The Political Economy of Solar Farms

by James A. Bacon

I have consistently supported the expansion of solar energy in Virginia, at least up to a point where it doesn’t compromise the reliability of the electric grid. When up-front capital costs and fuel costs are taken into account, solar is the lowest cost source of electricity in Virginia. Furthermore, as a supporter of property rights, I believe that rural landowners should be free to contract with developers to build solar farms on parcels that might otherwise lie fallow or go underutilized. Building solar farms potentially could put hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of rural landowners.

But I understand why people in rural Virginia get up in arms when big solar developers want to blanket thousands of acres with solar panels. I don’t necessarily agree with their proposed remedies, but I do understand.

Virginia’s urban/rural divide is becoming more pronounced than ever. That divide is most visible in voting results and electoral maps that show a vast geographic expanse of “red” Virginia compared to concentrated, highly populated clusters in “blue” Virginia. Views differ on a wide range of issues from gun rights and abortion to taxes and climate change.

It is doctrine among Virginia’s cultural elites that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity and that the commonwealth should spare no expense to decarbonize its economy as rapidly as possible. Literally, the fate of the world is at stake. Trouble is, most “red county” residents don’t believe it. Furthermore, the cost of combating climate change, as it turns out, falls disproportionately upon “red county” Virginia.

Higher electricity prices impact every economic sector, but second only to fossil fuels, they hit manufacturing hardest — and light manufacturing is the economic underpinning of Virginia’s rural economy. University professors won’t lose their jobs if electric rates double. Government employees won’t be let go. Nonprofit organizations won’t suffer. Northern Virginia techies employed by government contractors won’t feel the sting. But rural communities very well could lose jobs . And people can’t made them up, as John Kerry suggests, by becoming solar- or wind-power technicians.

What’s more, the cultural elites don’t just want to decarbonize the electric grid. They want to decarbonize the transportation economy by driving up the cost of gasoline in a bid to phase out internal combustion cars. That’s tough on rural residents who are 100% dependent upon their automobiles to get to work — walking, biking and mass transit are not options in the boonies — and gasoline takes a bigger chomp out of their pocketbooks.

Here’s what makes decarbonization policies even harder to swallow: Urban Virginians want to build all those millions of solar panels in rural areas — not in urban areas where the greatest demand is. If urban Virginians are so hepped up on solar panels, why don’t they build them on their own rooftops, parking lots, and vacant property? They want the green power, but they want someone else to make the sacrifice.

“These things will not be built … in Reston,” observed House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, at a Jan. 27 hearing reported by The Virginia Mercury. “It’s going to completely transform the character of places that we know and love. And I’m not sure that we have fully thought through the ramifications of these policies.”

I’m not sure what rural “character” Gilbert is referring to. The number of farms in Virginia is shrinking, and so is the land devoted to agriculture. The solar farms won’t displace anyone. To the contrary, taxes and lease payments to landowners can help prop up rural economies. Solar farms will even support a few jobs. Local boards can easily enact ordinances to deal with any minor nuisances that arise.

I’m convinced that much of the opposition to solar farms comes from the desire to flash a giant middle finger to environmentalists and cultural elites. “You want our land for your stinkin’ solar panels, well F— you!”

Like I said, I get it. But that’s not a rational response. The solar revolution represents a rare opportunity for rural economic revival. It’s far better to have cost-competitive solar farms than wildly inexpensive offshore wind farms or “energy efficiency” programs of dubious economic value, none of which would benefit red-county Virginia. Rather than hinder their development, Republican legislators should be working overtime to figure out how to milk solar farms for all the economic value for their constituents that they can.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

133 responses to “The Political Economy of Solar Farms”

  1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    All mines now days require posting a bond to ensure reclamation in accordance with government standards. Watch a couple episodes of Gold Rush on TV. Both Canada and the U.S. require the miners to engage in reclamation, which often results in the creation of water ponds beneficial to wildlife.

    And “damn right,” people in Fairfax County would revolt against the construction of a solar farm within county boundaries. Panels on top of a commercial building or the roof next door are fine, but a large solar farm. And ten-to-one, some people will be screaming about the health impacts. The same ones worried about a radio antenna 65 feet in the air while they buy their kids more and more radio-connected devices.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      yep. Tell me what we do with the older mines.

      1. Here is what our new VP had to say yesterday regarding job creation in WV (and presumably SW Virginia): “All of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines.”

        So, it appears we have a lot of work to do clearing old land mines before we can get around to dealing with old coal mines.

        Who knew?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          They should take care, rusting springs mechanism are particularly deadly on old land mines.

          1. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Donald Trump is no longer president of the United States. Perhaps president Biden will reinstate Barack Obama’s ban on U.S. use of landmines (except in Korea).

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Does that mean America is great again then? Mission Misunderaccomplished

  2. Who is tracking the machinery and tools tax and real estate tax exemptions and how that
    impacts counties? It’s not tracked here.
    § 58.1-3661. Certified solar energy equipment, facilities, or devices and certified recycling equipment, facilities, or devices.

