The great hundred billion dollar+ renewable energy fleecing of American taxpayers & energy users

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The colossal magnitude of renewable energy federal and state government driven subsidies, taxes and higher energy cost impacts has never been systematically revealed to the American public but has instead been secreted away from view by those enjoying the huge financial benefits of this monumental largesse.

The staggering negative financial impacts foisted upon Americans that are associated with all forms of renewable energy flow directly from government mandates, taxes, subsidies and higher cost consequences of an array of outrageously flawed political dictates that falsely claim to offer improved outcomes for the “climate” versus the continued use of fossil fuel energy resources.

These politically contrived and totally absurd “better for the climate” claims are a complete fraud that is easily exposed by addressing the indisputable fact that any reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are irrelevant to both the growth and absolute levels of global greenhouse gas emissions that are unquestionably controlled by the world’s developing nations.

The EIA data below documents that the U.S. is leading the world’s nations in CO2 emissions reductions and establishes that future U.S. annual emissions remain about 1 billion metric tons of CO2 below peak 2007 emission levels.


As displayed in the graphs below the developing nations clearly dominate the growth and absolute levels of present global CO2 levels both incrementally and cumulatively. U.S. CO2 emissions levels and future reductions are irrelevant to future global growth of CO2 emissions.


EIA data shows the developing nations are totally responsible for all future global growth of the world’s CO2 emissions with U.S. emissions being of no consequence.


Additionally an analysis of the Green New Deal (GND) climate alarmist schemes pretending to establish relevant future emissions reduction goals that are claimed to improve global climate are in fact completely useless in rendering any meaningful global outcomes whatsoever as clearly noted in the analysis summary as follows:  

“Moreover, notwithstanding the assertions from GND proponents that it is an essential policy to confront purportedly adverse climate phenomena, the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173°C by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter (equilibrium climate sensitivity) about the effects of reduced GHG emissions. Under an assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083°C by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures. This conclusion is not controversial and suggests strongly that the GND’s real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally”.

It is obvious that the “climate benefit” claims expounded upon by renewable energy advocate political schemers are completely unsupported by actual emissions data and that these flawed claims are pursued for other reasons that are driven by profit, greed and political power by those promoting these programs.

These for profit politically driven renewable energy schemes are fleecing the American public under the completely flawed guise of “benefiting the climate”. These government schemes are extensive and pervasive and involve a wide array of renewable energy money making and political power grabbing concepts and programs.

These schemes include state and federal government mandates requiring use of costly and unreliable renewable energy resources in the electricity sector which grossly distort energy markets and drive up electricity costs while jeopardizing electric system reliability and stability, requirements for tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies supporting profits for renewable energy project owners and builders, the imposition tens of billions of dollars in carbon taxes that create funding pools for government disposition driven purely by the political agendas of those in power, government mandates costing tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funded ethanol fuel subsidies and much more.

All of these renewable energy schemes fleecing the American public are buried in massive and complex regulations and laws which are virtually impenetrable to full visibility and accountability by ordinary citizens and which the politicians in power have failed to reveal and strive to conceal.

An excellent recent study by the Texas Public Power Foundation (TPPF) exposes the huge multibillion dollar taxpayer funded subsidies which renewable wind energy owners and builders have enjoyed for over a decade and which will continue for another decade into the future.


The study provides the following major conclusions:

“Wind energy is a $14 billion industry made up of wind facilities, turbine manufacturers, and financiers. While the industry grew over the past few decades, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its corporate members pushed for new and continued subsidies that would enable large energy corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

This study investigates the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the corporate beneficiaries of billions of taxpayer dollars. The PTC is a federal subsidy for the commercial production of wind energy that provides a $24 tax credit for each megawatt- hour of energy sold. It is scheduled to phase out and expire at the end of 2019.

This report finds:

• The PTC costs taxpayers billions of dollars in revenue. In 2017 the PTC cost $4.2 billion. The PTC will cost at least an additional $48 billion before it fully phases out as currently scheduled.

