[Graeme]

Fissures in G.O.P. as Some Conservatives Embrace Renewable Energy

In conservative politics, solar power is often dismissed as an affectation, part of a liberal agenda to funnel money to “solar cronies” of the Obama administration and further the “global warming hoax.”

So one would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers. But there he was last fall, very publicly opposing a push by Arizona’s biggest utility to charge as much as $100 a month to people who put solar panels on their roofs.

The utilities, backed by conservative business interests, argue that solar users who have lower power bills because of government subsidies are not paying their fair share to maintain the power grid. Mr. Goldwater and other advocates have struck back by calling the proposed fees a “solar tax,” and have pushed their message in ads on Fox News and the Drudge Report.

Similar conflicts are going on in California and Colorado, with many more to come. And as the issue pops up, conservatives are even joining forces with environmental groups. In Georgia, a Tea Party activist and the Sierra Club formed a “Green Tea Coalition.”

As a result, solar power is fast becoming one of the fracture lines dividing the conservative movement’s corporate and libertarian sides. The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, which helps pro-business Republicans across the country write legislation, has successfully urged several states to fight federal mandates for adopting renewable energy like solar power. This month, it published a resolution calling for states to “require that everyone who uses the grid helps pay to maintain it and to keep it operating reliably at all times.”

To Mr. Goldwater, the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.” On the website for his campaign, Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed, Mr. Goldwater, a former congressman, says, “Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice.”

He says conservatives are the original environmentalists, especially in the West. “They came out here and fell in love with the land,” he said, and added that his father used to tell him, “There’s more decency in one pine tree than you’ll find in most people.”

nytimes

[Plantagenet]

one would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers.

Why not? The whole point of conservatism is to empower individuals.

To Mr. Goldwater, the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.”

Not only that, utilities are usually government-sanctioned monopolies. Their rates are often set by the government. Barry Goldwater Jr is 100% right to oppose efforts by the utilities and government regulators to unfairly charge people who have built their own solar systems.

[Keith_McClary]

Why not? The whole point of conservatism is to empower individuals.

conservative:
...
5) a word that today's so-called "conservatives" don't know the definition of.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... nservative

[Graeme]

one would not expect to see Barry Goldwater Jr., the very picture of modern conservatism and son of the 1964 Republican nominee for president, arguing passionately on behalf of solar energy customers.

Why not? The whole point of conservatism is to empower individuals.

To Mr. Goldwater, the true conservative path lies elsewhere. “Utilities are working off of a business plan that’s 100 years old,” he said in an interview, “kind of like the typewriter and the bookstore.”

Not only that, utilities are usually government-sanctioned monopolies. Their rates are often set by the government. Barry Goldwater Jr is 100% right to oppose efforts by the utilities and government regulators to unfairly charge people who have built their own solar systems.

Interesting point. I will start another thread on this subject. My impression is that we will need both centralized and decentralized solar power sources. Big utilities should buy power from their consumers, store it, then sell it back to them when there is the demand for it. Others in the industry may have different ideas.

The purpose of this thread is to see whether more "conservatives" will 'embrace' renewable energy. As an aside, I'm sure that Americans will know that the first National Park was set up by President Lincoln. I just saw a program on Sky about it recently, and I have been there.

Designated a World Heritage Site in 1984, Yosemite is internationally recognized for its spectacular granite cliffs, waterfalls, clear streams, Giant Sequoia groves, and biological diversity.[5] Almost 95% of the park is designated wilderness.[6] Yosemite was central to the development of the national park idea. First, Galen Clark and others lobbied to protect Yosemite Valley from development, ultimately leading to President Abraham Lincoln's signing the Yosemite Grant in 1864. Later, John Muir led a successful movement to establish a larger national park encompassing not just the valley, but surrounding mountains and forests as well - paving the way for the United States national park system.[7]

[americandream]

Why not? The whole point of conservatism is to empower individuals.

conservative:
...
5) a word that today's so-called "conservatives" don't know the definition of.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... nservative

To empower people to consume as much as they can not afford. Shit andf piss away the planet, it's an Mmerican badge of loyalty.

[Pops]

Such is the problem with a 2 party system - you're either with us or you're against us.

I don't see a reason why a true conservative wouldn't be a total tree hugger, look at the root of the word for cripes sake.