    A. Certified solar energy equipment, facilities, or devices and certified recycling equipment, facilities, or devices, as defined herein, are hereby declared to be a separate class of property and shall constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of real or personal property. The governing body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance, exempt or partially exempt such property from local taxation in the manner provided by subsection D.

    1. Taxation of solar farms is an area that rural representatives should be focusing on. They should be trying to extract as much tax value as they can.

      Giving solar farms a tax break, screwing rural counties, and subsidizing urban greenies…. let’s just say the optics aren’t good.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        ” The never-ending saga of the 500 MW Spotsylvania County solar project has added another chapter, and this one on a more positive note. sPower has partnered with a local branch of The Community Foundation to begin to distribute $25 million throughout the county, as promised during the approval process for the facility.

        As should be expected, the $25 million will not be paid as an upfront lump sum. Instead, according to a representative for sPower, the money will go into a fund set to operate in perpetuity. To achieve the lofty goal of perpetuity, sPower plans to deposit $250,000 post-haste, with the goal of having $1 million in the fund by the end of the year. Following those initial commitments, the company will add at least another $6.5 million by 2021, with a realistic outlook of the fund totaling $10 million by the end of 2021.”

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        This is dead simple. Solar farms will pay more taxes than farm land and especially land that is in the land-use category AND the property owner ought to have the “right” to use his/her land the way they want to as long as it is legal.

        What happened to “property rights’ with Conservatives these days?

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    You are constantly trying to draw some phony equivalence with urban greenies. But you never have lived in coal country, have you? There’s so much other BS in this post and comment, I’m not going to comment. Read my book.

  4. In fxco of 2200 homes 4 have panels. All can afford them and at least 20% have s or sw facing unobstructed roofs. Coincidently they have SUVs.
    Are the rest evil or ignorant?
    The last solar proposal I saw for an open ground residential install never broke even. Using 14 year battery life and 10 years for the inverters.
    So someone else is paying the tab. Ratepayer are becoming taxpayer are becoming…..
    The 1/2 built nuke sites (Surrey/Anna in Va might produce at 10 cents a kwhr as they have most infrastructure in place. Not sure. Currently VA is 29% nuke and 9% coal, so if you want green it’s waiting.

  5. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    There’s a huge solar farm in Buckingham County just off Rt. 60. They left a wooded buffer on the side facing houses.

    Solar electric will be beneficial during the summer to help with electric usage for air conditioning. It won’t help much in the winter with weather like this week – snow, several cloudy days, and cold enough temperatures that most heat pumps will need to run supplementary electric heat. That’s why the utilities still need natural gas powered generators for backup (and maybe a pipeline to carry the extra gas).

    We’re getting ready to build a house, and I’m planning to be able to add about 3 KW of phovoltaic once the local utility drops it’s objections to net metering. If they don’t allow net metering I would have to install 5 days worth of battery backup, which would destroy any payback.

    I hope that PURPA isn’t still in full effect. When it was enacted in the 70s or 80s it required utilities to buy renewable energy at their highest avoided cost. That would kill any incentive for utilities to allow net metering.

    The utility would have to be able to alter it’s pricing to charge a flat monthly fee for distribution (line construction & maintenance) costs and buy or sell the electricity at the same rate they pay APCO to make net metering feasible for them.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      If a heat pump needs to run supplementary heat in temperatures like these, then that heat pump is installed in a house that needs to be insulated AND air sealed.

      I have the supplementary heat on mine disabled such that it only comes on when the unit goes into defrost. I can enable it by flipping a switch. So far this year, I haven’t needed to.

      Thankfully newer houses have to pass a blower door test. Or do they? I know the builder that built mine did a blower door test, but I don’t know if it was required by code. I know it is in other states.

  6. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://repealvcea.com/solar-farm-list

    That link takes you to a list of all the pending projects, at some point in the approvals process. It is stunning actually. Scroll down a bit and peruse the 21 pages of projects listed….60 million panels in all.

    I’m not sure the trade off is positive, not at all. Especially with the favored tax treatment for these projects. And there are real questions about how long they will last, how they are retired and who bears that cost.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hey Dick,
      Here’s a link to watch the Charter Day stuff live from W&M on the 11th.

      https://youtu.be/LZzbXWwYgrw

      Don’t tell Haner. He’ll want to sit with us or something…

      Oops.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Thanks. I used to love to go to the Charter Day ceremony and see all the professors in their colorful academia regalia.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I should have just given the virtual engagement link.
          https://wmalumni.com/events/virtual-opportunities/index.php?utm_source=alumni_veo_opps&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=header&utm_content=veo_graphic

          Did you see the news? 17,000 applications received for Fall 2021. Blew the last record off the map!

          Haner’s okay, but his sense of the obvious was way out of whack today.

