Pirate's Cove

This has made Warmists very upset, because Gaia forbid they spend their own money on these things

Trump’s cuts to renewable energy put us on the ropes in the fight against climate change

News that the Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for deep budget cuts to the Energy Department’s renewable energy and energy efficiency programs has thus far generated less outrage than the White House’s abandonment of the Paris Climate Treaty, yet has the potential to be far more damaging to efforts to respond to climate change.

According to documents obtained by the Washington Post, the White House is seeking to slash the budgets by 72% in fiscal year 2019, which would cut research in fuel efficient vehicles by 82%, bioenergy technologies by 82%, advanced manufacturing by 75%, and solar energy technology by 78%.

Realistically, it shouldn’t be the federal government subsidizing nor giving loans that do not seem to get paid back for these things, it should be the private sector.

Some of the spending being cut goes toward electric cars and fuel efficient vehicles — spending that ultimately subsidizes a deep-pocketed industry and wealthy drivers while doing next-to-nothing for the environment: One U.S. study shows the richest quarter of the population receives almost all the public money spent on subsidies to discount the vehicles, while the entire fleet makes almost zero impact on climate change. The International Energy Agency predicts that even by 2040, when there will be 280 million electric vehicles, this will only reduce global emissions by 1%. In the words of Fatih Biurol, the IEA head: “if you think you can save the climate with electric cars, you’re completely wrong.”

But, it’s fashionable for the rich to get these types of cars.

But by not just slashing the vehicle spending but also cutting back on investment in clean energy R&D, the administration is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We need to invest in this R&D because alternative energy sources like solar and wind are far from ready to compete with fossil fuels on the market. President Trump’s references to “beautiful clean coal” notwithstanding, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most effective source of energy for most places most of the time — indeed the International Energy Agency estimates that on our current trajectory, even in 2040 non-hydro renewables will on average be more expensive than any other form of power both at a global level, and in industrialized and developing nations.

It’s not the job of the federal government to do the research, nor pay for others to do it. If someone has a great idea, let them pay for it. Develop it. Bring it to market.

After decades of heavy investment in subsidies to support green energy production, the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency reveal that wind provides just 0.6% of today’s energy needs, and solar a miniscule 0.2%. Even by 2040, if all of the Paris Treaty’s promises were to be fulfilled (which already seems unlikely), the IEA finds this will be 2.1% and 1.5%. Green energy is currently inefficient because it is almost entirely reliant on subsidies that added up to more than $150 billion in 2016. When the United Kingdom cancelled solar power subsidies, UK solar power installations plummeted. When Spain cut its subsidies, the renewable industry took a “brutal trajectory” downward.

In other words, after all that forcibly taken taxpayer money used, it’s still a pipe-dream. And, it barely works. Many in Europe are turning to wood, cutting down trees and using wood pellets for heating and energy. Because solar and wind is unreliable. Maybe one day, but, it’s not up to the government to spend our money on these boondoggles. Especially not when linked to a scam.