German business leaders criticise cost of EU-driven renewable energy policy
The front page of Handelsblatt reports that more than 40 of Germany’s top business managers have criticised German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s energy and industrial policies. They criticise in particular renewable energy, which member states have to promote due to strict EU limits, writing: “renewable energy, especially solar energy, will cause significant extra costs in the future and have already cost €8 billion this year alone”.
Hey, I wonder if we’re actually following Germany’s lead and cutting the cascade of “green economy waste? From E&E Daily (subscription required, h/t American Energy Alliance) — or see WaPo’s whining today here, aptly titled “Robbing Peter…”, if not for the reasons they intend:
Warm Boot: In Fitting Eulogy to Cap-and-Raid, White House Quietly Removes All References to Policy on Energy and Environment Website — Like It Never Happened. E&E News (8/19, subs. req’d) reports, “The White House has recently revised its energy and environment website, stripping references to a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases and a pledge to funnel $150 billion into clean energy research. Gone from the site is a section titled “Closing the Carbon Loophole and Cracking Down on Polluters.” The website had pledged to “finally close the carbon pollution loophole” by stemming emissions through a market-based cap, according to a version obtained by Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute, but the updated version omits any mention of cap and trade. The changes were likely made on June 23, according to Peter Bray, co-founder of Versionista, a company that tracks changes to websites. Senate Democrats continued a last-minute push for a sweeping climate and energy bill throughout June, but prospects for passage appeared grim and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) punted on an energy and climate bill in late July. The updated site also omits a pledge from President Obama to invest $150 billion in clean energy research and development over 10 years. That may be because the White House won’t have a way to fund the commitment; Obama’s 2010 budget slated $120 billion from cap-and-trade climate revenue toward clean energy technologies. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
That’s wonderful . . . so long as it comes with an admission of the boondoggle. Otherwise, we’ll be back here soon enough, claiming that mandating economic redundancies and expensive electricity will “grow the economy.”