  7. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://repealvcea.com/solar-farm-list

    That link takes you to a list of all the pending projects, at some point in the approvals process. It is stunning actually. Scroll down a bit and peruse the 21 pages of projects listed….60 million panels in all.

    I’m not sure the trade off is positive, not at all. Especially with the favored tax treatment for these projects. And there are real questions about how long they will last, how they are retired and who bears that cost.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Hey Dick,
      Here’s a link to watch the Charter Day stuff live from W&M on the 11th.

      https://youtu.be/LZzbXWwYgrw

      Don’t tell Haner. He’ll want to sit with us or something…

      Oops.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Thanks. I used to love to go to the Charter Day ceremony and see all the professors in their colorful academia regalia.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          I should have just given the virtual engagement link.
          https://wmalumni.com/events/virtual-opportunities/index.php?utm_source=alumni_veo_opps&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=header&utm_content=veo_graphic

          Did you see the news? 17,000 applications received for Fall 2021. Blew the last record off the map!

          Haner’s okay, but his sense of the obvious was way out of whack today.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    I seem to remember Jim B talking about how “unreliable” solar was and how it “took” farmland, etc… etc..

    But he’s coming around a little when he talks about how farmers who own land actually do have a right to use their land productively and contribute to the economy. Good for You!

    In terms of “who bears the cost” – how about this:

    https://appvoices.org/images/campaigns/mtr/sheep_knob.jpg

    are we using a double standard?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      You are, unless you see them both as a concern. And of course there is every reason to suspect that post reclamation that mining property looked different. That shot is pre-reclamation and looks EXACTLY how a solar construction site looks at some point.

      The COST of mine reclamation was borne by the mining firm and passed on to the consumers in the price. Will the same be true of solar farms? Unknown at this time.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        It’s ALWAYS been a concern with EVERY energy source. It’s not something new with solar and I bet you dollars to donuts it’s nowhere near the level of mountaintops removed or coal ash piles.

        The “cost” of mine reclamation ? If it is a miner responsibility then why is solar a higher level concern that needs to be looked at – ESPECIALLY when we seem to have done such a piss poor job of mountaintops and coal ash piles?

        just more boogeyman stuff… compare solar remediation to trying to put a mountain back together. No contest.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Not sure if Jim thinks me correct or Larry….Clear cutting and tearing off the topsoil on an area the size of Fairfax County for solar is indeed quite similar to what was done with the open coal mines, and in fact may involve much more acreage. But facts mean nothing to Larry….

          In the mining industry the rules on reclamation are in place. Are they for solar? Betcha they aren’t…..

          1. I was agreeing with you. Land torn by by coal mines have to be reclaimed. Coal companies post bond to ensure that enough money will be available to cover the cost.

            As for solar farms, no one will be ripping out mountains. In many if not most cases, the land will be farmland or fields, which have already been cleared. The bigger issue to my mind is disposal of millions of solar panels in 20 years after they are no longer viable. Will they be recycled? Landfilled? I’m not sure what the regulations say.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            clear counting is not the same as stripping the topsoil off and having rain get into sulfur and produce acid runoff into streams – forever.

            It’s just not the same. If you leave the topsoil, grass and other vegetation will grow. The one in Spotsylvania has to have storm ponds to catch the runoff. They are not allowed to let runoff directly into streams.

            Comparing mountaintop removal to “clear cutting” which also happens for residential development is laughable.. but I do understand the “thinking” that does go into that view.

            They are not the same – nowhere close .

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            in terms of what to do with solar panels – what did we decide, ahead of time, to do with coal ash?

            Do you think the issue of what to do with solar panels will be worse than what we had to do with coal ash?

            Let me ask this. Do you know what we currently do with car batteries or tires? How about refrigerators or dead computers?

            Would you say that solar panels are different – and how?

            Do you think we have no way to recycle them?

            Is this thing about solar panels an “anti” meme?

          4. “in terms of what to do with solar panels – what did we decide, ahead of time, to do with coal ash?”

            Talk about “whataboutism”…

            Do you think we should make the same mistakes with solar that we made with coal?

          5. “The one in Spotsylvania has to have storm ponds to catch the runoff. They are not allowed to let runoff directly into streams.”

            With the exception of some individual single-family dwellings which are not part of a larger subdivisions, all new construction in Virginia is required to reduce/detain stormwater run-off to maintain pre-construction levels. Addressing potentially contaminated runoff is also required (e.g. BMP facilities). A new coal mine would not be exempt from the requirements.

          6. idiocracy Avatar

            ” Do you know what we currently do with car batteries or tires? ”

            If you’re Gallant, you take the car battery or tires to a place that accepts them for proper disposal.

            If you’re Goofus, you just dump them in the nearest convenient ditch.

