By Marita Noon
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Last week, while America dithered over whether or not to
depose Syria’s president, an ocean away, a different leader was decisively
dumped. The election of Australia’s new prime minister has international
implications.
On September 5, in a landslide election, Tony Abbot
became Australia’s new Prime Minister—restoring the center-right
Liberal-National coalition after six years of leftward economic polices.
Conservatives the world over are looking to learn from Abbott. In the Wall
Street Journal (WSJ), Tom Switzer, sums up the “resounding victory” this way:
“Abbott did the very thing so many US Republicans and British Tories have shied
away from in recent years: He had the courage to broaden the appeal of a
conservative agenda rather than copy the policies of his opponents. As a
result, Australians enjoyed a real choice at the polls.”
Conservatives have a right to be rejoicing. As Jerry
Bowyer points out in Forbes: “the Anglosphere is now post progressive. The
English speaking nations of the world: England, New Zealand, Canada and now
Australia are governed by conservatives. America stands apart from them as the
sole remaining major leftist-governed power in the Anglo world.” He then points
out how the English-speaking peoples “tend to move in a sort of partial
political sync with one another.”
While this should sound alarms for liberals, the real
panic is with the global warming alarmists.
Abbott is said to have run a “tight campaign”—though he
was “remarkably vague over his economic plans.” The Financial Times reports:
“Abbott was much clearer on his intention to scrap a carbon tax and a levy on
miners’ profits.”
Abbott ran an almost single-issue campaign saying: “More
than anything, this election is a referendum on the carbon tax.” While there
are debates as to whether or not he will have the votes needed in the Senate to
overturn the Labor Party’s policies (though it looks like he can do it), the
will of the people couldn’t be clearer. As Switzer observes: “what changed the
political climate was climate change.” In Slate.com, James West calls the
election “the culmination of a long and heated national debate about climate
change.” Abbot has previously stated: “Climate change is crap.”
Add to the Abbot story, the news about the
soon-to-be-published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's “fifth
assessment report,” which “dials back on the alarm,” and you’ve got bad news
for alarmists. Addressing Abbott’s win, West writes: “Politicians enthusiastic
about putting a price on carbon in other countries must be looking on in
horror.”
It is not just the politicians who are “looking on in
horror.” It is everyone who has bought into, as the WSJ calls them, “the
faddish politics of climate change”—those who believe we can power the world on
rainbows, butterflies, and fairy dust are panicked. Their entire world view is
being threatened.
This was clearly evident at last week’s hearing in Santa
Fe, New Mexico, regarding the proposed change in compensation for electricity
generated by rooftop solar installation. The hearing was scheduled in a room
typically used for Public Regulatory Commission meetings. Well before the
scheduled start time, it became clear that a bigger auditorium was needed—and
it was filled to capacity. The majority was, obviously, there in support of
solar—they were carrying signs. Thirty-nine of them gave public comment in
opposition to the proposed rule changes. After each comment, they hooted,
cheered and waved their signs—until the Chairman prohibited the sign waving.
Two of the women went by only one name “Lasita” and “Athena,” with no last
name—linking themselves to some goddess. Several referenced Germany’s success
with renewable energy.
They were organized, rabid in their support, and
intimidating to anyone who dared disagree. At one point, the Sierra Club
representative, took control of the hearing and, completely ignoring the
Chairman’s instructions, stood in the front of the room and, with hand-waving
gestures, got everyone who was there in opposition to the proposed change to
stand up and wave their signs. A smattering of individuals remained seated.
Three of us spoke in favor of the proposed change. I brought up those who’d
held up Germany as a model to follow and posited that they didn’t know the full
story.
At the conclusion of the meeting, a petite woman marched
up to me and demanded: “What do you do?” I calmly told her that I advocate on
behalf of energy and the energy industry. “Oil?” she sneered. “Yes.” “Coal?”
“Yes.” “Gas?” “Yes.” “Nuclear?” “Yes.” “It figures,” she hissed as she went off
in a huff. When I approached my vehicle in the parking lot, I feared my tires
might have been slashed. They weren’t.
