This page was last updated on February 7, 2012.
Clean energy needs support; Carl Davidson; Beaver County Times; February 2, 2012.
For some background info about Mr. Davidson, please go here; he is also a leader of Beaver County Reds. Previous letters from Mr. Davidson I critiqued are here, here, and here. Critiques of Davidson pieces on Beaver County Reds are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“‘Freedom Graduate Earns Place on Forbes List’ is a terrific story. Here’s a young man, Jeff Bishop, advocating and working for the clean and green energies of the future, who got his start with a helping hand from our public schools and dedicated teachers and staff.”
[RWC] As you read, you’ll find the letter is not about celebrating Mr. Bishop’s “terrific story;” it’s about using that story as a vehicle to push some leftist ideology. Had every detail of the story been the same except Mr. Bishop worked for a coal company, I suspect the story would not have been deemed “terrific.”
Mr. Bishop’s public-school education was not a gift from a benevolent government. Mr. Bishop will likely more than pay for that education for the rest of his life via school-district property and state taxes. As for “dedicated teachers and staff,” I mean no disrespect to these folks, but my experience is scholastic achievement depends far more on the student and his family than on the school. There are exceptions, of course, and it would still be good for students and their families to have school choice.
“Our right-wingers might keep this in mind the next time they want to break teacher unions, defund schools, or argue that government creates nothing of value.”
[RWC] What did FDR and George Meany (first president of the AFL-CIO, 1955-1979) think of collective bargaining by public-sector unions? FDR (patron saint of lefties) opposed public-sector labor unions. In a 1937 letter to Luther C. Steward (President of the National Federation of Federal Employees), FDR wrote, “… meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.” Likewise, George Meany opposed collective bargaining for public-sector employees.
Why would labor union supporters like Messrs. Meany and Roosevelt oppose collective bargaining by public-sector unions? It’s because these men recognized when politicians negotiate with labor union management, they negotiate with people who will return part of what they win to the politicians via taxpayer-funded campaign contributions. It’s called a conflict of interest. There’s a reason 93% of labor union management PAC contributions to federal candidates (over $62 million) went to Democrat candidates in 2010.
The “defund schools” comment is a straw man. In most common usage, “defund” means to cut off all funding. To the best of my recollection I don’t recall anyone proposing to defund public K-12 education. It’s possible “defund schools” is leftyspeak for education vouchers.
As for the “government creates nothing of value,” the Freedom Area School District didn’t create Mr. Bishop or his achievements. No school – private or public – can do that. As I commented above, my experience is scholastic achievement depends far more on the student and his family than on the school.
“It also highlights what will be a protracted battle between energy companies that take carbon from the ground and put it in the air, which runs out and becomes costly in many ways over time, and companies that draw power from the sun, directly or indirectly, as wind, solar, wave and hydro -- which is inexhaustible.”
[RWC] The religion of manmade global warming is slowly unraveling. That’s behind the change from “global warming” to “climate change;” it enables believers to claim any weather is indicative of man’s effect on the climate. During a February 2010 BBC Q&A, Phil Jones (his current title is Director of Research for the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit) conceded there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Mr. Jones also conceded, though a trend, there was statistically insignificant cooling since 2002. In a BBC interview, Mr. Jones said “two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming [to current alleged warming]. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.” Mr. Jones then said his data was insufficiently organized and the data sources were insufficiently documented. What a difference Climategate and the uncovering of bogus claims made.
As I’ve noted before, you can identify leftist-approved energy sources because they are not currently technically and/or economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy. By “economically viable” I mean the ability to compete in the marketplace without subsidies, tax credits, et cetera. As soon as “clean and green energies” get close to commercial viability, they are no longer deemed “clean and green.” We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects. That said, it’s possible Mr. Davidson doesn’t agree with his comrades on this point.
Unless there’s another mechanism at work I don’t know about, the energy in carbon-containing fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, wood, etc.) comes from the Sun. Thus, “energy companies that take carbon from the ground” are also “companies that draw power from the sun, directly or indirectly.”
As for the company that employs Mr. Bishop, EDP Renewables North America, it is a unit of EDP Renováveis, a Portugal company. FYI, of all the countries in which EDPR Group operates, the U.S. has the highest income tax rate at 37.63%. Coming in second is Brazil at 34% and Romania is the lowest at 16%. (Note: The company name given in the BCT article – ELP Renewabales – was incorrect. The correct name is EDP Renewables North America.)
“Word to the wise: We need to tax the former to support the latter.”
[RWC] “Word to the uninformed” would be a better description. Mr. Davidson wants to drive up the price you and I pay for carbon-containing energy so his “clean and green” energy can compete. As I noted in my Economics paper, for every action there is a reaction, and usually more than one. We’re to believe robbing Peter to pay Paul will affect only the types of energy we use, but that’s not how it works. Just about every activity requires energy and artificially jacking up the price of energy will drive up the cost of those activities. When products cost more to manufacture and thus their price to the consumer goes up, consumers buy less. Like it or not, nearly all markets are worldwide. Driving up the price of energy in the U.S. will not just cut U.S. demand, it will put more coal, natural gas, and oil on the market outside the U.S., resulting in even lower energy prices for the rest of the world. As the spread increases between what U.S. and foreign consumers pay for energy, it will become more difficult for U.S. businesses to survive. Obviously, as business activity dwindles, so will jobs. Please, don’t give me the “green jobs” BS. Though I can’t vouch for its content, you may want to read a Universidad Rey Juan Carlos study about Spain’s experience with a “green manufacturing industrial policy.” And how did that Solyndra thing work out? Further, protecting/subsidizing an activity takes some heat off the business to make its product truly competitive. Thus, instead of advancing a product’s economic and/or technical viability, protecting/subsidizing an activity can delay/retard that growth.
A quick look at the EDP Renováveis 2010 Annual Report appears to indicate EDPR NA operated at a profit. It appeared government subsidies and/or tax credits had no effect on EDPR NA profitability, but I couldn’t tell if potential subsidies and/or tax credits to customers and suppliers had any effect. I don’t believe in government subsidizing any business, but even if I did, why would we tax any energy producer and give that revenue to an already-profitable business/industry?
Finally, I’ve written before I have no problem with “clean and green energies” and I encourage their use when it makes economic sense. This is the same position I take with all forms of energy production. What I take issue with is pinning our present and future solely on “clean and green energies” while tying our hands behind our back regarding domestic production of coal, natural gas, nuclear, and oil-based energy. Instead, we need to let the marketplace do its job without government interference beyond that deemed necessary by limited-government principles.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.