• The PTC is a subsidy that benefits a few energy corporations. Only 15 parent companies account for more than three-fourths of all PTC eligibility—more than $19 billion in 10 years (2007-2016).

• The PTC distorts electricity markets. The PTC encourages wind energy producers to accept negative prices. The negative prices increase costs for other energy producers and electricity suppliers.

• The PTC operates within a web of wind energy incentives that increase costs to taxpayers, further distort electricity markets, and benefit large corporations. Providing subsidies for wind energy benefits large corporations while distorting electricity markets. To further simplify the tax code, federal legislators should resist calls to renew the PTC and instead allow it to fully expire at the end of 2019.”

The study estimates that wind renewable energy projects have received $33.4 billion dollars in tax payer funded Production Tax Credits (PTC) subsidies through 2020 and will receive another $31.7 billion dollars through 2029 as shown in Table 1 from the study provided below.


The $65.1 billion dollar taxpayer funded renewable wind project subsidies understates the total renewable energy subsidies with this already huge number not addressing the full array of renewable energy projects eligible for such subsidies including solar energy, biomass energy, geothermal energy and small hydro energy. Nor does this huge wind project tax subsidy reflect the billions in renewable fuel ethanol subsidies.

EIA data for year 2018 shows that wind renewable energy projects represent about 70% of total renewable energy produced with all such energy eligible to receive taxpayer funded PTC subsidies. The $65 billion dollar total wind energy subsidy through 2029 will grow significantly when all renewables eligible for PTC’s are accounted for which increases the renewable energy subsidy to more than $92 billion dollars. These absolutely staggering subsidy amounts are never addressed by renewable energy owners or the government politicians promoting these schemes.   

The TPPF study documents the fact that these huge taxpayer funded subsidies flow to a relatively small number of wind energy owners and builders who enjoy huge financial business benefits from these handouts paid for by the American public as noted in Table 2.


The TPPF study exposes the significant energy market cost and operating distortions imposed by renewable energy subsidy mandates which are never addressed by politically driven renewable energy advocates as follows:

“Energy subsidies are not only expensive for taxpayers who will see higher taxes or higher government debts to make up for the benefits, it also distorts electricity markets. Because of the $24 per MWh credit and other subsidies, generators that produce wind energy can actually turn a profit while paying their customers to take their energy (Baldick; Huntowski et al.; Schmalensee). Another way of describing this is that wind energy generators are willing to accept negative energy prices. With just the PTC, wind energy generators may be willing to pay a retail electric provider $10 or even $20 per MWh to accept the energy generated by their wind turbines because they will be able to deduct $24 per MWh from their taxes. Add in the incentives they receive at the state level and wind energy generators may be willing to pay even more.”

“The ability to pay to get rid of energy forces prices down and imposes a cost on generators who operate without the high level of subsidies that renewable energy gets. This is especially the case when it comes to generators whose plants are relied on to provide baseline energy needs and balance energy flows, i.e., maintain the reliability of the grid (Peacock and Neeley).”

‘Negative prices, or even low positive prices, mean that other generators lose money. In such a situation, it would seem to make sense for them to shut down their plants until the wind stops blowing and the prices increase. However, deciding whether to stay online is not that simple. Unlike wind turbines, most other generation cannot simply flip a switch to turn their energy off or on. Because these sources may take hours to power on and off—if they can effectively do so at all—these energy producers will need to decide if the cost of paying negative prices outweighs the cost of shutting down and of possibly missing the ability to sell energy when prices surge again during peak demand times (Baldick). ‘

“Absent subsidies, wind energy would not distort the market in this way. Wind energy producers would turn off their wind turbines when it no longer became profitable to operate them—somewhere above $0. Without the subsidies, we would expect prices to work more effectively to keep a mix of energy sources on the grid, which would provide greater flexibility to match electricity demand without increasing costs to non-wind generators or providers.”

The significant increased costs of the non renewable generation required to maintain a reliable and stable electric grid that results from the flawed renewable operating mandates is likely many billions of dollars over the period during which renewables are given operating preference.

