Turning Green (and Feeling Sick)

This week will be remembered for President Obama's stump speech where he said, "If you love me, you will pass this bill!"  Considering his popularity is in a free fall, it's safe to say this "jobs bill" won't be passing anytime soon.

Also making the news is the announcement that Solyndra, a California-based solar panel manufacturer, will file for bankruptcy and lay off more than 1,000 people.  This despite being promoted by President Obama as the poster child for his administration's push into green technology (to the tune of a $535 million federal loan guarantee). This news might actually be shocking if it had produced the level of electricity originally claimed.  As it is, the only jolt coming from this discovery is the continued belief by the Obama administration (and its supporters in the media) that think heavily subsidized technologies like ethanol and solar/wind will ever be successful alternatives to oil and coal.

Solyndra:  Not so hot

(Alright to be fair, solar and wind energy may someday be a viable alternative, but to what extent?  And why must Team Obama use our money to promote alternatives few people want or can afford today?)

But now the Solyndra news is getting worse.  Uncovered emails indicate that the loan was made after pressure coming from the company itself and the White House.  U.S. Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, suggests that Solyndra's situation represents the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  He said, "There are billions more of this exact kind of spending that came out of the stimulus that will produce these results we fear.  This is misguided policy and crony capitalism at its worst.  (The U.S. Government) shouldn't be picking winners or losers... we should be setting the conditions for economic growth so that the private sector can create jobs."  Ryan concluded, "Washington is not good at picking winners and losers."

It was just 3 months ago, that Time magazine's Michael Grunwald was saying "As for Solyndra, I can report to the Republicans who seemed so concerned about the company's viability that it no longer seems to be on the verge of a humiliating collapse.  I'm sure they will be relieved."  Yeah.  That's how I'm feeling today.  Relieved of more than $500 million dollars that was pissed down the drain leaving me -- and other American taxpayers -- holding the bill.

And now we're being told that the taxpayer is second in line to get their investment out of this failed experiment, thanks to Obama who worked with private investors to put them first.

Isn't it frustrating to think that Obama is enjoying our misery?

Some of you are thinking that I'm being too harsh.  But think about it -- his environmental policies kick us once by adding to our debt by spending taxpayer money on green technologies, then kick us again by restricting the availability of currently viable resources like oil and natural gas.

No more drilling
AP photo/ The Washington Post

Millions of acres of untapped oil and gas are subject to environmental laws and restrictions that make drilling prohibitive.  Much offshore oil recovery is limited or off-limits to U.S. producers, while foreign countries like Cuba, Brazil, Mexico and Russia are aggressively drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.   Where laws don't prohibit oil drilling, regulations and overly complicated environmental studies make oil production very difficult and unprofitable.  And if producers don't engage in these costly studies, they end up in court being sued by environmental groups like the Sierra Club, a big buddy of the Obama Administration.

The result?  The cost of natural gas and oil is driving the cost of heating our homes, filling up the car and buying groceries through the roof.  The cost of a gallon of gas is more than a dollar more today than it was just last year (about $3.75 here in Wisconsin).  No wonder supporters of alternative energy say solar and wind energy is dropping in price while oil and gas continue to go higher.  Not to be conspiratorial, but Obama did say that he wanted the price of gas to go up, he just wasn't happy with how quickly is got there.

Oh, and our taxes are going up too.  And our kids' taxes, and their kids' taxes....

Another exasperating example is the Volt car, being produced by General Motors.  We all know that the Obama Administration -- sorry, the American taxpayer -- bailed out General Motors at a cost of more than $58 billion dollars.  As a result, Obama has placed himself into the middle of the development of an electric car called the Volt, available to anyone willing (or able) to pay $41,000.  For that amount of money here's what you get:

.  No return on investment in gas savings
.  Very limited production and availability (no one wants it)
.  Not appealing to people with long commutes
.  Big, expensive li-ion battery
.  Can you plug in?
.  Very expensive.  Did I mention $41,000?


Once again, our government is providing subsidies to help American consumers buy these vehicles.  The Volt, like solar energy, wind power and ethanol cannot compete on its own merits.  Without a $7,500 rebate, who could afford to buy it?  For someone in the Obama Administration, affordability isn't a deciding factor.  Is it good for the environment?  Does it encourage conservation?  And does it free us from our dependency of foreign energy?  That's what Washington wants.

Government Motors at work

All good ideas, but is it commercially viable, practical and something that the average consumer can afford?  Not likely.  Once again, I have to ask, why is Washington involved in running an automobile company?  They can't balance their own check book, much less General Motors'.

I can hear my older son saying, "But Dad, these are good ideas.  Someday we will need some kind of alternative.  Our current resources are limited and we need to do something before it's too late."

While I may agree that our resources are limited, I don't agree on how quickly, and I don't understand the reasoning behind a government that forces consumers to abandon perfectly GOOD, AFFORDABLE and WORKABLE solutions to our energy needs.    Are people really ready  to buy mercury-filled light bulbs, solar panels that work only half the time and cars that cost far more than they save?  I don't think so.

Our current energy situation reminds me of a book I'm reading called "The Forever War" by Joe Halderman.  The book won numerous science fiction awards for its futuristic depictions of  fighting and war's effect on the military / bureaucracy involved.   In "The Forever War," Halderman envisions a world dramatically different for his main character, William Mandella, who returns to Earth after years of inter-stellar fighting.    Due to various governments' attempts to control society -- population growth, food production, and energy availability -- home is nothing like the place he left.  Instead, there is high unemployment, dangerous mob attacks and violence, and a hyper-inflated cost for food, habitation and weapons.

I'm not suggesting that Washington is trying to give us the equivalence of "The Forever War," but I am saying that by pushing their environmental agenda, Obama and others in Congress are slowly, but surely taking away our freedoms and liberties. Using words like "eco-friendly," "sustainability" and "organic" doesn't change the fact that our lives are being impacted by these authoritarian and restrictive policies.

Unintentional consequences, perhaps.  But undesired consequences, nonetheless.