But there is a strong thread of Randian Egoism in conservative America. Ayn Rand called it Rational Self-Interest and said man's highest purpose is his own happiness and many folks who consider themselves Libertarians hold her up as some kind of demigod. The interesting thing is how opposite that ideal is with the other current underpinning of the American right (in rhetoric anyway) which is the teachings of the guy who said "love your neighbor as yourself."

What is telling (as always in propaganda) is the right's accusation of the left as the godless, hedonistic branch of the family when in fact one of it's idols was an atheist and preached selfishness as religion, LOL.

It isn't surprising to me that we are seeing a split in the current brand of conservatism for just this reason. Unfortunately "Compassionate Conservatism" is the perfect term for the majority of family-centric, brother's keeper, work-hard, play-by-the-rules type folks – both right and left - in the US. However the name was hijacked by neo-conservative "nation-builders" (read that Imperialists) after 9/11. And frankly, I think it was also corrupted by a certain type of sensationalist entertainment that caters to people's worst emotions and fans the flames of conflict for ratings and ad dollars.

I'd like to see a shift happen where truly compassionate conservatives and equally compassionate liberals can come together to battle against increasing concentrations of wealth, intrusions on civil liberty, imperialism and frankly the Last Great Resource Grab. A truly compassionate party would understand that Randian Selfishness is the opposite of conservatism and that transition away from fossil fuels is required if we are to be the keeper of our "future" brothers.


How's that for a Monday morning sermon! LOL

[ROCKMAN]

"The purpose of this thread is to see whether more "conservatives" will 'embrace' renewable energy." You mean like in the very conservative state of Texas that produces twice as much energy from wind+ solar as the very liberal state of CA? One should remember that good intentions and love of the planet doesn't get the alts built out. It's the economics that drive the situation. Last I saw folks don't build out alts to lose money. A liberal might be willing to have someone else's money taken by the govt to fund uneconomic alt projects. Conservative would rather see private investors use their money to build out profitable alt systems.

Of course it helps those profit oriented business when the govt offered a helpful tax incentive for wind development. But that credit is gone and major new wind projects are still in the works for Texas as I just highlighted in another post. Part of the continued expansion is due to policies and programs of the Texas STATE GOVT…one of the more conservative legislative bodies in the country. This also includes the first offshore wind leases issued by any state govt. Compare that to my very liberal Yankee cousins in NY:

The chair, Mr. Townsend, of the New York Power Authority is expressing doubts about plans to site wind turbines in the Great Lakes. He noted that authority President Richard Kessel, a champion of the offshore idea, had said offshore turbines would not be built where they're not wanted. County lawmakers in seven of the nine shoreline counties, including Monroe, have voted to express opposition to the plan for aesthetic, environmental and other reasons. "We're not being welcomed," Townsend said.

And then there’s this:

A plan to anchor 170 towering wind turbines five miles off the coast of Cape Cod has created some unusual foes. On one side are the Humane Society, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the International Wildlife Coalition and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., among others. On the other side are groups that might normally be considered allies, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace. They're clashing over a power source that defenders say will offer bountiful clean energy to the region, but opponents say will blight the view off the Massachusetts cape, kill birds and harm fishing and tourism. The $700 million wind-power project, which has won preliminary approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is now under environmental review.

From Isaac Rosen, executive director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a recently incorporated neighborhood association set up to oppose the wind-power project: "The Cape Wind proposal … goes against everything for which the character of the cape is known worldwide." NIMBY at Play? Wind power — the fastest-growing energy resource in the world, according to the Department of Energy — does not leach pollutants or gobble up finite resources. But wind turbines dot prime landscapes, generate noise and can pose a hazard to birds and other wildlife. And in nearly every place where companies have set up or proposed wind plants, including California, Wisconsin, West Virginia, New York, Kansas, Maine and now Massachusetts, local groups have risen up in protest.”

So the bottom line: liberals seem to just love the idea of a renewable energy sources such a wind turbines BUT only when they are located in someone else’s backyard. Conservatives, such as those in Texas, do all they can to promote the build out of wind turbines in their back yard. While those liberal folks in the NE are suing to stop offshore wind development the conservatives in Texas helped push through the first offshore wind pilot project a few years ago. Today there are two major offshore Texas wind farms in the planning stage. And with the single exception of the local (and very liberal) Sierra Club no one is objecting.

Just a suggestion: before knocking conservatives for their attitude about the alts it might be a good idea for liberals to get their house in order first. You know…like leading by example and not demagogue the situation. It’s one thing to profess to be pro alt…another to actually be doing something positive. At the moment the conservatives in Texas are leading US alt development far beyond that of their liberal cousins.