          7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            If a bunch of coal companies declare bankruptcy, the state will be saddled with the cost of reclamation. https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/07/24/coal-is-in-crisis-can-virginias-pool-bond-system-handle-the-collapse/

            And that does not include the health and environmental damage wreaked by mountain top removal. https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-troubling-look-at-the-human-toll-of-mountaintop-removal-mining

          8. djrippert Avatar

            It’s almost like reclaiming solar is similar to piling coal ash into pits next to sensitive waterways for decades. The General Assembly sleep walked through 40 years of coal ash piling up. Why would anybody think they will address the reclamation of obsolete solar panel farms?

          9. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead V

            Reclaiming solar panels might be a silver mine. 20 grams of silver per panel.

          10. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, not exactly the same. Mine tailings are far more toxic. There certainly is an threat of increased runoff and the loss of topsoil. But, one difference between them is that it is far easier and cheaper to replant then to clean up the tailings.

            Plus, the cost will be known and amortized. No one thinks they can just strip the mountain top and walk away as they have with mineral mining.

            You can walk around the state and find chimneys in woods that 50 to 100 years prior were farmhouses in the middle of clear cut fields. Mother Nature can do it all by her lone.

            There are scars from mines twice that age.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    I seem to remember Jim B talking about how “unreliable” solar was and how it “took” farmland, etc… etc..

    But he’s coming around a little when he talks about how farmers who own land actually do have a right to use their land productively and contribute to the economy. Good for You!

    In terms of “who bears the cost” – how about this:

    https://appvoices.org/images/campaigns/mtr/sheep_knob.jpg

    are we using a double standard?

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      You are, unless you see them both as a concern. And of course there is every reason to suspect that post reclamation that mining property looked different. That shot is pre-reclamation and looks EXACTLY how a solar construction site looks at some point.

      The COST of mine reclamation was borne by the mining firm and passed on to the consumers in the price. Will the same be true of solar farms? Unknown at this time.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        It’s ALWAYS been a concern with EVERY energy source. It’s not something new with solar and I bet you dollars to donuts it’s nowhere near the level of mountaintops removed or coal ash piles.

        The “cost” of mine reclamation ? If it is a miner responsibility then why is solar a higher level concern that needs to be looked at – ESPECIALLY when we seem to have done such a piss poor job of mountaintops and coal ash piles?

        just more boogeyman stuff… compare solar remediation to trying to put a mountain back together. No contest.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Not sure if Jim thinks me correct or Larry….Clear cutting and tearing off the topsoil on an area the size of Fairfax County for solar is indeed quite similar to what was done with the open coal mines, and in fact may involve much more acreage. But facts mean nothing to Larry….

          In the mining industry the rules on reclamation are in place. Are they for solar? Betcha they aren’t…..

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            in terms of what to do with solar panels – what did we decide, ahead of time, to do with coal ash?

            Do you think the issue of what to do with solar panels will be worse than what we had to do with coal ash?

            Let me ask this. Do you know what we currently do with car batteries or tires? How about refrigerators or dead computers?

            Would you say that solar panels are different – and how?

            Do you think we have no way to recycle them?

            Is this thing about solar panels an “anti” meme?

          2. “in terms of what to do with solar panels – what did we decide, ahead of time, to do with coal ash?”

            Talk about “whataboutism”…

            Do you think we should make the same mistakes with solar that we made with coal?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            clear counting is not the same as stripping the topsoil off and having rain get into sulfur and produce acid runoff into streams – forever.

            It’s just not the same. If you leave the topsoil, grass and other vegetation will grow. The one in Spotsylvania has to have storm ponds to catch the runoff. They are not allowed to let runoff directly into streams.

            Comparing mountaintop removal to “clear cutting” which also happens for residential development is laughable.. but I do understand the “thinking” that does go into that view.

            They are not the same – nowhere close .

          4. “The one in Spotsylvania has to have storm ponds to catch the runoff. They are not allowed to let runoff directly into streams.”

            With the exception of some individual single-family dwellings which are not part of a larger subdivisions, all new construction in Virginia is required to reduce/detain stormwater run-off to maintain pre-construction levels. Addressing potentially contaminated runoff is also required (e.g. BMP facilities). A new coal mine would not be exempt from the requirements.

          5. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, not exactly the same. Mine tailings are far more toxic. There certainly is an threat of increased runoff and the loss of topsoil. But, one difference between them is that it is far easier and cheaper to replant then to clean up the tailings.

            Plus, the cost will be known and amortized. No one thinks they can just strip the mountain top and walk away as they have with mineral mining.

            You can walk around the state and find chimneys in woods that 50 to 100 years prior were farmhouses in the middle of clear cut fields. Mother Nature can do it all by her lone.

            There are scars from mines twice that age.