These many billions of dollars are of course paid for by the American public and carefully hidden from view by those promoting renewable energy schemes.

Carbon tax schemes are in force in 11 states in the U.S. which create billions of dollars in taxes that one way or another are paid for by the public. These carbon taxes are provided in the 10 state northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative process and in, of course, California. The total amount of these carbon taxes is presently estimated as about $20 billion dollars with much more to come in the future if climate alarmists have their way. 

EIA data for 2018 shows that renewable energy accounted for only abut 6% of total U.S. energy use despite requiring well over $110 billion dollars in subsidies, carbon taxes and increased electric system costs as itemized in the information above

Ethanol fuel subsidies are also huge with the estimated total for these subsidies at over $34 billion dollars over the past 30 years. 

In total these politically contrived renewable energy subsides, taxes and resulting energy cost increases rise well above $145 billion dollars being fleeced from the public and yet these massive incurred subsidies foisted upon the American people provide no meaningful impact on global emissions or global climate outcomes.

The TPPF study identifies yet more subsidies programs provided through numerous additional federal and state programs noted as follows:

“The federal production tax credit is not the only program distorting energy generation at the cost of taxpayer money. The PTC operates within a web of other government programs to promote wind energy and other electricity sources. Corporations can use a combination of these tax benefits, grants, loan guarantees, and regulations to pay for a majority of their wind projects with little risk to the company.

The federal government has 11 other federal credits, grants, and loan guarantees to support wind facilities (see Table 6 in Appendix B). Combined, these federal subsidies cost $35.33 for every MWh of wind energy produced in 2013 (see Table 3). Wind energy received the second highest subsidy per MWh of net generation—24 times the subsidy for renewable energy from hydroelectric power.2

States have an additional 265 programs that support wind energy (DSIRE). Unfortunately, we do not know the full cost of these programs. The state incentives consist of:

• Tax incentives, including tax credits, deductions, exemptions, property tax breaks, and sales tax breaks;

• Financing benefits such as bonds, grants, loans, and rebates;

• Renewable portfolio standards and similar programs; and

• Industry recruitment incentives”

This essay only skims the surface of the staggering magnitude of federal and state government renewable energy subsidies, carbon taxes, grants, loans, exemptions, rebates, etc. along with higher energy costs forced upon the American public by politicians that result in hundreds of billions of dollars in increased consumer and tax payer costs that accomplishes absolutely nothing regarding global emissions reductions or global climate outcomes.  

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 13, 2019 10:31 am

So that is how you cash in on the virtue signaling public?

Reply to  pochas94
June 13, 2019 12:36 pm

More important, how do you stop the cashing in on the virtue signaling public that don’t have to live near the invaders? I’m sure eventually the ecological damage will do them in, as will time, but by then, the destruction is phenomenal. This makes the gold rush look tame.

J Mac
June 13, 2019 10:34 am

The US economy is growing at a tepid 3% rate. Imagine how much more beneficial growth could be achieved without the parasitic induced drag of federal subsidies/taxes choosing ‘winners and losers’ in the market place and inefficiently, wastefully redistributing capital and wealth!

Reply to  J Mac
June 13, 2019 6:59 pm

We would already have fusion power.

The only thing holding us back is the cost to retrieve the fuel.

Reply to  J Mac
June 14, 2019 9:02 am

You have identified the PRIMARY problem with government! Think how much our economy would grow WITHOUT all the baggage of a bureaucratic government strapped to our backs! We do need a certain (small) amount of government but we are now burdened with TOO MUCH of a ‘good’ thing’!

June 13, 2019 10:50 am

Que the usual suspects complaining about “Oil Company Subsidies” in 3…2…1…

Reply to  Fraizer
June 13, 2019 1:40 pm

That would be “cue”.. 🙂

Bryan A
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
June 13, 2019 2:25 pm

Perhaps Queue…
They could be made to stand in line to post

Reply to  Fraizer
June 13, 2019 4:11 pm

Well, that wouldn’t be exactly wrong. Notice that BP is in the list for the subsidies it is getting on their 1179 wind turbines.

