The new protectionism: renewable energy industry’s shameless self-promotion

According to Christopher Flavin, the President emeritus of the Worldwatch Institute, in a few years’ time wind energy will not need to be subsidised.  Oh wait!  He said that back in 1984.

And he was not alone, Booz, Allen & Hamilton  did a report in 1983 saying the same thing as did Amory Lovins and the American Wind Energy Association testified that California Energy Commission had predicted wind would soon be cheaper than all other plants.

Politicians and the mainstream media persist in their faith in the pronouncements these ideologically committed and interested parties continue to make.

And so it is here in Australia. The debate on the continuation of the Renewable Energy Target continues, even though its direct impost on the Australian community will be $29-38 billion, and its indirect costs much greater.

One of the mouthpieces for the industry, Business Spectator’s Tristan Edis, has declared that the rorters of the energy consumer in the wind industry find it totally unacceptable that the Renewable Energy Target should be reduced. They want their subsidies maintained.

Earlier this week there was an “emergency  Clean Energy Summit” meeting called by the South Australian Premier.  According to its  Communique seventy “clean energy and community leaders” attended but, in addition to the usual array of state public servants, these seem to have been confined to the renewable industry royalty and their advisers.

Speakers included John Hewson, who demonstrated his incisive wit by saying, “if you’re talking about barnacles, get rid of this one.” (and no, he did not mean get rid of the RET).  Also preaching was Ross Garnaut who “discussed the underlying economics influencing the sector and explained that Australia has a natural advantage for low-cost production of renewable energy. He explained how the low cost of renewables would create a cost advantage for local industry into the long-term future.”  There would have been some insights there!

The Summit urged the government to keep forcing consumers to give money to the industry so that it could continue to employ people and finance campaigns that undermine the economy.

With a product that cannot possibly be competitive without massive subsidies, it is understandable that the renewables sector would target a great deal of their expenditure on marketing to the political actors and into Get Up’s  tv ads.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The new protectionism: renewable energy industry’s shameless self-promotion

  1. Driftforge

    The current push to slot both nuclear and existing hydro into the RET as a means of de-clawing it without eliminating it or even changing the target holds some promise as a politically achievable goal.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Speakers included John Hewson, who demonstrated his incisive wit by saying, “if you’re talking about barnacles, get rid of this one.”

    Didn’t he mean himself? Expelling him from the Liberal Party and sending him an ALP membership form would be an efficient barnacle removal exercise.

    I would be quite willing to sit down with Mr Hewson and to go through the climate data, which shows there is no problem and that therefore there is no justification for RET. But I doubt he would surface from his prayers to Gaia long enough to listen.

  3. H B Bear

    Given the amount of money thrown at the Australian vehicle manufacturing sector over 80 years I think the windmill rent-seekers will be pretty relaxed.

  4. Empire

    Also known as corruption.

  5. Baa Humbug

    The gutless pussilanimouses aka Liberals could hit these rent seeking carpetbaggers out of the park by stating that anybody wishing to “invest” their hard earned in the renewable sector are free to do so for all their worth and reap the benefits of such action. Govt intervention not needed.

  6. Bring on low energy nuclear reactions. Never mind the almost limitless energy. I’d want it just to see the ashen faces of green cronyists upon the realisation that the gravy train was utterly dead.

    Seeing the ashen faces of green cronyists? Priceless!

  7. Didn’t he mean himself? Expelling him from the Liberal Party and sending him an ALP membership form would be an efficient barnacle removal exercise.

    Barnacle? doesn’t he mean a barnacle’s barnacle? Hewson being PM would have committed the country to how many terms in the wilderness? Hewson = dick. The only thing worse than a liberal elitist, is a left-wing elitist. May he be excluded from cocktail parties for infinity.

  8. incoherent rambler

    Bring on low energy nuclear reactions. Never mind the almost limitless energy.

    Given the total amount of taxpayer funds wasted on wind/solar schemes (and govt. idiocy like the CCA) to this point of time, may we ask how many nukes (modern coal generators) could we have built with the wasted money?

  9. gabrianga

    SKY TV must have missed this opportunity to interview their “former Liberal Leader” , John Hewson, on the benefits of “renewables”?

    Who knows? Perhaps SKY had concerns that their “neutral” mouthpiece would have his (self) interests exposed?

    What is it with the Lord Wentworths of the Eastern Suburbs that they morph into failed Leaders of the Wet Party?

  10. Roger

    Isn’t Hewson himself involved in one or some of these rent seeking companies? Anyone remember?

  11. Percy

    Isn’t Hewson himself involved in one or some of these rent seeking companies?

    Yep

    The Asset Owners Disclosure Project is an independent
    not-for-profit global organisation whose objective is to protect members’ retirement savings from the risks posed by
    climate change by improving the level of disclosure and industry best practice.

Comments are closed.