That's the headline from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The Journal's editors nail the essence of this scandal: that it is all about the political allocation of capital. Writes the Journal,
"The emerging sophisticated defense of Solyndra is Mr. Obama's suggestion that if China subsidizes its industries "of the future," then we must too. But in a free-market economy, which America used to be, private investors decide which industries will succeed in the future, and bet their own money on it. The proper role for government is to support basic research, not commercial ventures that become exercises in taxpayer risk but private reward."
Monday, October 10, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Cap and Trade Down Under: Breakthrough's Take
In an odd choice, resource-rich Australia is about to adopt a cap and trade scheme for carbon. Micheal Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute give their view over at New Geography.
They write,
"In Europe, the US and Australia, environmental NGOs and the center-left generally has grossly oversold the impact of pricing carbon, the readiness of renewable energy, and the political sustainability of their schemes.
Though some greens try to fudge the numbers, no climate or energy analyst today can credibly claim that renewables are cheap enough to compete broadly with fossil fuels."
They write,
"In Europe, the US and Australia, environmental NGOs and the center-left generally has grossly oversold the impact of pricing carbon, the readiness of renewable energy, and the political sustainability of their schemes.
Though some greens try to fudge the numbers, no climate or energy analyst today can credibly claim that renewables are cheap enough to compete broadly with fossil fuels."
The American Autumn
In his weekly syndicated column, Mark Steyn writes about the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and pays tribute to Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Speaking of the protests, Steyn writes,
"If the specifics of their "program" are somewhat contradictory, the general vibe is consistent: They wish to enjoy an advanced Western lifestyle without earning an advanced Western living. The pampered, elderly children of a fin de civilisation overdeveloped world, they appear to regard life as an unending vacation whose bill never comes due."
But here is my favorite part,
"Indeed, [former Obama Green Jobs Czar] Van Jones thinks that the protests are the start of an "American Autumn." In case you don't get it, that's the American version of the "Arab Spring." Steve Jobs might have advised Van Jones he has a branding problem. Spring is the season of new life, young buds and so forth. Autumn is leaves turning brown and fluttering to the ground in a big dead heap. Even in my great state of New Hampshire, where autumn is pretty darn impressive, we understand what that blaze of red and orange leaves means: They burn brightest before they fall and die, and the world turns chill and bare and hard."
"If the specifics of their "program" are somewhat contradictory, the general vibe is consistent: They wish to enjoy an advanced Western lifestyle without earning an advanced Western living. The pampered, elderly children of a fin de civilisation overdeveloped world, they appear to regard life as an unending vacation whose bill never comes due."
But here is my favorite part,
"Indeed, [former Obama Green Jobs Czar] Van Jones thinks that the protests are the start of an "American Autumn." In case you don't get it, that's the American version of the "Arab Spring." Steve Jobs might have advised Van Jones he has a branding problem. Spring is the season of new life, young buds and so forth. Autumn is leaves turning brown and fluttering to the ground in a big dead heap. Even in my great state of New Hampshire, where autumn is pretty darn impressive, we understand what that blaze of red and orange leaves means: They burn brightest before they fall and die, and the world turns chill and bare and hard."
Friday, October 7, 2011
Smart Growth Law Repealed in Florida
Over at New Geography, Wendell Cox reports that Florida has repealed its 30-year-old smart growth law. Wendell's piece has lots of data on how this will help. The action itself occurred a few months ago, but not everyone is happy.
They Did It Again (Slightly Better)
A couple of times [1],[2] I have posted about the Minneapolis Star Tribune's practice of publishing original content from the advocacy website Midwest Energy News, not as opinion, but as straight news in the business section. This morning, the Star Tribune did it again, publishing a story from writer Dan Haugen, but with a twist: more disclosure. At the very end of the piece comes this disclaimer,
"Dan Haugen is a Minneapolis freelance writer. He wrote this article for Midwest Energy News, a service of Fresh Energy, a St. Paul nonprofit that advocates for clean energy such as wind and solar."
An improvement, of sorts. The careful reader will make the inference that the piece is in support of Fresh Energy's advocacy work. However, the casual reader is unlikely to get beyond the headlines or first few paragraphs.
As for the story itself, it addresses one of the fatal flaws with wind power: its unreliability. Utilities and grid operators need more and more sophisticated weather forecasts to accommodate the waxing and waning of wind on their systems. A problem caused by the fierce advocacy for more wind on the grid, regardless of business or technical requirements. Message: we created the problem, but don't worry, were solving it, too.