Oh, wait….that’s not what they mean?

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 13, 2019 10:53 am

The great innovation that seems to be common amongst all governments who were daft enough to go along with the scam (which suggests ONE common source ) was to place the cost of the funding of the scam, not on taxes – where it was immediately obvious to everyone – but on indirect “obligations”, which the consumer and tax payer never saw directly.

That together with the collusion of the media, meant the public have never been aware just how much the scam was costing them – so huge numbers of people continue to go along with it without any real idea what it is costing them.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 13, 2019 3:02 pm

“governments who were daft enough to go along with the scam ” This does not happen, those in govt got their fair share, that is why things work the way they do. This is fleecing the American taxpayers while everyone else gets very rich.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 13, 2019 7:07 pm

It’s the reason I don’t own a car right now. The fuels tax alone is heinous in itself. Renting one on an as-needed basis is FAR less expensive than owning, as is public transportation (buses and taxis).

This should be interesting. I’m waiting to see how things turn out.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 14, 2019 4:08 pm

” indirect “obligations”, which the consumer and tax payer never saw directly”

And that’s only the half of it, all of the windmills and solar projects will wear out and have to be replaced someday at a much higher cost than it was to construct them. (Another obligation) The landfill waste will be toxic and difficult to deal with. To save the planet we must destroy it.

Mitt Romney is proposing carbon credits because he represents the Bane capital “double slam” with his help, and other green regressive who are in on the scam, they can make billions of dollars selling tax credit and offsets. It’s like growing money on trees…

Joel O'Bryan
June 13, 2019 11:06 am

The PTCs are just one part of the fleecing, that via the US Federal gov budget. Everyone should examine their monthly electric statement, and look for renewable energy charges as adds on. Whether you have solar panels on your roof or not, we all are paying for those that have them. That adds up to a lot of dinero.
Depending on which exact charge you look at on your statement, that money goes somewhere besides your pocket, and is a political pay-off to a special interest.

And the simple fact that renewable energy % penetration into a market directly correlates with higher per kWh charges is not a bug or un-intended consequence. The higher per kWh charges with more renewable power is an intentional feature to transfer more wealth from the middle-class( as a stealth tax) to Green investors in those wind and solar schemes.

June 13, 2019 11:06 am

Just imagine how much good that amount of money could do if it is spent on solving actual problems. Remember, when they mention $75 Trillion as the price tag, that is the equivalent of the Global GDP.

$10 Trillion Would Solve a lot of Real-World Problems; Green Raw Deal is a Misallocation of Resources on a Biblical Scale

How Gender Influences Views on Climate Change; How the Sexes Differ on Spending Climate Change Funding

Andrew Harding
June 13, 2019 11:45 am

A colossal waste of money based on fake science. Sadly the general public believe this fake science due to the continuing repetition of it by the predominantly Leftist media especially our BBC

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Andrew Harding
June 13, 2019 1:19 pm

Though out my life, people have complained how dishonest the press are. Most people know that those like the BBC are dishonest … but until the advent of the internet we had no choice but to continue watching. I hear 1million BBC licence payers have now chosen to stop paying the BBC tax and go with Netflix.

And as they left – I’ve noticed a marked decline in the quality of content on freeview TV – so that I’m sure many more will follow.

jim heath
June 13, 2019 12:05 pm

We need to get our “fapts” right “feed a plant today society” more C02 anybody?

Bryan A
Reply to  jim heath
June 13, 2019 2:30 pm

FAPTS is also the Foreign Asset Protection Trusts
as in
We need to Trust them and Protect China’s assets
through the willful distruction of our own

June 13, 2019 12:10 pm

Not everyone is losing money.

2009 BBC article

‘London’s financial centre is the main home to the incipient global carbon market. Prof Heal believes that in a decade, the trade could be worth trillions of dollars.