  10. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Many places in California require new home builders to install solar panels in order to get a permit. Maybe it is time to require new home builders to screw in solar panels. The Brambleton community in Loudoun was once 2,500 acres of forested land. Clear the trees but put up solar panels would be a good trade. Dominion power station is right down the street too.
    https://www.brambleton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/BrambetonWebsiteSiteplanrevised_042018.jpg

  11. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Many places in California require new home builders to install solar panels in order to get a permit. Maybe it is time to require new home builders to screw in solar panels. The Brambleton community in Loudoun was once 2,500 acres of forested land. Clear the trees but put up solar panels would be a good trade. Dominion power station is right down the street too.
    https://www.brambleton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/BrambetonWebsiteSiteplanrevised_042018.jpg

  12. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    All mines now days require posting a bond to ensure reclamation in accordance with government standards. Watch a couple episodes of Gold Rush on TV. Both Canada and the U.S. require the miners to engage in reclamation, which often results in the creation of water ponds beneficial to wildlife.

    And “damn right,” people in Fairfax County would revolt against the construction of a solar farm within county boundaries. Panels on top of a commercial building or the roof next door are fine, but a large solar farm. And ten-to-one, some people will be screaming about the health impacts. The same ones worried about a radio antenna 65 feet in the air while they buy their kids more and more radio-connected devices.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      yep. Tell me what we do with the older mines.

      1. Here is what our new VP had to say yesterday regarding job creation in WV (and presumably SW Virginia): “All of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines.”

        So, it appears we have a lot of work to do clearing old land mines before we can get around to dealing with old coal mines.

        Who knew?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          They should take care, rusting springs mechanism are particularly deadly on old land mines.

          1. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Donald Trump is no longer president of the United States. Perhaps president Biden will reinstate Barack Obama’s ban on U.S. use of landmines (except in Korea).

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Does that mean America is great again then? Mission Misunderaccomplished

  13. Who is tracking the machinery and tools tax and real estate tax exemptions and how that
    impacts counties? It’s not tracked here.
    § 58.1-3661. Certified solar energy equipment, facilities, or devices and certified recycling equipment, facilities, or devices.

    A. Certified solar energy equipment, facilities, or devices and certified recycling equipment, facilities, or devices, as defined herein, are hereby declared to be a separate class of property and shall constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications of real or personal property. The governing body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance, exempt or partially exempt such property from local taxation in the manner provided by subsection D.

    1. Taxation of solar farms is an area that rural representatives should be focusing on. They should be trying to extract as much tax value as they can.

      Giving solar farms a tax break, screwing rural counties, and subsidizing urban greenies…. let’s just say the optics aren’t good.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        ” The never-ending saga of the 500 MW Spotsylvania County solar project has added another chapter, and this one on a more positive note. sPower has partnered with a local branch of The Community Foundation to begin to distribute $25 million throughout the county, as promised during the approval process for the facility.

        As should be expected, the $25 million will not be paid as an upfront lump sum. Instead, according to a representative for sPower, the money will go into a fund set to operate in perpetuity. To achieve the lofty goal of perpetuity, sPower plans to deposit $250,000 post-haste, with the goal of having $1 million in the fund by the end of the year. Following those initial commitments, the company will add at least another $6.5 million by 2021, with a realistic outlook of the fund totaling $10 million by the end of 2021.”

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        This is dead simple. Solar farms will pay more taxes than farm land and especially land that is in the land-use category AND the property owner ought to have the “right” to use his/her land the way they want to as long as it is legal.

        What happened to “property rights’ with Conservatives these days?

  14. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    You are constantly trying to draw some phony equivalence with urban greenies. But you never have lived in coal country, have you? There’s so much other BS in this post and comment, I’m not going to comment. Read my book.

  15. Rural residents are well aware solar panels offer none of the benefits of forests. Their objections go a lot deeper than “the desire to flash a giant middle finger to environmentalists and cultural elites” as this article says. Details omitted in most discussions of objection to solar farms are the effects of the removal per acre of trees on carbon, water and temperature.

    Carbon sequestration level shown in 2009 report to Congress was 1.1 to 7.7 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year.

    According to the U.S. Forest Service,
    “Carbon dioxide uptake by forests in the conterminous United States offset approximately 16 percent of our national total carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 (US EPA 2013).”

    There is also an effect on watersheds. Trees absorb rainfall and slow down runoff, protecting streams from degradation and allowing more infiltration into the ground to replenish groundwater. Removal of forested areas not only increases sedimentation in streams, it raises the water temperature and impacts what can live in those streams.

    Removal of forests affects air temperature too: “Forests absorb more sunlight than do plains. Sunlight that is not absorbed is reflected back into the atmosphere. Deforestation causes land to reflect more sunlight, altering the air currents above and increasing the variance of local temperatures, which become more sensitive to changes in sunlight. In the higher latitudes, deforestation may actually lead to surface cooling, as removing forests exposes the highly reflective snow beneath to the sun.”

    (Forest removal also removes wildlife habitat, but who counts that?)

