From the Austin [TX] American-Statesman, "For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.
Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers — the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market — and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs."
Instapundit comments: "See, environmentalism is mostly about posturing — it’s not actually about sacrificing."
How many members of the city council who voted for the GreenChoice program actually participate?
AFTERTHOUGHT:
I am astounded that liberals fail to understand that subsidizing green energy - wind and solar - is entirely self-defeating. While it's true that subsidies increase consumption, they do not - repeat, not - cut costs. Moreover, with a subsidy, there is absolutely no incentive for a manufacturer to reduce cost or improve efficiency in order to remain competitive.
All the city of Austin is achieving with its GreenChoice program is to delaying the time before solar and wind power become competitive.
Is there a way to encourage consumption of green energy without subsidies? Or am I just trying to think of a fancier phrase than "cut taxes?"
ReplyDeleteIn a word, no. Or more precisely, let nature take its course. Wind- and solar-generated electricity have to become cost-competitive with coal and natural gas. That will happen (actually, is happening), but it takes time for the manufacturing, storage, and distribution technologies to mature and become competitive. Subsidies - and taxes - do nothing but slow that process down.
ReplyDeleteMore in another post.