The most profitable lie in history.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric McCoo
June 13, 2019 2:32 pm

Just wait until another ENRON gets hold of it

June 13, 2019 1:18 pm

Whenever proponents of solar & wind power holds forth about the societal benefits of such notions, they inevitably state with certainty that the renewable power generation industry will spawn thousands upon thousands of “new green jobs”.

Now, I have no doubt that $trillions of taxpayer subsidies will produce jobs in any sector. (gender studies, for example)

But whenever I ask for definitions of these “new green jobs” in power generation (i.e. – the kinds of jobs that are not now, nor have ever been performed in manufacturing, construction, engineering, maintenance, general employment), I get nothing, nada, zip, f-all.

I venture that “new green jobs” are a case of “same jobs, different employers”.

So just another thread of the climate / renewables religion.

June 13, 2019 1:28 pm

The staggering negative financial impacts

You’re not alone. I thought the Green New Deal was loopy, but I now find myself trying to work out how I can heavily subsidise wind and solar etc, keep a roof overhead, keep warm and eat on 25% of the money.

Reply to  fretslider
June 13, 2019 7:04 pm

You can’t.

Reply to  David
June 14, 2019 2:27 am

Funny how the elites know that.

Ehrlich hasn’t gone away

June 13, 2019 1:32 pm

The proponents of the GND are driven by emotion. They are feelers, not thinkers. They surround themselves with the like minded and everyone they know feels the same way and believe the same things.

We usually describe the left/liberals/progressives as being particularly easily influenced by Group Think, but in reality it’s “Group Feel.”

When people are primarily motivated by feelings, facts and logic will not persuade them.

Reply to  jep
June 13, 2019 7:07 pm

More so that with any successive larger crowd the intelligence expressed and allowed drops logarithmically.

June 13, 2019 1:46 pm

Everyone stop paying taxes now and starve the b@stards out of power. They can’t put us all in jail. They can’t even legally define the word “income”. Trouble is, like everything fraudulent most people are happy in their little bubble simply complaining about it into the mouth of yet another beer can in front of the idiot box blasting football.

June 13, 2019 2:50 pm

The long term scenario for renewables isn’t promising in my opinion. Investors like Warren Buffett only put money into these schemes because of the subsidy, whatever welfare mechanism is utilized. We already know that the earlier installations will either completely use their allocated subsidy up by their end of their useful lifetime (or) perhaps have their subsidy effectively eliminated such as the recent bankruptcy of PG&E and that court decision allowing them to renegotiate their long term purchase contracts. Either way, when it comes time to replace the windmill or solar PV farm, there will likely be no subsidy to support their eventual replacement on a revenue basis alone, and that will be the end of that renewable installation. I don’t know who pays to clean up the mess that will be left, but if they aren’t financially feasible now without a subsidy, there is no way in the future that they will be revenue positive and support any type of commercial replacement that makes a profit.

This should be the message that the financiers and regulators are paying attention to, because it is a false economy paying a subsidy to get these things built and then there is a stranded asset that should have never been built on the basis of a subsidized industry. Not to mention a colossal waste of capital, effort and false hope to a society that was conned into all this based upon an imaginary climate and energy crisis. Let the market solve this long term replacement of fossil fuels as their price point in the future makes alternatives more attractive.

Reply to  Earthling2
June 13, 2019 3:32 pm

As to replacement or cleanup of the mess, take your ICE SUV and drive north from Lancaster, California, to Mojave. Turn left and drive up into the Tehachapi pass and observe the massive wind farm, with at least three generations of wind turbines. The vast majority of the first-generation wind turbines, and many of the second-generation ones, are not turning. They are out of service, but continue to be a blight on the skyline, and are rusting away. It is probable that no monies were budgeted for maintenance, and certainly not for disposal.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 13, 2019 5:27 pm

Yet Nuclear power plants are required to have decommissioning funds sufficient to return the site to “As Found” when retired.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 14, 2019 7:01 am

You mean take a tour like this-

Perhaps the aircraft propellers could turn some of them?

