"The American Energy Alliance (AEA) was founded in 2008 by Thomas Pyle, who
previously lobbied on behalf of the National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association and Koch Industries and who previously worked for Congressman Tom
Delay (R-TX), when Delay served as Whip and before Delay, as House Majority
Leader, stepped down from the U.S. House of Representatives under an ethical
cloud."AEA states that its aim is to "create a climate that
encourages the advancement of free market energy policies" and in particular
ensure drilling for oil is allowed in the Artic National Wildlife refuge and in
US coastal waters."On its website it lists the Institute for Energy
Research (IER) as a "partner" organization and states that it is the
"grassroots arm" of IER. AEA states that, by "communicating
IER’s decades of scholarly research to the grassroots, AEA will empower
citizens with facts so that people who believe in freedom can reclaim the moral
high ground in the national public policy debateys in the energy and
So this guy opposes incentives for new renewable energy businesses.
Where's his outrage over the billions in government handouts to fossil
fuels over the last century -- from the Obamacare needed for coal miners'
black lung disease to government clean up efforts in the Mexican Gulf for
BP's oil spill and West Virginia's coal chemical spill to our military
operations in Iraq to protect oil and escort oil tankers from the Middle East?
What about government subsidies for water, gas and oil pipelines,
powerlines, etc. to support fossil fuels? And Big Oil continues to rake in Big
Profits ... talk about government picking "winners" for America's
energy future... I doubt if the writer has ever breathed Utah air
-- thick and raw -- the way we breath (and get sick) by it. Even our governor
says we're losing new business opportunities due to it turning off
visitors/business leaders looking to set up shop in Utah when they see our
polluted inversions. So what's this guy's solution?
Since when did the Deseret News start publishing for free positioning statements
for the Koch brothers? Good grief, the transparency in agenda is getting supper
thin. And when the premise of the "article" is based on a 2009 Spanish
research paper... you have to wonder just how desperate this group is
getting.The Koch brothers want to see nothing deviate any revenue
from their holdings - understandably. But this has absolutely nothing to do
with good or bad policy. The sham here is these pseudo 'grass roots"
organizations they claim to be public policy organizations - when in reality
they are just extensions of corporate policy groups pretending to be concerned
citizens. This is pure economic interest by a couple of dubious business
characters. Koch Brothers has received far in excess "corporate
welfare" in the form of subsidies and preferred tax treatment than will ever
be spent on subsidizing emerging technologies.
And Pyle didn't say anything about all the money and the sad effect on the
market that the Ethanol fiasco has brought to us. Thanks, Thomas,
for reminding us of the many bad decisions we have allowed to have been made in
the name of 'Green".
I'll bet you $100 the left will attack the author's background, and
not directly discuss what he said, the actual info about the failed projects
(I'm sure there are huge successes too) or his message (instead of his
background) or contradict what he said with facts instead of emotional
rejection. I think this is something worth looking at with an open
mind (not saying the author had an open mind, but we should).
The environmentalist dream of using our food supply to create Ethanol is also
dubious. It currently takes more fuel to grow the crops needed to create a
gallon of ethanol than it creates.It's a shell game. You burn
more than a gallon of gas cultivating the corn to generate a gallon of
ethanol.Same with electric cars. It seems clean, but you burn tons
of coal to power an electric car (dirtier for the air than burning natural gas
or unleaded).We need to keep developing the technology of the
future. But we gotta quit fooling ourselves by pretending we are already there
and don't need more traditional forms of energy now.And the
government SHOULD be more careful with our money, and make sure if they give it
to a Solyndra.. that they are actually making something, and not just paying the
CEOs huge salaries and then laying everybody off and going bankrupt.
2 Bits....how do you respond to an essay far north 1000 words... in 200? How
do you counter distortions.For example, the number of
"failed" companies that the US supported argument? To do a
comprehensive response, you would need to look across administrations and across
industries to create a baseline of what is normal. As an example, you can
look at the number of automotive companies and their suppliers that did work for
the government or research based on grants from the government - that have
failed. The numbers there make Solendra look like lost pocket change found in
the sofa. Another example.... Halliburton "misplace" or
could not account for up 18 Billion dollars paid to them under the sole source
no-bid contract awarded them. 18 Billion. Again, makes all the other
"controversies" look like pocket change.Failed companies is
all part of emerging markets. Railroads at one time were hugely government
sponsored endeavors, and most ended up bankrupt. Not to much squealing about
those. And yet those that survive do so largely on land that was granted them
by the government.