"Dan Haugen is a Minneapolis freelance writer. He wrote this article for Midwest Energy News, a service of Fresh Energy, a St. Paul nonprofit that advocates for clean energy such as wind and solar."
An improvement, of sorts. The careful reader will make the inference that the piece is in support of Fresh Energy's advocacy work. However, the casual reader is unlikely to get beyond the headlines or first few paragraphs.
As for the story itself, it addresses one of the fatal flaws with wind power: its unreliability. Utilities and grid operators need more and more sophisticated weather forecasts to accommodate the waxing and waning of wind on their systems. A problem caused by the fierce advocacy for more wind on the grid, regardless of business or technical requirements. Message: we created the problem, but don't worry, were solving it, too.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Follow the Money: Complete Streets
Most of these "Follow the Money" posts have dealt with private foundation grants to non-profits (NGO's), but the flow of taxpayer funds to non-profits should not be ignored.
Case in point: Minnesota environmental non-profit Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is administering a 7-year, $28 million federal grant to fund biking and walking projects in the Twin Cities area. Not all of these projects have been well-received by the local community. One controversial project, on St. Paul's Jefferson Avenue, has attracted a good deal of attention. The City of St. Paul has pulled back from the Jefferson Ave. project, because of complaints from local residents that they were not involved in the planning process for a $1 million project that would have rerouted traffic and converted a road into a "bike boulevard."
In fact, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that local residents "have said that Transit for Livable Communities has come across heavy-handed. In discussions with the city, the nonprofit at times has threatened to block funding for a [second] proposed $400,000 bicycle boulevard".
Local radio host Joe Soucheray, also writing in the Pioneer Press, asks the common sense question, "They're our streets. It's our money. So why isn't it our decision?"
Soucheray adds,
"Let us understand our civics, shall we? The people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, watch, seemingly helplessly, as millions of dollars in federal funds - their money - is won by outfits like TLC to finance projects that the residents not only do not want but that also apparently circumvent the electoral process."
In this instance, we have a non-profit corporation (TLC) spending taxpayer dollars in ways that, literally, transform neighborhoods. How I live my life, get to work, walk around, interact with my neighbors will be impacted by whatever this non-profit decides is best for me.
Here is my concern with this funding approach. If I don't like the way in which a city is administering federal funds, I can complain to the city council and the mayor (and I have). If it's a county, I can go to county commissioners. The state, it's my local representative or senator. The local office of a federal agency? I call my congressperson or Senator. The local school district? A school board member. Each of these persons will be held accountable to voters (like me) in the next election.
If I don't like the way a non-profit is administering funds, to whom do I complain? To whom is the non-profit accountable? Where on the November ballot does the non-profit appear?
Case in point: Minnesota environmental non-profit Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) is administering a 7-year, $28 million federal grant to fund biking and walking projects in the Twin Cities area. Not all of these projects have been well-received by the local community. One controversial project, on St. Paul's Jefferson Avenue, has attracted a good deal of attention. The City of St. Paul has pulled back from the Jefferson Ave. project, because of complaints from local residents that they were not involved in the planning process for a $1 million project that would have rerouted traffic and converted a road into a "bike boulevard."
In fact, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that local residents "have said that Transit for Livable Communities has come across heavy-handed. In discussions with the city, the nonprofit at times has threatened to block funding for a [second] proposed $400,000 bicycle boulevard".
Local radio host Joe Soucheray, also writing in the Pioneer Press, asks the common sense question, "They're our streets. It's our money. So why isn't it our decision?"
Soucheray adds,
"Let us understand our civics, shall we? The people who pay the bills, the taxpayers, watch, seemingly helplessly, as millions of dollars in federal funds - their money - is won by outfits like TLC to finance projects that the residents not only do not want but that also apparently circumvent the electoral process."
In this instance, we have a non-profit corporation (TLC) spending taxpayer dollars in ways that, literally, transform neighborhoods. How I live my life, get to work, walk around, interact with my neighbors will be impacted by whatever this non-profit decides is best for me.
Here is my concern with this funding approach. If I don't like the way in which a city is administering federal funds, I can complain to the city council and the mayor (and I have). If it's a county, I can go to county commissioners. The state, it's my local representative or senator. The local office of a federal agency? I call my congressperson or Senator. The local school district? A school board member. Each of these persons will be held accountable to voters (like me) in the next election.
