Dave Roberts things that progressives are failing on Solyndra:
Watching this unfold over the last week, I keep thinking back to “Climategate.” When it first broke back in late 2009, lefties and bloggers and Dem lawmakers just ignored it, because it was obviously dumb. This left the field entirely open to a massive attack from the right, coordinated among ideological media, staffers, lobbyists, and pols. When the left finally stirred itself to action, all that emerged were a bunch of long, boring investigations into the details and good-faith efforts to be fair about how both sides a point. By the time five separate investigations had cleared the scientists of all wrongdoing, the damage was done. Now we’re seeing the same script play out again.
Cons understand post-truth politics. They understand that truth is utterly inert in an era when mainstream institutions are viewed with hostility and skepticism, the media is fractured, and there are no shared norms or referees to enforce them. The side that wins is the side that plays to its audience’s existing preconceptions with a simple message repeated over and over and over again in multiple venues.
That’s what is happening now around Solyndra. The right is going after this whole hog, trying to make the name synonymous with clean energy boondoggle. And the left is flailing around, throwing out this fact and that fact with no coherent message. Lord am I tired of watching this script play out.
Keep in mind that Roberts starts this article by saying that “the truth behind the episode isn’t entirely clear yet,” (actually I think the truth is quite clear, and it’s a positive story to tell about the success of these Energy Department loan guarantees) but that the facts aren’t the most important part of this.
I don’t know, I think what Ed Markey said above is largely in line with what I and most people have been saying about this. This is a transparent efforts to try and put a death grip on green jobs, and it ignores all the wasteful subsidies that government gives to the dirty energy industry. Those subsidies have been tops on the list of Democratic talking points for months and were just put into the President’s jobs bill as a pay-for. I think it’s more about the left being self-loathing and not having the megaphone rather than a lack of message.
Furthermore, loan guarantees in high-reward industries are inherently risky but also offer great promise, and this is no different than any other free market transaction. Stephen Lacey has to talk slowly to explain how loan guarantees work, and he manages to point out that the nuclear industry wouldn’t exist without such guarantees. Somehow this doesn’t crease the skull of the conservatives who want to kill greentech.
Most important, the White House is moving right along and continuing to make loan guarantees for renewable projects. That’s good, because they have been mostly successful, and they have the potential to revamp the entire energy industry. It should be a point of pride.
And if the worst that happens is a Jon Stewart segment amping this up into scandal territory, then fine. But the choice is clear: continue to feed billions to dirty energy and nuclear, or give renewables, which have the potential to transform the planet, a chance to compete.




4 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Price Anderson shelds nuclear owners of liability for nuclear accidents. No current nuke would have been built without that subsidy.
The drill now, build in American energy crowd support providing up to $50 billion in loan guarantees for new nukes. No new nuke will ever be built without it.
Im old enough to remember all the government loan guarqntees for synthetic fuels plants, to get America off foreign oil and create gasoline from coal. Billions were promised and wasted. The industry is today trivial if not extinct. Todays biggest boondoggle, promoted by coal interests, was to pour tens of billions into so called clean coal technologies and carbon capture technlogies. Total waste, but they only pushed that as long as there was a threat of a carbon tax or cap n trade rule.
Oil, gas and coal survive today because the government shields consumers from the externalities, all the environmental and health costs of smog, Nox, Sox and rocks, mercury, and other pollution and carbon based global warming. The value of those subsidies must be in the trillions.
Solar cant compete yet when the playing field is not level, and it will never be level. There are trillions available to make sure it will never be level. There is no free market. Never use that term when talking about energy. If you want solar, you will have to pay for it and fight for your subsidies and against their subsidies. That is what is going on here. The carbon and nuke interests are fighting to kill the solar subsidies, while lobbyng against taking away tax breaks for them.
The competition is not about markets but about relative corruption. And you have to watch the people who make the allocations, because with billions to be awarded, corruption is always in the room or right outiside the door, and often coming from the White House or a Committe chairman. And we live in a very corrupt age. Ths is economic war for survivial, and the other side understands this very well.
My question, and I’m not an expert, is whether DOE should be subsidizing commodity manufacturing in the the US. Where is the evidence that the US can compete in those kinds of industries? The US has one company, First Solar, that can compete in the global marketplace and their technology is highly dependent on rare earths from China. They’ve received over $5 billion in DOE loan guarantees and have a couple thousand US employees, with most of their manufacturing in Southeast Asia.
It’s a little more complicated than a simple matter of the wisdom in investing in green technology.
1. news report: The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.
2. The loan was part of the STIMULUS program that was supposed to increase employment. Did it? While the Obama administration promised it would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show.
3. Solyndra’s success depended upon continuing high silicon prices, a losing gamble as it turned out.
4. Obama hustled the loan along despite warnings, according to emails. “The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
All of that money is a drop in the bucket compared to what coal, oil and nukes get. As Scarecrow’s already mentioned, the decades-old Price-Anderson Act, which shields nuclear power plant owners and operators from the financial consequences of plant accidents, is what makes nuclear power possible in this country. No other energy source requires this sort of propping up to be viable.