I don't know if the writer of this article was biased or not. The problem
I see is that the comments seem more biased because they make no effort to
refute what he says, they only blindly attack his credibility. For example
justifying tax credits and government subsidies by saying, the non-green energy
producers get subsidies, is like trying to justify cheating on taxes by saying,
everyone does it.In my opinion all tax credits and subsidies should
be discontinued for all energy producers, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind,
solar, geothermal, etc., but then that would throw a lot of lobbyists out of a
job. If there is a profit to be made private investors will put up the financial
support. Private investors are not as likely as the government to be ripped
off. If their investment fails, at least they were the ones that freely made the
choice to invest. The taxpayers have no choice in how their taxes are spent.
Brer Rabbit, you have hit on another faction in this 'corporate
welfare' issue. Whether it is Haliburton or one of Obama's pet
recipients, there should be strict accountability or no taxpayer's help at
all. Our leaders have allowed this thing to get way out of hand like so many
other issues in DC.
2Bits: "I'll bet you $100 the left will attack the author's
background..."You don't think that it's relevant to
observe that the author of a fluff piece critical of clean, renewable energy is
authored by a guy whose parent organization is funded by the oil industry?A demand for more accountability and transparency? Sure! Bring it!
But may we also expect the same to apply to the massive taxpayer subsidies of
the oil industry?
"Private investors are not as likely as the government to be ripped off. If
their investment fails, at least they were the ones that freely made the choice
to invest. The taxpayers have no choice in how their taxes are spent."Your kidding right? Private investors like those the lost everything
with Enron? Have we forgotten those already? Or how about the S&L collapse
and bailout? What about Bank of America today agreeing to pay over 8.5 Billion
to settle claims against business practices by the acquired Countrywide unit.
How many times do we need to see stuff like this to disprove this
"corporations do it better". Chevy, Chrysler, AIG, American Airlines,
United Airlines, Tyco, Sears, even Apple when taken over by wall street types,
have all suffered huge collapses. "The taxpayers have no choice
in how their taxes are spent."False... every two years you do...
when you enter the ballot box at the local, state and national level. The
government has no powers other than those we the people expressly grant them.
We may not all agree on priorities... but we are the origin of their power.
Re: "The American Energy Alliance (AEA) was founded in 2008 by Thomas Pyle,
who previously lobbied on behalf of . . ."Blah, blah, blah.You can tell when a commentator strikes close to the truth by the
vitriol with which disingenuous liberals counterattack, not the message, but the
messenger.Deprived of a reasoned counterargument by the truth and
effectiveness of their enemies' assertions, liberals invariably resort to
disingenuous ad hominem attacks on those delivering the truth, hoping that this
transparent misdirection will distract the low-information crowd long enough for
them to change the subject.Sadly, way too often, it works.It doesn't change the truth or reason of the argument, mind you, but,
sadly, it can change the outcome of the debate.
Should we just automatically dismiss everything published in the Huffington Post
(because it's just Ariana Huffington's opinion paper), or anything
that comes out of the Center For American Progress (because it's owned by
George Soros), or MSNBC (because it's owned by GE)?If they have
a point... they have a point.It does no good to just put your head
in the sand and say, "They're not one of us... they can't have a
valid point of view".I don't know this guy, but it seems
like he has a good point.And just blowing it off as "Pocket
change", or "well somebody else did it first, or worse"...
doesn't feed the bulldog. Unless he's actually wrong
(not just that his credentials show he's not one of you, so he can be
automatically dismissed out of hand).I agree knowing where he works
is pertinent. But enough of the Koch Bros boggey-man tactics... that's
Abuse of green subsidies was made known to me in the 80's when I bought my
first house. The usual crowd of salesmen tried to sell us all kinds of stuff,
including a solar water heater that cost thousands, but a government subsidy
would bring our cost down to just $1600. In Tuscon AZ I could have put a black
hose on the roof ahead of the water heater and had the same effect for under
$100. Such a scam! And the government was paying for 2/3 of it. They
didn't even give us the promised water heater blanket for listening to
their pitch.When they say green energy, what they really mean is the
company is raking in the green!
My neighbor is a lobbyist for an energy company. He's not "evil".
He's one of the best people I've ever met!How is this
possible?How can he be a lobbyist in Washington... and not be an
"evil" Koch Bros clone?It IS possible you know.Maybe... just maybe... this guy is OK too. I don't know!But
I wouldn't be quick to condemn him just because you know where he works.That would be Judge-mental and closed-minded.Now if you can
prove that what he dared say is wrong or untrue... that's another story.
Another great case of "how does one find the truth of any argument ?"