If I don't like the way a non-profit is administering funds, to whom do I complain? To whom is the non-profit accountable? Where on the November ballot does the non-profit appear?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The 130 MPG Battery
Following up on this post concerning the North Dakota oil boom, oilman Harold Hamm's interview in the Saturday Wall Street Journal continues to attract comment. In particular, the part of the interview where Hamm presents President Obama with the prospect of a domestic oil and gas drilling boom and is met with a dismissive anecdote about Energy Sec. Chu and a 130 MPG battery is reverberating across the interwebs.
Edward Niedermeyer over at the Truth About Cars casts a skeptical eye on the 130 MPG claim. Noting the fact that batteries don't use gasoline, Neidermeyer writes,
"It’s one thing to say EV battery prices will drop by 70% between 2010 and 2015 (even when the CEO of LG Chem says his firm is targeting 50% improvement), or even to say that US battery manufacturing will go from 2% of the global total in 2010 to 40% in 2015… these, like the “one million plug-ins on the road” pledge are straightforward targets. But 130 MPG based on some mysterious battery?"
Mickey Kaus picks up the thread at the Daily Caller, writing,
"Obama is “data-driven,” his observant friends suggest. But how good is [are] the data that’s driving him? The possibilities here are a) he’s well-informed; b) he’s being fed wildly optimistic estimates of the sort he wants to hear; c) he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about at all; or d) he’s BS’ing."
Mickey picks "b" but I'm leaning toward "c".
Edward Niedermeyer over at the Truth About Cars casts a skeptical eye on the 130 MPG claim. Noting the fact that batteries don't use gasoline, Neidermeyer writes,
"It’s one thing to say EV battery prices will drop by 70% between 2010 and 2015 (even when the CEO of LG Chem says his firm is targeting 50% improvement), or even to say that US battery manufacturing will go from 2% of the global total in 2010 to 40% in 2015… these, like the “one million plug-ins on the road” pledge are straightforward targets. But 130 MPG based on some mysterious battery?"
Mickey Kaus picks up the thread at the Daily Caller, writing,
"Obama is “data-driven,” his observant friends suggest. But how good is [are] the data that’s driving him? The possibilities here are a) he’s well-informed; b) he’s being fed wildly optimistic estimates of the sort he wants to hear; c) he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about at all; or d) he’s BS’ing."
Mickey picks "b" but I'm leaning toward "c".
Digging Deeper on Minnesota's "Solyndra"
I find this story of a failed "green recycling" company in Mankato, Minnesota, fascinating. The company took subsidies from three levels of government, had a free source of feedstock, yet still went bankrupt within months.
Mankato Free Press Coverage:
Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Mankato's KEYC-TV-12 covered the story, with an assist from the Free Market Institute’s David Strom. Here is a timeline, pieced together from the Channel 12 report, along with reports from the Mankato Free Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Genesis Poly Recycling planned to take plastic film from agricultural uses and recycle the material into plastic furniture, outdoor decking, etc. Sounds like a great idea and one that would help the environment and create dozens of jobs.
Late 2008: AGSI Recycling goes bankrupt. Same investors and same technology reform as Genesis Poly Recycling.
November 2009: Mankato City Council approves purchase of facility on Industrial Road. Company promises to create 115 jobs. City of Mankato buys property at 480 North Industrial Road
for $850,000, using money from the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). City rents location to Genesis.
for $850,000, using money from the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). City rents location to Genesis.
November 2009: U.S. Bank lends Genesis $7,440,000, with 70 percent of that amount backed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA loan guarantee).
City of Mankato loans $500,000 to Genesis to buy equipment with Stimulus money through DEED.
State’s Pollution Control Agency (PCA) lends Genesis $100,000
January 2010: City approves subsidy for unrelated parking ramp project, contingent on repayment of loan to Genesis.
April 2010: Genesis Poly Recycling opens
October 2010: Genesis Poly Recycling evicted from City-owned building. Had not paid rent in four months.
June 2011: Auditors instruct City to write-off $500,000 loan to Genesis
Specie Money: Gold Vending Machines
Sorry I'm so late with this post. But the latest thing in Specie Money is gold vending machines. As the Globe and Mail reports, China is the latest the join the craze.
"Solyndra"-type project in Mankato, MN
Local TV in Mankato covers another "Green" stimulus project that goes bankrupt after getting government cash. The Free Market Institute's David Strom points out the obvious on TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)