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Great comment, spot on. These sorts of fraudulent “Green” polices will destroy Virginia’s natural environment as surely as 1950s and 1960’s strip retail and commercial did. But these new fads of abominations will carry out that destruction far more efficiently and throughly than the earlier strip commercial trash did, killing Virginia’s soul, and its mental health and spirit as well as its natural legacy as far as the eye can see. Why? For two very old reasons: the greed and quest for power by a few in power, at the great expense of the many, including most of all our children.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Landowners are not being forced to sell or rent their land to solar power companies. They are not being forced to cut down their trees. In fact, many now “clear cut” their land anyway in order to profit from the trees. If rural residents really are concerned about Virginia’s soul, and not their pocketbooks, they can leave their land open or their trees standing.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Which may not have been the case for the coal beneath the land. Solar is certainly a use rights as opposed to mineral rights.

          At least the well won’t ‘splode! Although, a spark near the septic tank mightn’t be pretty.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          Indeed. We talk about property rights but then we turn around and say that they should not be able to put solar on their own land they pay taxes on. geeze.

        3. djrippert Avatar

          Exactly right, Dick.

        4. Landowners who harvest their trees as a business allow regrowth to continue the silviculture for decades into the future. Putting land in conservation has tax exemptions, but prevents a number of future activities, uses or development which has tax advantages, but reduces the market value for a future sale. Plus, not all landowners who go to solar farms are local residents, so locals have no voice in it, but the entire region will live with the negative impacts.

          Haven’t seen any calls for studies of the net environmental advantage of solar farms vs maintaining forest cover in Virginia. One study I found only compares coal fueled electric generation to forested benefits, ignoring gas and nuclear powered generation.

          Then at the end of the solar farm lifespan, there’s the reclamation cost that may or may not be guaranteed up front. Beyond the removal, there’s the issue of toxic materials like cadmium. “Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.” This Forbes article “If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?” discusses the problems and volume of waste from solar panels we can see in 20-30 years. Think PCB contamination in the Chesapeake Bay today, even after open use was banned in 1976.

  16. Rural residents are well aware solar panels offer none of the benefits of forests. Their objections go a lot deeper than “the desire to flash a giant middle finger to environmentalists and cultural elites” as this article says. Details omitted in most discussions of objection to solar farms are the effects of the removal per acre of trees on carbon, water and temperature.

    Carbon sequestration level shown in 2009 report to Congress was 1.1 to 7.7 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year.

    According to the U.S. Forest Service,
    “Carbon dioxide uptake by forests in the conterminous United States offset approximately 16 percent of our national total carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 (US EPA 2013).”

    There is also an effect on watersheds. Trees absorb rainfall and slow down runoff, protecting streams from degradation and allowing more infiltration into the ground to replenish groundwater. Removal of forested areas not only increases sedimentation in streams, it raises the water temperature and impacts what can live in those streams.

    Removal of forests affects air temperature too: “Forests absorb more sunlight than do plains. Sunlight that is not absorbed is reflected back into the atmosphere. Deforestation causes land to reflect more sunlight, altering the air currents above and increasing the variance of local temperatures, which become more sensitive to changes in sunlight. In the higher latitudes, deforestation may actually lead to surface cooling, as removing forests exposes the highly reflective snow beneath to the sun.”

    (Forest removal also removes wildlife habitat, but who counts that?)

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Great comment, spot on. These sorts of fraudulent “Green” polices will destroy Virginia’s natural environment as surely as 1950s and 1960’s strip retail and commercial did. But these new fads of abominations will carry out that destruction far more efficiently and throughly than the earlier strip commercial trash did, killing Virginia’s soul, and its mental health and spirit as well as its natural legacy as far as the eye can see. Why? For two very old reasons: the greed and quest for power by a few in power, at the great expense of the many, including most of all our children.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Landowners are not being forced to sell or rent their land to solar power companies. They are not being forced to cut down their trees. In fact, many now “clear cut” their land anyway in order to profit from the trees. If rural residents really are concerned about Virginia’s soul, and not their pocketbooks, they can leave their land open or their trees standing.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Which may not have been the case for the coal beneath the land. Solar is certainly a use rights as opposed to mineral rights.

          At least the well won’t ‘splode! Although, a spark near the septic tank mightn’t be pretty.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          Indeed. We talk about property rights but then we turn around and say that they should not be able to put solar on their own land they pay taxes on. geeze.

        3. djrippert Avatar

          Exactly right, Dick.

        4. Landowners who harvest their trees as a business allow regrowth to continue the silviculture for decades into the future. Putting land in conservation has tax exemptions, but prevents a number of future activities, uses or development which has tax advantages, but reduces the market value for a future sale. Plus, not all landowners who go to solar farms are local residents, so locals have no voice in it, but the entire region will live with the negative impacts.

          Haven’t seen any calls for studies of the net environmental advantage of solar farms vs maintaining forest cover in Virginia. One study I found only compares coal fueled electric generation to forested benefits, ignoring gas and nuclear powered generation.