[Pops]

ROCK I think you are confusing embracing of profit for embracing of the need for renewables, LOL.

Saw a documentary on TX wind power where one rancher admitted being genuinely embarrassed to have turbines on his land because he thought it made him look to his neighbors like some commie pinko tree hugger and he wanted to make it perfectly clear he definitely wasn't. Pickens talked about that attitude in his book The First Billion Is The Hardest.

W TX has a large wind potential and large amounts of open ground not much good for anything else, not the same as a large embrace of the reason behind the need for RE.

[Plantagenet]

Texas deserves praise for its success in building out RE and for figuring out how to make a lot of money doing it.

Yes, Texans deserve praise for making money on it. Whether they are Sierra CLub members or not is completely irrelevant..... The take-away message should be that smart people can make money in the renewable energy biz. The desire to make money is far more likely to get additional RE built then warm fuzzy feelings about the environment

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - "ROCK I think you are confusing embracing of profit for embracing of the need for renewables". If I understand your point why shouldn't producing renewable energy be profitable? I don't think that's what you mean. But the point remains: unless the govt forces tax payers to fund unprofitable renewable projects how should we expect the effort to be expanded without a profit motive? Or are you and Graeme et al going to loan me money at 0% interest so I can build some turbines? If so count me in. I'll be glad to settle for zero profit and my exorbitant management fee.

The transportation industry depends upon profit. The housing industry depends upon profit. The ag industry depends upon profit. The airline industry depends upon profit. The NG industry depends upon profit. The propane distributors depend upon profit. But the renewable industry shouldn’t be profit oriented? We definitely need the renewables built out ASAP. How do you propose doing that with no profit motivation? Folks sometimes talk about the need for a WW II type effort to satisfy our energy problems. Folks should research just how much profit our huge war manufacturing machine made for the companies owned by the “greatest generation”. LOL.

The Texas alt industry is making a profit. Is the CA alt industry not making a profit? If it isn't how is it surviving? On the back of the tax payers? I doubt it but who knows...it is the "left coast" after all. LOL.

[dinopello]

The transportation industry depends upon profit.

It depends on how you mean. The public sector heavily subsidizes all transportation modes with paved roads, bridges, tunnels, traffic control signals, signage, lighting, air ports and security, etc. Companies may make a profit using this public infrastructure, but for the most part "they didn't build that".

[Plantagenet]

The transportation industry depends upon profit.

It depends on how you mean. The public sector heavily subsidizes all transportation modes with paved roads, bridges, tunnels, traffic control signals, signage, lighting, air ports and security, etc. Companies may make a profit using this public infrastructure, but for the most part "they didn't build that".

Its the job of the government to build infrastructure. Its not just the transportation industry that benefits from infrastructure....its agriculture, manufacturing, energy and renewable energy, retail, etc. Every sector of the entire economy benefits from infrastructure.

Rockman is clearly right that every sector of the economy exists because of business profits. Even the government couldn't function without taxing the business income and personal salaries that are all dependent on profit made by private individuals and private businesses

[ROCKMAN]

dino - Good point. And without the govt investing in infrastructure how profitable would many US industries be? If the various govt entities hadn't spent $trillions building highways would we have the interstate commerce we have today? If airport construction weren’t heavy subsidized would such travel be common today? IOW if Delta et al had to pay the entire cost of the infrastructure would there have been enough profit for them to exist?

Yes: private industry has always dependent upon govt investments in infrastructure. Just as the govt has always been dependent upon the profitability of US businesses. One might go so far as to describe it as a symbiotic relationship: nether could survive without the other. And it’s good to remember that the US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world despite what many may think. And that drives American businesses to be as efficient as possible to create enough profit to maintain them. The system certainly has any number of flaws. But taken as a whole many folks in other countries wish they had the dynamic we have here.

[dinopello]

If the various govt entities hadn't spent $trillions building highways would we have the interstate commerce we have today?

It's a pretty good bet that it would look a lot different but yes, I do think there still would have been interstate commerce. I think we would have a lot more in the way of private rail systems. This in turn, would have continued the pattern of settlement in compact towns and cities clustered around the rail stops rather than the sprawl we have today. And, municiple governments wouldn't be regulating as much the amount of car storage that each building has to have. But Eisenhower insisted on picking a winner. The build cost is one thing, its the maintenance cost that is problematic. I think we will much of the infrastructure being turned over to private entities to maintain and charge tolls.

