There is a tendency of people to believe that “green” is an altruistic lifestyle. “Green” proponents are saving the world, right?
Maybe not. Billionaire Anschutz wants to deface the Wyoming landscape with a thousand spinning monstrosities. He wants to put in a transmission line across five states, scenic areas, sage grouse territory, etc, to carry this to California. Setting aside the obvious dumping on Wyoming this constitutes, why do this at all? Surely LA is going to be furious when the wind stops blowing and their lights go out. That won’t be evident until enough back-up CO2 producing evil power plants are shut down, but it will happen. One cannot hide the lie behind wind forever. If the PTC and 1603 Grants end, the government (taxpayers) won’t be paying for the turbines in as high a percentage, so again, why build? Answer: RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard). Californians are forced to buy extremely expensive electricity due to their RPS goal of 33% by 2030. If the turbines are built, the owner has guaranteed income for 20 years due to power contracts. Anschutz would not keep trying to push this through if it was a money loser. (Note: California has pushed for more instate projects, which could affect this. They need jobs, it seems.)
Several newly “green” companies made their fortune in “dirty” fuels, Anschutz included. One supposes the environmentalists could claim these companies had an epiphany and now want to save the planet, but a more likely reason for the change is money can be made in so-called renewables (which are not controllable, let alone renewable). When there is no more money to be made, these “altruistic” people bail. T Boone Pickens, Google, even Al Gore have dumped “green” stocks and projects. Only Warren Buffett remains—expect him to bail if he can’t find a way to make a bundle (or can make a bundle by bailing).
BR, Chevron, Duke Energy, Excelon all have renewable energy departments. These are the “big, evil power companies” people hate, except when they build turbines and solar panels. These companies benefit from their renewable departments in two ways. First, “green” energy is great PR. These companies “care”. And, yes, people apparently buy the PR. Second, and most important, wind and solar are no threat to oil and gas. Both “renewables” cannot power a 24/7 society. Oil, gas, nuclear and hydro can. These sources will only grow as our need for electricity grows. Look at Europe and their flirting with “renewables”. Germany is reportedly burning lignite, one of the dirtiest fuels out there, because all that green energy added up to a dark Germany.
T. Boone Pickens flat-out stated turbines are ugly and he would not have them on his ranch, but he had no problem dumping them on any other area he could snap up. Anchutz reporting said he loved western vistas, but it appears only those he cannot cash in on. Al Gore, as noted above, dumped his renewable portfolio and bought Chinese medical stocks. It’s do as I say, not do as I do. That’s not caring, it’s as selfish as they come.
NBC, on July 16, basically said Third World countries wanting to be comfortable like the US are ruining the planet burning coal to stay cool with A/C. So NBC thinks Third World country’s inhabitants should be hot and miserable and possibly die while our news anchor sits in his cushy, air-conditioned studio.
Another indicator of the lack of altruism is the lack of offshore wind in the US. Wind projects are far easier to put in rural areas than affluent coastal communities. Offshore wind resources are better than onshore in most cases. Europe and Australia have many offshore turbines. Yet America has none. Not due to cost, but because powerful politicians who pushed wind refused to have their ocean views spoiled. It was so much easier to bribe Iowa farmers to use their land. Promises of increased revenues worked well on rural communities that were often cash strapped. So the affluent who demanded the turbines ran rip-shod over the poorer areas and the rural areas with fewer resources to fight the take-over while saving their own ocean views. That’s not altruism, it’s selfish.
People who want to save the world should be the first to put up solar and wind, at their own expense, on their homes and ranches. They should drive $50,000 electric cars and in live in very small homes to cut their energy use. They should lead by example.
Until you see this happening, it’s not about altruism, it’s selfish.