June 13, 2019 3:25 pm

In Australia, during the last election campaign, Labor leader Bill Shorten, when questioned on the costs of his environmental policies (including 45% “renewables”), which Labor has not modelled, Mr Shorten responded: “That is such a dumb question to say, what does it cost without looking at the cost of inaction.” He never did answer the question and he didn’t win the election.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Robber
June 13, 2019 5:31 pm

The global cost of action or inaction in Australia is so infinitesimal it won’t show up on a global pie chart. The entire population of Australia is smaller than Shanghai metro. China as a whole has 55 times more people than Australia.

There is an Australian joke about pretentious, futile gestures, “Two dogs arguing over which one owns the dog.”

Reply to  Robber
June 13, 2019 6:16 pm

Typical of all pollies. Flap the face without meaningful words emitted. The sharp turn-around of Labor losing surprised me. Maybe people are finally getting smarter. Problem is, even if we get these climate lies routed from Canberra, Islam is just about ready to take over.

Tom Gelsthorpe
June 13, 2019 5:21 pm

Whenever you throw around numbers like “$100 billion plus,” especially for boondoggles, readers know it’s a loose estimate. The EXACT number is “a bazillion jillion dollars.”

Isn’t it about time we clear up this misunderstanding by using REAL numbers?

June 13, 2019 5:38 pm

lol. you climate deniers are not so bright at all, are you?

global warming is a major problem. even the right wing Potsdam institute and the far right ipcc agree on that.
so we have to take measure to save our children in 10 years.
And, as Dr Mann has pointed out, Global cooling is also caused by global warming, so the answer is obvious.
pay up and stop quibbling

anyone who loves their children understands this.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  EternalOptimist
June 13, 2019 7:49 pm

The “far right IPCC”. That’s good for laugh. Calling it a scientific body would be even more laughable.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  EternalOptimist
June 14, 2019 8:59 am

You’ve had children!? For shame!

/sarc for those who are stupid

Reply to  EternalOptimist
June 14, 2019 4:37 pm

Don’t you love the way they’ve morphed simply to ‘climate deniers’ nowadays? It’s become as banal and obtuse as calling someone a ‘weather denier’ whatever that means but it hides their scientific ignorance and embarrassment with the original doomsday prediction of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.

It’s like this eternal pessimist and frightener of children- As adults we all understand the science of climate change and it’s ample evidence through the millenia. Just not that things like Neolithic cooking fires before the Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages were responsible for climactic change events-
How are all the expensive monuments to Gaia doing in assuaging the weather worriers and intrepid climate changers like yourself by the way? I wouldn’t let on to all the children if I were you.

Derek Colman
June 13, 2019 5:43 pm

The first paragraph applies equally to the UK. I have tried to research the real cost of wind and solar energy, but without success because the data is not available to the public. The costs are loaded into different accounts to obscure the truth. The only information openly available is the so called strike price, which is the price the Grid pays directly per MW/H. This is often as low or lower than coal or gas. On top of that are subsidies paid directly to the generators which can total up to 1.5 times the strike prices. Then there is the cost of new infrastructure to connect the supply to the grid, which is way more expensive than for normal power stations, requiring under sea cables, DC to AC and AC to DC converters in addition to the normal land lines. These costs are incorporated in the NG infrastructure account and not available separately. Then there are more subsidies paid to gas and coal power stations to act as back up. Finally there is a 15% carbon tax on coal and gas power to make their strike prices higher than renewables.

Reply to  Derek Colman
June 14, 2019 3:43 am

Derek, hi. We see on these pages a great deal of info regarding the US and almost as much about Oz. The financial jiggery-pokery in the UK energy market is, as you say, largely concealed (deliberately) from public scrutiny with “commercial confidentiality” being the usual excuse.

Working back from the strike price scale and the visible subsidies and taxes it is possible to deconstruct the finances of the market to an extent, but some fundamental financial figures are still difficult or impossible to derive as you point out regarding additional infrastructure and also decommissioning. In the UK we also have the interference of the EU wrt standby payments. I have been unable to find any further information since the ECJ ruling last year, but I can only assume that another mechanism has been substituted even deeper in the market and further from our gaze.