[Graeme]

It was also great to see the quite outstanding posts here too especially from Pops (who appeals to common ground) and Rockman (who points out at some length the contribution from Texas). With attitudes like these, America and the world could put aside their differences and resolve the quite pressing issues we face. I found some other related articles here, here and here. The first one IMO is the best.

US Conservative Voices Grow Louder in Support of Renewable Energy

The year 2013 will be remembered as the year that utilities in the United States crossed the Rubicon of renewable energy. At first glance you might think this is a purely partisan matter, one of liberals and conservatives scoring points off each other; however, it is actually the result of our republican (with a small ‘r’) form of government, wherein the profound wisdom of our founding fathers once again proves its worth. Frankly, what has happened should make each and every American proud.

Here’s what’s going on, and it’s quintessentially an American phenomenon.

No matter what our illustrious Congress desires or attempts, and regardless what our current President intends, at the end of every American day, the sun sets on 50 states and a handful of territories that are free and independent governments. Thus, even though we have a federal tax code, a FERC, and an EPA, it is still at the state level that the majority of business gets done. It is at the state level where new business is created and new technology is put into play. It’s also where power-plants are built and operated. Like it or not, most U.S. electrical generation is a state-level activity. That’s where the money is spent and where jobs are created.

So unless the federal government, executive, legislative or judicial branch outright makes illegal some commercial activity, the states are going to do what they think is good for that state.

And lo and behold, the states have decided renewable energy is good.

Hence, despite what the last presidential election rhetoric sounded like, and despite what the current Congress is saying about renewable energy, the simple economics of wind, solar and other clean technology speaks for itself. Thus, in a free-market capitalist nation like America, we are seeing more and more states, businesses, and Americans freely choosing renewable energy.

A growing number of American utilities are facilitating this progress at the state level because it’s what the citizens, voters and taxpayers in those states have decided is best for them, their state and their country. No one is threatening to secede from the United State over renewable energy. Rather, we engaged in expanding renewable energy resources because it is the American thing to do.

Therefore, despite the continuing gridlock in Congress, the states are mostly exercising their liberty and moving ahead with their own renewable energy build-out, not so much as part of a larger transition away from coal to natural gas, but to diversify the energy sector and enhance local and national security.

The examples are truly indicative of Americans doing what we do best; namely, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Even more interestingly, despite the continued Congressional opposition to wind and solar, mainly on the Republican side of the House of Representatives, a growing number of Republican states are acting independently and ignoring Congressional Republicans who have forgotten to look and see what’s happening at home. Many current, substantial, and compelling examples abound.

For example Georgia, a bastion of traditionally ultra-conservative ideology with a near super-majority of Republicans in its state government, just saw all five of its statewide elected, conservative Republican Public Service Commissioners vote unanimously in favor of allowing Georgia Power, the nation’s largest public utility, to purchase 210 MW of solar energy. And then just eight months after that vote, they ordered GA Power to add another 525 MW, as a hedge against fuel and regulatory risk in order to protect the state and its economy and jobs.

[americandream]

R E will not work to deal with the underlying problems of the environment and the toxicity of unrestrained consumerism notwithstanding which country takes the lead. It will merely prolong the release of said toxicity and resulting destruction of our life support system, the environment.

[Keith_McClary]

Its the job of the government to build infrastructure.

Except railroads.

[Plantagenet]

Its the job of the government to build infrastructure.

Except railroads.

Yes, its even the job of government to build railroads. Almost all railroads have been paid for or subsidized by government.

In the US in the 19th century private companies built railroads across the continent, but the work was supported by huge subsidies and direct land grants to the railroads from the federal government. The federal government put up the money for the railroads even then.


The 19th century transcontinental railroads in the US were funded by the US government, which granted huge areas of land and various subisidies to the railroad companies.

[Plantagenet]

R E will not work to deal with the underlying problems of the environment....

RE is exactly what will work to deal with the underlying problems of the environment.

Shifting as much as possible from coal and oil to solar and wind isn't perfect but overall it will be very good for the environment.

[Loki]

Environmental protection has unfortunately become a hyperpartisan issue, but it hasn't always been so. The 1973 Endangered Species Act passed by a 355-4 vote in the House, which was 46% Republican. Nixon supported and signed it.

The “Green Tea” coalition is an interesting development, thanks for bringing it up Graeme. Might represent a thawing.