Australia’s election was early this month. Germany’s is
later—September 22. As climate change played a central role in Australia’s
outcome, green policies are expected to be front and center in Germany’s
election.
In an article titled: “Ballooning costs threaten Merkel’s
bold energy overhaul,” Reuters points out that Merkel’s priority, assuming she
wins a third term, “will be finding a way to cap the rising cost of energy.”
“In the current election campaign,” Der Spiegel reports, “the federal
government would prefer to avoid discussing its energy policies entirely.”
Later, addressing Germany’s renewable energy policy it states: “all of
Germany’s political parties are pushing for change. … If the government sticks
to its plans, the price of electricity will literally explode in the coming
years.”
German consumers pay the highest electricity prices in
Europe. “Surveys show people are concerned that the costs of the energy
transformation will drive down living standards.” Spiegel claims: “Today, more
than 300,000 households a year are seeing their power shut off because of
unpaid bills.” Stefan Becker, with the Catholic charity Caritas, wants to
prevent his clients from having their electricity cut off. He says: “After
sending out a few warning notices, the power company typically sends someone to
the apartment to shut off the power –leaving the customers with no functioning
refrigerator, stove or bathroom fan. Unless they happen to have a camping
stove, they can't even boil water for a cup of tea. It's like living in the
Stone Age.” This is known as Germany’s “energy poverty.”
Because of “aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and
solar power,” as Der Spiegel calls it, “Government advisors are calling for a
completely new start.” Gunther Oettinger, European Energy Commissioner, advised
caution when he said Germany should not “unilaterally overexpose itself to
climate protection efforts.”
While the solar supporters in Santa Fe touted the German
success story—“more and more wind turbines are turning in Germany, and solar
panels are baking in the sun”—“Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually
released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in
2011.” Surprisingly, according to Der Spiegel, Germany’s largest energy
producer, E.on, is being told not to shut down older and inefficient coal-fired
units. Many of the “old and irrelevant brown coal power stations” are now
“running at full capacity.”
Interestingly, one of the proposed solutions for
Germany’s chaotic energy system is much like what has been proposed in New
Mexico and Arizona. Reuters writes: “instead of benefiting from a rise in green
energy, they are straining under the subsidies’ cost and from surcharges.” The
experts propose a system more like Sweden’s, in which “the government defines
the objective but not the method.” Der Spiegel explains: “The municipal
utilities would seek the lowest possible price for their clean electricity.
This would encourage competition between offshore and terrestrial wind power,
as well as between solar and biomass, and prices would fall, benefiting
customers.” If implemented, the Swedish model “would eliminate the more than
4,000 different subsidies currently in place.”
The Financial Times reports: “Nine of Europe’s biggest
utilities have joined forces to warn that the EU’s energy policies are putting
the continent’s power supplies at risk.” It states: “One of the biggest
problems was overgenerous renewable energy subsidies that had pushed up costs
for energy consumers and now needed to be cut.”
“It is only gradually becoming apparent,” writes Der
Spiegel, “how the renewable energy subsidies redistribute money from the poor
to the more affluent, like when someone living in small rental apartment
subsidizes a homeowner's roof-mounted solar panels through his electricity
bill.” Sounds just like what I said in my public comment at the PRC hearing in
Santa Fe.
Australia’s election changed leaders. Germany’s election
will likely keep the same leader, but Merkel “has promised to change but not
abolish the incentive system right after the election.”
While other countries are changing course and shedding
the unsustainable policies, America stands apart from them by continuing to
push, as the Washington Post editorial board encourages, building “the cost of
pollution into the price of energy through a simple carbon tax or other
market-based mechanism.” President Obama’s nominee to chair the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Ron Binz, believes in regulation and incentives to force
more renewables and calls natural gas a “dead end.”
In a September 5 press release with the headline:
“Administration Should Learn From Australia’s Carbon Tax Failure Before
Committing US to Same,” Senator David Vitter (R-LA) says: “We can add Australia
as an example to the growing list of failed carbon policies that are becoming
so abundant in Europe.”
It is said: “The wise man learns from the mistakes of
others, the fool has to learn from his own.” Sadly, it appears that the US has
not learned to beware of the foolish politics of climate change.
No comments:
Post a Comment