          Then at the end of the solar farm lifespan, there’s the reclamation cost that may or may not be guaranteed up front. Beyond the removal, there’s the issue of toxic materials like cadmium. “Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.” This Forbes article “If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?” discusses the problems and volume of waste from solar panels we can see in 20-30 years. Think PCB contamination in the Chesapeake Bay today, even after open use was banned in 1976.

  17. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    I am reminded of gambling casinos. We are toast. Ask the Chinese. For other peoples money we will sell anything, including our own children’s future.

  18. In fxco of 2200 homes 4 have panels. All can afford them and at least 20% have s or sw facing unobstructed roofs. Coincidently they have SUVs.
    Are the rest evil or ignorant?
    The last solar proposal I saw for an open ground residential install never broke even. Using 14 year battery life and 10 years for the inverters.
    So someone else is paying the tab. Ratepayer are becoming taxpayer are becoming…..
    The 1/2 built nuke sites (Surrey/Anna in Va might produce at 10 cents a kwhr as they have most infrastructure in place. Not sure. Currently VA is 29% nuke and 9% coal, so if you want green it’s waiting.

  19. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    There’s a huge solar farm in Buckingham County just off Rt. 60. They left a wooded buffer on the side facing houses.

    Solar electric will be beneficial during the summer to help with electric usage for air conditioning. It won’t help much in the winter with weather like this week – snow, several cloudy days, and cold enough temperatures that most heat pumps will need to run supplementary electric heat. That’s why the utilities still need natural gas powered generators for backup (and maybe a pipeline to carry the extra gas).

    We’re getting ready to build a house, and I’m planning to be able to add about 3 KW of phovoltaic once the local utility drops it’s objections to net metering. If they don’t allow net metering I would have to install 5 days worth of battery backup, which would destroy any payback.

    I hope that PURPA isn’t still in full effect. When it was enacted in the 70s or 80s it required utilities to buy renewable energy at their highest avoided cost. That would kill any incentive for utilities to allow net metering.

    The utility would have to be able to alter it’s pricing to charge a flat monthly fee for distribution (line construction & maintenance) costs and buy or sell the electricity at the same rate they pay APCO to make net metering feasible for them.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      If a heat pump needs to run supplementary heat in temperatures like these, then that heat pump is installed in a house that needs to be insulated AND air sealed.

      I have the supplementary heat on mine disabled such that it only comes on when the unit goes into defrost. I can enable it by flipping a switch. So far this year, I haven’t needed to.

      Thankfully newer houses have to pass a blower door test. Or do they? I know the builder that built mine did a blower door test, but I don’t know if it was required by code. I know it is in other states.

  20. djrippert Avatar

    Ahhh … the conundrum of rural life. Cries of economic despair coupled with urgent pleas for “other people’s money” to subsidize rural broadband in the name of economic development. Then along comes a real economic possibility – solar farms – and the complaining begins. It will ruin my “viewshed”! I know a lot of country boys on the Eastern Shore of Maryland from places like Dames Quarter and Trappe. Those boys say a lot of things. One thing they never say is “viewshed”. I have a strong suspicion that anybody carping about their “viewshed” isn’t the type of long standing, salt-of-the-Earth rural Virginian that Jim thinks he is representing.

    “These things will not be built … in Reston,” observed House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah

    Whoa!?! Please tell me that there is still time to send in a Nobel Prize application for Todd Gilbert. They won’t be built in Reston because the land is too expensive in Reston. Which is why Reston is so unaffordable. Pick your poison Del Gilbert – cheap land or affordable housing. Something tells me that if the land values in Stuart’s Draft suddenly rose making housing unaffordable but pushing out planned solar farms – Del Gilbert would be chirping about that too.

  21. djrippert Avatar

    Ahhh … the conundrum of rural life. Cries of economic despair coupled with urgent pleas for “other people’s money” to subsidize rural broadband in the name of economic development. Then along comes a real economic possibility – solar farms – and the complaining begins. It will ruin my “viewshed”! I know a lot of country boys on the Eastern Shore of Maryland from places like Dames Quarter and Trappe. Those boys say a lot of things. One thing they never say is “viewshed”. I have a strong suspicion that anybody carping about their “viewshed” isn’t the type of long standing, salt-of-the-Earth rural Virginian that Jim thinks he is representing.

    “These things will not be built … in Reston,” observed House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah

    Whoa!?! Please tell me that there is still time to send in a Nobel Prize application for Todd Gilbert. They won’t be built in Reston because the land is too expensive in Reston. Which is why Reston is so unaffordable. Pick your poison Del Gilbert – cheap land or affordable housing. Something tells me that if the land values in Stuart’s Draft suddenly rose making housing unaffordable but pushing out planned solar farms – Del Gilbert would be chirping about that too.

  22. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    I am reminded of gambling casinos. We are toast. Ask the Chinese. For other peoples money we will sell anything, including our own children’s future.

