Warmists Seem Very Confused That Skeptics Would Embrace “Renewables”

18 Jul, 2016 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

Apparently, all Republicans/Climate Skeptics are only allowed to push for coal and oil usage

For Republicans, clean energy boom, shifting ties test climate change stance

Texas Congressman Lamar Smith has made a name for himself as one of the country’s leading climate change deniers, issuing subpoenas to state attorneys general investigating oil companies and questioning the scientific chops of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But earlier this month, the San Antonio Republican was back in his seat as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology arguing to expand government spending on solar and energy storage technologies. Avoiding terms like fossil fuels or climate change, Smith stuck to statements like, “breakthroughs in energy storage are one of the next frontiers, without costly subsidies or mandates.”

The seeming contradiction of endorsing government research into clean technology while arguing against one of its fundamental reasons for being – climate change – is not uncommon in Washington these days. As Republicans maintain their party’s long-standing blockade against action to reduce carbon emissions, they also are embracing a renewable energy industry that is driving investment and jobs in GOP strongholds like Texas.

That part I put in bold is exactly the problem with Leftists/Warmists: they think that the only reason for “clean technology” – which is often anything but, so let’s refer to this as renewables, which isn’t perfect either – is to solve ‘climate change.’

However, from our point of view, we support all of the above.

We support wind, we just do not want it slapped up in these big wind farms that fail to capture the energy they say it will, kill lots of birds, chopping them to pieces, blighting the landscape, and leaving messes when they collapse on their giant concrete pads
We support solar, we just don’t like these giant farms that provide a lot less energy than they said it would, leaves a toxic mess from production, and sucks up vast amounts of taxpayer money for failed projects.
We support hydrothermal. Dams and such.
We would prefer that the private sector do this, but, if government is going to use our money, it should be for research and development first, to create viable technology that has a smaller footprint and actually provides the energy it claims it provides. And the loans need to be paid back.
Many of us are not big fans of coal and oil, not due to greenhouse gases, but because they are dirty. We also understand, though, that they work for the lowest price, and the best way to bring people out of poverty is reliable, inexpensive energy.
We aren’t the ones running around the world clamoring about doom from a tiny increase in CO2 while using vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Democrats prefer projects that are simply payback to Democratic Party donors using taxpayer money. Whether the project works is not even a consideration, especially since hardcore environmental groups will protest the projects, and try and shut them down.

There is no cognitive dissonance for our stance. We believe in an all of the above strategy. But let’s do it wisely. And our version of “clean” is about protecting the environment, not stopping a tiny increase in CO2 that has virtually nothing to do with the current Holocene warm period.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.