Investigating the background of the person purporting to tell the truth is but
one way of starting (no matter the subject or the slant). Finding the truth
takes time and effort, but our bumper sticker cultural mentality never looks
below the surface and is satisfied when the opinion expressed agrees or not with
our personal political persuasion. The opinion of a PhD has the same weight as a
The ironic thing about the liberals here that are attacking the writer is the
fact that they don't care that the green energy companies are getting
massive subsidies from the Federal government.They complain about
the supposed subsidies that the fossil fuels and nuclear get, yet have no
problem paying 10 times that amount per MWh to somebody who uses a windmill or
solar panel.Tell us liberals, if giving a dime to fossil fuels is so
bad, why is it ok to give dollars to the mega corporations to produce green
procuradorfiscal: "Deprived of a reasoned counterargument... liberals
invariably resort to disingenuous ad hominem attacks..."2 bits:
"Should we just automatically dismiss everything published..."Providing more information about the organization a writer represents is not
in itself an ad hominem. Kalindra's post provides valuable context and
tools for evaluating the author's motives. '2 bits' is correct,
we should not automatically dismiss an opinion based on its source, but there is
nothing wrong with full disclosure. Many organizations with an agenda hide
behind neutral names (like the AEA). It is ultimately beneficial to the readers
to know more about an editorialist's background.Redshirt1701:
"Tell us liberals, if giving a dime to fossil fuels is so bad, why is it ok
to give dollars to the mega corporations to produce green energy?"I'd be glad to eliminate all government energy subsidies and let energy
production go on a total free market basis (not that I speak for all liberals by
any means). But I would insist that the free market price structure include ALL
costs associated with energy production and use. No externalized costs (which
represent subsidies), a truly free market.
If you think that it is disingenuous to point out the fact that the author is
essentially a paid lobbyist for large corporate interests, I'd simply point
out that the reverse complaints happen whenever a paid lobbyist for leftwing
interests has a column in the....Oh wait. It's the DN. It'll never
happen. Forget I said anything.
Hey -- That "evil" LDS church!How DARE they build
green, eco-friendly Stake Centers and Churches with Solar panels!Those who chide and complain, should let the brethren in Salt Lake know
how they feel, and tell them are falling into Satan's plan!
There's nothing like an objective opinion from an industry insider.
@ Procur: How is listing the author's background an attack on the author?
Is his background something he should be ashamed of? Is his job a condemnation
if his character? Is there something shady about who he works for?Why are you reading so much negativity into a statement about the
author's credentials?If his points are valid, his history is
irrelevant and my comment, therefore, is neutral. The only way my
citing his background is a negative comment on his opinion is if his background
has led him to a biased conclusion. So the question then becomes why
are you attacking me for presenting the truth of who he is? Why is it wrong for
me to state the facts of who he is and the organization he represents, but okay
for you to attack me for doing so?
What’s the real cost of wind power? For Utahns, it’s more than $17
million in handouts to big business. They paid that much money in 2012 so that
multi-national corporations could experiment with wind power on the taxpayer
dime.++++Yes and these experiments benefit us all. This
is clean energy, Also our fossil resources are finite and won't last
forever, we need to experiment now with alternatives.Oil isn't
as cheap as it seems. We spend hundreds of billions in military every year on
the military so the oil will remain available and not taken over by unfriendly
foreign powers. Imported oil ought to be taxed to pay for this protection, it
isn't. If it were oil would be more expensive and alternative forms of
energy such as wind would be less expensive by comparison.
Do a google search for this guy's name and "Green energy handouts
hurt" to see that he's submitted multiple articles by the same title,
just swapping out "Utah" for Florida, Pennsylvania, etc... within the
past week. The articles are nearly the same, changing a few paragraphs here and
there. He likely submitted this to various news outlets across the country,
shame on the DesNews for printing this propaganda. The author is literally paid
to push a dirty energy agenda. And to those chiding others for
merely presenting his background as relevant information that speaks to personal
bias, if you all cannot find 1) utter hypocrisy in an oil industry rep bemoaning
gov't subsidies, and 2) major flaws in his research methodology then you
are not truly putting an honest effort into this conversation and a detailed
rebuttal of this article would be lost on you.
I see nothing wrong with wind, solar etc., in fact I'm quite in favor of
them even given the current limitations in providing base load generation due to
their instantaneous on/off nature. What I'm not ok with is federal
subsidy of them via endless tax code credits. If they want to advance the
technology, fine - go create time-limited research organizations where goals are
set and the gained knowledge shared with anyone interested. Sematech was a good
example of that from the past. But after that, let the implementer bear the
cost of inefficiencies that may still exist. Why prop up what doesn't
carry it's own weight ?
To "LDS Tree-Hugger" Did you think that maybe the LDS church isn't
putting the solar panels on the curches for the green factor? Since the LDS
church is always encouraging its members to be prepared for disasters, maybe
they are putting the solar panels up so that when a disaster hits they will have
a facility that can still turn on lights and provide basic services during the
day.I would like to get a set of solar panels myself, but not
because of a desire to be more green. I want them so that during a disaster I
can continue to have a refrigerator and maybe a hot plate for cooking.