An American Surrender

Chalk this one up to American exceptionalism.   Fox business editor Shibani Joshi went on Fox and Friends on Thursday to deliver up some corporate-friendly red meat.  The exchange was described by Will Oremus on Slate (video included):

She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.

Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."





To be fair, as the map (from the National Resources Energy Laboratory via Slate via Media Matters) below indicates, there is a portion of the United States of America which gets as little annual sunlight as does Germany.  It's called Alaska.  And a tiny sliver of the Pacific Northwest, though not most of either Washington State or Oregon.

In the segment on GOP TV, Joshi frets over the "billions that have gone in" for subsidies to solar energy while, citing the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, she maintains "subsidies in and of themselves are not bad."

She has nothing to complain about.  According to one estimate, over the past five years the average taxpayer has coughed up $521.73 in subsidies towards fossil fuels and only $7.24 toward solar (chart, from 1bog.org):

Last October, Bloomberg Businessweek explained

The hidden costs of obtaining permits and regulators’ approval to install rooftop panels is a big reason the U.S. lags behind Germany, which leads the world in rooftop installations, with more than 1 million. The price of installed rooftop solar in Germany has fallen to $2.24 per watt. In fact, on a sunny day in May, rooftop provided all of Germany’s power needs for two hours. “This is a country on latitude with Maine,” says Dennis Wilson, president of the Mid-Atlantic Solar Energy Industries Association, a solar-installer trade group. “Germany is showing us what’s possible—if we can just get our act together.”

That’s easier said than done. Unlike the U.S., Germany has a national solar policy, a quick, inexpensive permitting process, and a national mandate that utilities sign up rooftop installations under what’s known as a feed-in tariff—essentially a long-term contract whereby the utilities agree not just to allow the solar on their grids but also to buy the excess power from consumers.

By contrast, the U.S. has more than 18,000 jurisdictions at the state and local level that have a say in how rooftop solar is rolled out, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. What’s more, electricity is supplied by investor-owned utilities, mostly state-regulated monopolies, which supply power from centralized hubs to captured consumers. Profit is in part tied to growth based on an ever-expanding demand as populations increase.

Rooftop solar poses a threat to that model by turning consumers into producers, thereby sapping utility revenue streams. It also diminishes the need to build expensive new plants and transmission lines. The saturation limits being imposed by utilities in places with booming rooftop demand “are a bit like speed bumps,” says Mark Duda of RevoluSun, Hawaii’s largest residential rooftop installer. “They want to slow things down out of fear of being overrun by PV.”

To people such as Shibani Joshi, the federal government should resist investing more heavily in alternative energy.   Perhaps that shouldn't be surprising.  To some conservatives, American exceptionalism is a handy slogan serving as a proxy to wrapping oneself literally in the American flag.  But when it comes to development of renewable resources, the U.S.A., they fear, just can't make the grade.  But then, perhaps it's all due to the seasonally affected disorder afflicting residents of cloud-enshrouded New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and southern California.

More cynically, Digby remarks "Here in the U.S. we prefer to concentrate all our focus on fracking.  Its potentially lethal consequences give us that thrill we love.  That's what makes us so darned exceptional."




Share |

Misleading Us, Again



Nine months later, it is still happening, now on a different topic.

Back in February, 2010, President Obama employed the "belt" metaphor, maintaining at a town-hall style meeting in Nashua, N.H. "responsible families don't do their budgets the way the federal government does.   Right?   When times are tough, you tighten your belts."

The White House's obsession with fighting debt rather than recession continued throughout 2010.    David Corn in Showdown, detailing the debt negotiations between the Administration and Speaker John Boehner, writes, according to Greg Sargent

Plouffe was concerned that voter unease about the deficit could become unease about the president. The budget issue was easy to understand; you shouldn’t spend more money than you have. Yes, there was the argument that the government should borrow money responsibly when necessary (especially when interest rates were low) for the appropriate activities, just like a family borrowing sensibly to purchase a home, to pay for college, or to handle an emergency. But voters needed to know — or feel — that the president could manage the nation’s finances. The budget was a test of government competence — that is, Obama’s competence. 

The White House focused even more on the deficit following following the drubbing Democrats took in the off-year elections in 2010, when the following February

With Sperling sitting in on the presentation, Garin reinforced the White House view that Democrats had to up their game on deficit reduction. His firm had conducted extensive polling and focus groups. He told the senators that voters saw jobs as the most pressing priority. This might seem to support those Democrats who believed Obama had gone too far overboard on the deficit-reduction cruise. But when asked what the president and Congress should do to boost job creation, most voters said reduce the deficit and the debt. They had imbibed the GOP message; the problem with the economy was governmental red ink.

That was not accurate. The financial crash that triggered the economic collapse was unrelated to federal deficits. But Garin measured voter perceptions, not whether voters were correct. And he told the senators that voters would not listen to what the Democrats — including the president — had to say about jobs and investments if they did not sense that the Democrats were willing to wrestle the debt monster to the ground.

Nearly a year and a half later, in mid-2011, President Obama was still at it, claiming in a presidential address

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

At the time, Paul Krugman explained

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers — a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

Recently, Krugman has criticized the "belt" analogy, observing

maybe we can use Greece as a quick illustration of the point.

After all, you could view Greece as being like a family that overspent, got itself into debt, and whose members now have to do all the things families do when they get in that position: slash spending on inessentials, postpone medical care and other big expenses, quit their jobs and reduce their incomes — oh, wait.

That’s the key point, of course. When a family tightens its belt it doesn’t put itself out of a job. When a government tightens its belt in a depressed economy, it puts lots of people out of jobs; and this is a negative even from the government’s own, narrowly fiscal point of view, since a shrinking economy means less revenue.

Now, you might argue that slashing government spending doesn’t actually cost jobs — that is, you might argue that if you spent the past few years in a cave or a conservative think tank, cut off from any information about how austerity is working in practice. For the results of austerity policies in Europe have been as good a test as you ever get in macroeconomics, and without exception big cuts in government spending have been followed by big declines in GDP.

Right before our eyes, it is happening again.

Republican presidential candidates are thoroughly irresponsible.     Newt Gingrich, having the time of his life, promises $2.50 a gallon gas.     Mitt Romney says "solar and wind is fine except it's very expensive and you can't drive a car with a windmill on it.     That's where the dog crate goes"  (maybe not the last sentence.)    

President Obama is much better, declaring members of Congress "can either stand up for oil companies, or they can stand up for the American people.”      But he maintained his faith in austerity, contending

It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices. There just isn’t one. Anyone who tells you otherwise – any career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas – they’re not looking for a solution. They’re just looking for your vote.

Obviously Gingrich is merely a mixture of showmanship and opportunism and there is no "quick fix," as in poof! gas prices are halved.        But with oil supplies up and demand for gas (at least in the U.S.A.) down, higher prices at the pump are not merely- or primarily- a function of  declining supply or increased demand in Asia.

The President stated additionally "If we don’t develop other sources of energy, and the technology to use less energy, we’ll continue to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs."      While that's undeniably (unless you're a Republican) true in the long run, there is another factor at play at present, one which the President could point out and possible effect.

That is, euphemistically speaking, investors, doing a good imitation of speculators:  

"I don't think the oil companies are driving up the price of oil, but they like it," says Gordon Weil, of Harpswell. Weil is the former director of the Maine Energy Office and advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy, and id now a contributing writer for the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting.

"Clearly one has to be mindful of supply disruptions, but I think that the financial markets, or speculation is artificially driving the price up, that speculators latch on to any news, or prospect of bad news as an excuse to drive up the price of oil," Weil says.

Veteran Oil trader Dan Dicker agrees. He says when geopolitical flare-ups occur that involve major oil-producing countries such as Libya, or Iran, there's lots of talk about potential disruptions to the world's oil supplies. 

"And that drives alot of people who are investors and speculators to bet on a very strong price of oil going into the summer," Dicker says. "And when you have a number of new buyers coming in and a lack of sellers, you're going to have a price rise." 

The President has been loathe for the American people to understand the role of Wall Street in jacking up the price of petroleum; or that cutting budgets in an economic downturn is a drag on wages and job formation; or that if an assault weapons ban still had been in effect, the lives of six individuals may not have been snuffed out in January, 2011 in Tucson, Arizona.        Leveling with the American people and pointing us in the direction of productive change is a test of leadership President Obama has failed miserably.

Share |

Palin With Boss Limbaugh

Amidst the fluff interviews by Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters, Sarah Palin engaged in a fluff radio interview with Rush Limbaugh on November 17, 2009. She hit all the right conservative notes, almost as if she had been coached. In one such instance, Limbaugh asked her

What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?

In a rambling (is anything else even legal on the program?), The Quitting Governor alleged

I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling?

The answer to Mrs. Palin’s query came in an Associated Press article dated October 26, 2009 in which reporter Seth Borenstein noted

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

So the AP set up a blind test in which it

gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time….

Borenstein specifically notes

The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.... Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

And the last 10 years, according to NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt

are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record. Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.