Ofgem is the industry’s pet puppy, there is no independent organisation looking after the interests of UK energy consumers and taxpayers. Admirable work is done on WUWT, GWPF and other similar sites by individuals delving into different aspects of the renewables/intermittents scam, but if the financial and social consequences of the current course of UK energy policy are ever to be dragged out into the daylight for everyone to see, much more needs to be done.

Personally, I do not see a way forward. The industry green establishment is deeply enmeshed in government and NGOs and controls policy and public opinion. We see commenters in these columns saying that when we, the great unwashed, get hit with higher energy bills there will be public outcry. There won’t. Last year was the worst yet for UK energy price rises, the average household bill increasing by approximately £75pa. Yes, there was moaning and groaning, but no outcry. The rich don’t notice the price rises, the poorest have it paid for them, the people in the middle are too busy trying to keep their families housed, fed, schooled and warm to take to the streets.

Theresa May’s “legacy” will be the last nail in the coffin. The suggestion box is available for constructive comment.

June 13, 2019 6:16 pm

Millions of words are written about Emissions, but to me at least I see very
few written about the massive benefits of CO2.

Another thought, in Western countries and especially the USA we are told
that its the voice of the people that really decide things. Now if that is so
lets bring back what I recall from many years ago. That a electricity account
had a box that you could tick if you wanted to support Green things. But
if so you would then pay more for the electricity.

Such a simple idea, that way the voice of the people would be heard each
time they got a power bill.


Ken Irwin
June 14, 2019 1:16 am

Governments world wide indulge the sleight of hand practice of granting subsidies and tax breaks in order to “hide” the true cost of what they are doing.
If the tax paying public could point to a huge financial boondoggle (a line item in the budget), they could vote or protest against it – when government’s hide income and expense behind a tax wall they are doing so because the electorate would otherwise find it financially unpalatable and vote against it !

That alone should tell you that something fishy is going on.

June 14, 2019 4:47 pm

So now large corporations are at mercy of fund managers that threaten to pull investment from their portfolio if not implementing wind or solar energy, thus creating a self-fulfilling outcome. It’s extortion when, for the company to say no to the unnecessary increase in capital and operating costs, means a drop in share price that under-pins it’s long term debt securitization. The company is forced into virtue signaling.

Reply to  Macha
June 15, 2019 1:32 am

Behind the headlines I don’t think there’s a lot to worry about long term. There will be sufficient fund managers in the game for profits without the virtue signalling to ensure prices stabilise. Eventually, as always, the market will decide on the value of greencrap as subsidies fall away .

June 16, 2019 7:01 am

I want to thank all of you for subsidizing this silliness. I do too, involuntarily. But we installed some 3.6kwh of solar panels, quality stuff with the highest efficiency rating and life span available in 2007. The idea was to offset most of the air conditioning costs since the peak AC and the peak insolation more or less matched. No subsidies involved. The payback period was shorter than the expected lifespan.
The next year we got some wild subsidies. The fed.governemnt had a $7500 tax credit. The dumb politicians in PA voted in a similar subsidy, and also mandated the power company to buy power, so the power company contributed another $4K. We added 50% more power and the subsidies paid for it all pretty much covering all our usage. The the state instituted something weird- solar renewable energy credits-SREC’s. They required the power company to get at least 20% of it’s power from renewables. We signed up and the next year the power savings and energy credits zeroed out the electric bill on an annual basis.

Thanks again. BTW, I voted against all this stuff where I could, but PA has a lot of less than stellar Democrat intellects.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Philo
June 16, 2019 1:30 pm

Thanks for your comments. Many people have no real choice but to take advantage of the government subsidies for the benefit of their families and their financial situation. California is providing about $5.5 billion in investment tax credits for installing roof top PV behind the meter. The culprit here is the government subsidies that are driven by political schemes which increase energy costs while degrading energy reliability.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights