By Rich Kozlovich
On December 17, 2013
I read an article by Bonner R. Cohen, a senior fellow with the
National Center for Public Policy Research, entitled, “Ohio
Legislature Considers Softening Renewable Mandates”. He
goes on to inform his readers that Ohio legislators are deciding what to do about
Ohio’s renewable power mandates
Ohio’s history with energy mandates he points out; “Ohio’s utilities are required to produce 12.5 percent of
their power from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, and hydropower, by
2025. Another 12.5 percent must come from so-called “advanced energy,”
"such as clean coal or state-of-the-art nuclear generators. In Ohio, this
is known as the 25 by 25 standard."
There’s a problem
though. Ohio’s electricity costs have unnecessarily risen 9% as a result –“triple the 3 percent rise in U.S.
electricity prices.” Promoters of so-called ‘renewable’ energy
promised quick development that would be cost effective. Really? Where did they
get the figures to demonstrate that? Or perhaps this was merely more green
Renewable energy ideas have been
failures since the Carter administration, and there have been no technological
advancements so great so as to make anyone believe solar, wind, or even
bio-fuels, could ever deliver anywhere near the energy value generated by
traditional energy producers.
cannot survive on its own. Without subsidies or mandates it would have never
gotten off the ground in the first place. We need to understand that wind and
solar energy are only alternatives to each other – not to traditional energy
sources, and if left on their own –they’re not even alternatives to each other.
Why? Because traditional power plants are required as back-up and power plants
don’t work like your electric switch. They can’t just be shut off or turned on.
Traditional energy plants have to be running all the time in order to produce
the energy we need, including times when there's a surge in demand, which neither
wind nor solar can deliver. That means we’re paying for energy we’re not using
and energy we don’t need.
Now we have what is
being called the shale revolution, AKA, fracking! This is becoming a gigantic
economic boost to every state in the nation, and every country in the world,
that has wisely chosen to adopt fracking “though
special interest lobbyists are fighting hard to preserve their market
carve-outs”, and environmentalists are still publically protesting
fracking, claiming there are safety issues – although they can’t seem to demonstrate
any of their claims are anything more than mere speculation.
It appears the chairman of the Ohio Senate Public Utilities
Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), wants to scrap this mandate law, which he supported in 2008.
However, he's willing to accept compromises which would “impose only modest reforms”. Apparently Seitz - and I have no
doubt he isn't alone in this - has waffling issues, since while talking
compromise he says he may pursue legislation to repeal the whole thing in 2014. If the bill is doing “more harm than good” (what good he may
be talking about here escapes me entirely) then what’s the problem? Don’t
waffle - dump the mandates!
The author claims
Ohio “has poor solar and wind
power potential compared to other states”; Seitz feels “the
in-state mandate may well violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause,
which prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state goods and
services”; the price of electricity has gone up; solar and wind enterprises
are on their last leg; “so-called green
energy mandates like those that were passed in [the
2008 bill by] the Strickland administration fly in the face of free-market
economics and placing the state in a position to unfairly and unwisely “pick
winners and losers in the energy business through fiat”. So after all of that, what's
the argument for keeping energy mandates, and what's the argument for
First and foremost, we need clarity. This whole alternative energy
problem came into being because the green movement, supported by the media,
academia, and political leaders had everyone believing the world was running
out of traditional energy sources, including oil, natural gas and coal. That
was a lie – they knew it - many of us who have been following this for years
also knew it. Then
this same cabal attempted to convince the world [and did so for some time] that
traditional energy sources producing C02 was going to destroy the world via
“global warming”. That was a lie – they knew it – and those of us who have followed
the issue also knew it.
But the beauty of
truth is it will very patiently wait for us. What is truth? Truth is the
sublime convergence of history and reality. Everything has an historical
foundation and context, and everything we’re told should bear some resemblance
to what we see going on in reality. If what we’re presented fails in either
those criteria – it’s wrong!
The world is finally
catching on that global warming, as a crisis, is claptrap, CO2 doesn’t cause
it, and CO2 isn’t a pollutant. In fact we’re living in a CO2 starved world.
Past warming periods didn’t cause any of the disasters their predicting for
modern times and mankind had nothing to do with the Earth’s cooling or warming
periods then, nor does mankind have anything to do with them now.
So why don’t
legislators stop being ambivalent on this issue and outright abandon mandates
entirely? European nations – who arrogantly and self-righteously looked down
their collective noses at the U.S. because the Senate refused to adopt the
Kyoto Accords and cap and trade standards – are now in "full retreat on their unilateral
climate policies "– including "binding renewable targets".
Energy mandates are
expensive failures and all the reasons for adopting them have been shown to be
wrong. If The E.U., which has been notoriously green, can be that decisively
anti-green, in spite of the fury this has generated among European Greens, I
would think any American legislator could do as well without even having to
think about it.