Ironically, the strongest evidence of long-range global warming may have come last year with its La Nina, which typically cools the atmosphere. Though global temperatures dipped in 2008, it was the ninth hottest in the 130 years of NOAA records. Eight of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000, and the current El Nino (projected to be stronger next year) will make this year one of the nine hottest.

Clearly, the earth is warming and if enough people are as gullible as Palin apparently believes they are, the earth will continue to warm. We will not be up to the challenge if Palin can lull us into complacency with such as this:

And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters.

To Mrs. Palin, God is the not-all-powerful. Though he “created (energy) right underfoot on American soil and under our waters,” he inexplicably was on vacation when the sun and wind were created. A politician who believes she is worthy of the endorsement of the Almighty might have as much regard for renewable resources as for the value of oil, gas, and coal interests.

Memory Lapses

Writing on the democrats.com blog, a fellow named Bob Fertik argues that John McCain may be in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. He cites the following:

- McCain recent statement "But in the twenty-first century, nations don't invade other nations," an indication he might have forgotten the year 2003:

1)failure to remember key facts, such as: when elections are held, as when he stated "If we do everything right — and we can and we will — I will win in January” and the bifurcation of a nation, as when he stated on 7/14/08 (and similarly the following day) “I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia."

2)forgetting statement(s) he has made, such as:

-on 3/27/08, telling CNN "you and I could walk through those neighborhoods (of Baghdad) today; when told by the network's John Roberts that the latter later was told otherwise by General Petraeus and retired general Barry McCaffrey, McCain replied "“Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that";

-stating on 4/21/08 about the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans: "That’s why we need to go back,” he said, “to have a conversation about what to do about it. Rebuild it? Tear it down? Ya know, whatever it is" and three days later claiming “I don’t remember ever saying it;”

-referring to "President Putin of Germany," apparently forgetting that he was referring to Russia;

- after stating "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated," telling (before being confronted with the video of this statement) the late Tim Russert on Meet The Press "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics."

- asked whether Saddam Hussein is a threat, stating on CNN on 3/3/02"I believe that Saddam Hussein presents clear and present danger to the United States of America with his continued pursuit of...to acquire weapons of mass destruction" and on MSNBC on 9/17/03 "I never said that it was a, quote, clear and present danger because of weapons of mass destruction."

-according to syndicated columnist, Robert Novak, complained to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund that Justice Samuel Alito "wore his conservatism on his sleeve," then later that day claiming "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that."

Oops! Fertik posted on August 13, 2008. Now, on August 15, 2008, thanks to thinkprogress.org, we learn that John McCain is still (presumably) forgetful. The previous day, McCain had told Walter Isaacson at the Aspen Institute

I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. … I’ve always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote. But my citizens in Arizona know that when I’m running for the President of the United States I have to be out campaigning.

Except that the Arizona Senator missed : in July, a vote which would have extended wind and solar credits to December and according to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, "has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year;" in June, a vote on the Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation (co-sponsored, obviously, by arguably McCain's most ardent supporter); in February, a vote (which failed by one) on extending tax credits to renewable sources of energy; in December, a vote (which failed by one) ending tax subsidies for the oil energy and investing in cleaner sources of energy.

Is presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain unusually, and dangerously, forgetful? Or is his dishonesty extraordinarily impressive? You make the call.

Quote Of The Week

"The 300 million dollars is more like a game show."

-Talk show host Ed Schultz on 6/26/08 on MSNBC's "Race For The White House," commenting about John McCain's 300 million dollar offer to anyone who develops an automobile battery "to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars"

The Senate GOP Makes Its Stand

As of June 10, 2008 we now know a little more about where the Repub Party (at least in the United States Senate) stands on the issue of the American consumer.

On that day, Senate Republicans blocked two measures proposed by Democrats. One, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, would have "impose(d) a windfall profits tax of 25 percent on the major oil companies, the proceeds going to subsidize new renewable energy." According to Raymond J. Learsy on yahoo.com, "it would have given government the leeway to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against the OPEC oil cartel (the forever oil lobby and administration stymied NOPEC legislation) and made energy price gouging a federal crime." It fell nine votes short (51 to 43) of the 60 votes which would have been needed to break a GOP filibuster.

The other bill failed on a 50-44 vote and would have extended tax credits for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. The tax credits would have been paid for by increased taxes on hedge-fund managers, and so offended Repub lawmakers.

We have, clearly, a Repub Party opposed to the American consumer and alternative energy. But the GOP, never a party to "gloom and doom" politics, is maintaining a positive outloook: it stands foursquare in favor of OPEC, high energy prices, and white collar crime.