for AGW shows how far the academics and others are away from the truth, the arguments get shriller.
Wealthy man makes huge money by harvesting subsidies and producing “Clean” energy.
Tax payers money gets spent as it was in Greece and economy starts to fail.
Rich man goes laughing all the way to the bank (which he owns anyway.
Academics and politicians retire on their accumulated wealth. Much of that is tax payers money.
Normal people hang on to the new religion because for some reason they do not want to “lose their faith”. Maybe because they believe bribed politicians who be elected again.
Next election ???
Whose money got spent ? Oh just yours and mine mostly.
Rich man may have put up the money, but through subsidies he has recovered his investment manifold.
Steyer is not the only one. Visit my blog where I show that the Rockefeller name appears on almost every “sustainable” initiative.
Cheers
Roger
http://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2015/06/18/that-dreaded-fossil-fuel-supporting-deniers-and-sceptics/
What Steyer is asking for, is candidates who who want China to dominate the world, economically and militarily.
China is not going for 50% renewables. China is still opening a coal-fired power station a week. China has just negotiated a new deal with Australia for more coal. China is going to have cheap power. China is going to dominate the world.
What Steyer is saying, is VOTE CHINA…..
More importantly China is looking to the future. Two years ago China committed to the graduation of >3,000 Ph.D. level plasma and nuclear fusion physics majors to do fusion development work in China over the next 2 decades leading to a successful demonstration of controlled fusion and the ultimate commercialization of fusion. Yes, China is a (9%) member of the IAEA ITER fusion project in France, but China seems to have the common sense to realize that ITER is, in all probability, a bridge to the continuation of the “fusion never” legend, and therefore China has committed to a robust internal fusion development program much larger and better funded than that in the U.S. which by the current administration’s policy dictates that all fusion work in the U.S. paid for by the government (in national labs and universities like MIT, etc.) be in support of ITER,
This is nothing new.
Peer reviewed science confirmed a while ago, that the US is an oligarchy, no democracy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
There are only two ways back to democracy
1. Expropriate oligarch billionaires
2. Top jobs in politics, media, big finance, big business, Hollywood have to represent the ethnic composition of the US people. Only that will assure that no ethnic majority will suppress minorities and that no minority takes over by ethnic networking.
Manfred, are you suggesting a replication of the French and Russian revolutions? How did that work out for them?
SR
It’s for reasons like this that the Citizens United ruling needs to be repealed.
With no takers he can say he did his part at no cost.
Obviously Tom Steyer has large investments in renewables.
No question Tom Steyer influences John Podesta who, in turn, directs Hillary Clinton’s campaign. For the first clear and tangible evidence of Ms. Clinton taking the bait see the video her campaign released yesterday, July 26, 2015 on the AGW-climate change (scare) driven Big Green Energy Scheme and how she will propagate it by saying “you don’t need to be a scientists or understand…just trust me” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZwguLJVxsM&feature=youtu.be
Odd how those who have already made theirs often turn on the method that “made theirs”. Even when “theirs” was made by their predecessors.
After the chips have fallen maybe his heirs will go this route.
http://www.winchestermysteryhouse.com/
Not the best link I could have chosen. (Sorry.)
click on “learn’ and then “the house” to get the idea of where I was going.
There’s was even a Hansen involved!
Not only great minds think alike. These ignorant hypocrites do as well:
Australia’s Labor lunkheads, now in Opposition, commit to 50% renewable energy by 2030
while
billionaire one-time coal burner Tom Steyer won’t support candidates who won’t play green ball of…Yep, same numbers.
http://theconversation.com/how-much-would-labors-50-renewable-energy-policy-cost-australian-households-44997
Is Steyer unaware that he is dealing with the most dishonest group in in politics and while they will take his money today, they will move on to another agenda if bribed again by someone else?.
Is he that stupid to not know he is dealing with un-principled thieves and liars who will take his money just to get elected and not fulfill the promise.