  23. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    34°14’05″N 77°56’57″W

    You can paste that into Google Maps/Earth. It’s a building on Quince Alley in Wilmington NC. It’s not as impressive as it was 6 years ago, someone has started to rebuild. You can see a pile of rubble inside the building.

    Six years ago, it was a fully overgrown woods inside that building with a collapse roof. There were trees 3 stories tall growing inside the walls and a thick underbrush beneath — a park in an abandoned ruin.

    That’s the difference between land cleared for surface use, and mine tailings and strip mining.

    Larry’s picture of Sheep’s Knob will, without the efforts of man, look exactly like that 100s of years from now. Our farms… not so much.
    https://i1.wp.com/res.cloudinary.com/dbm5rx8rl/image/upload/v1500383389/reclaimed-by-nature_12_nzez5o.jpg

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Abandoned mine in Silverton, Colorado. Animas River is permanently polluted. They stopped mining in 1991. That roman mine is unbelievable. Italy should pay reparations!
        https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/ruins-silver-mine-silverton-san-juan-mountains-colorado-28394438.jpg

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          😊.
          The problem is making an assumption that clear-cutting land, even with scraping the topsoil, is anywhere near as devastating as mining.

          Imagine the environmental damage if the Exxon Valdez had just been carrying maple syrup. Pancakes for EVERYONE! You, too, otters!

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Ha! Only the Cap’n.

            I hate that I missed an opportunity, but better late than n’er.

            “It’s Translyvania. I’m sure they have a method for getting blood from Italy.”

            BTW, I can attest to 3 of those bottles as “never again”. Include Reunite’, Ripple, and Annie Greensprings.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Apparently the folks that equate the two, don’t realize that AFTER they cut the trees, they then remove up to 500 feet of topsoil and rocks to get to the coal seam.

            They use dynamite and bulldozers , etc.

            Imagine what a forest would look like if they cut the trees then dug a hole 500 feet deep then claimed that they are “reclaimed”;

            https://static3.bigstockphoto.com/4/2/2/large1500/224321278.jpg

  24. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    34°14’05″N 77°56’57″W

    You can paste that into Google Maps/Earth. It’s a building on Quince Alley in Wilmington NC. It’s not as impressive as it was 6 years ago, someone has started to rebuild. You can see a pile of rubble inside the building.

    Six years ago, it was a fully overgrown woods inside that building with a collapse roof. There were trees 3 stories tall growing inside the walls and a thick underbrush beneath — a park in an abandoned ruin.

    That’s the difference between land cleared for surface use, and mine tailings and strip mining.

    Larry’s picture of Sheep’s Knob will, without the efforts of man, look exactly like that 100s of years from now. Our farms… not so much.
    https://i1.wp.com/res.cloudinary.com/dbm5rx8rl/image/upload/v1500383389/reclaimed-by-nature_12_nzez5o.jpg

  25. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Let’s remember that all the materials to build those nifty green solar panels will be mined… and most likely in a country of poor, brown, and/ or Black peoples all so Lululemon wearing Wypipo can feel good about driving a luxury e-car to Starbucks…. oh and all that crap comes from poor, brown, and/or Black areas too.

    1. djrippert Avatar

      Kind of. Silver mining is instructive given its use in solar panels. Mexico, Peru, Chile and Bolivia are in the top 10 countries that mine silver. So are China, Australia, Russia, Poland, Argentina and the United States.

      I get your point about the dirty side of clean energy. Environmentalists tend to turn a blind eye to a lot of problems caused by so-called green power. However, I also think that the facts need to be laid out on both sides.

      My issue remains … there is no proof at all that Virginia’s expensive conversion to so-called green power will make a measurable difference to global warming.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so – look at it this way – if you add up the energy that solar will generate and then calculate how much greenhouse gas would have come from generating that much energy from fossil fuels – would that be a measurable difference ?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      You can say the same with respect to phones and LED TVs and more… Just about anything we manufacture using mined materials is involved, not just solar panels or electric batteries.

      We have 47 superfund sites in Virginia itself that have nothing what-so-ever to do with “green” technology.

      https://www.epa.gov/va/list-superfund-sites-virginia

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Well, imagine the cost for a lump of coal if Mr. Peabody had been required to fill the holes with the tailing when done.

  26. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Let’s remember that all the materials to build those nifty green solar panels will be mined… and most likely in a country of poor, brown, and/ or Black peoples all so Lululemon wearing Wypipo can feel good about driving a luxury e-car to Starbucks…. oh and all that crap comes from poor, brown, and/or Black areas too.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      You can say the same with respect to phones and LED TVs and more… Just about anything we manufacture using mined materials is involved, not just solar panels or electric batteries.

      We have 47 superfund sites in Virginia itself that have nothing what-so-ever to do with “green” technology.

      https://www.epa.gov/va/list-superfund-sites-virginia

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Well, imagine the cost for a lump of coal if Mr. Peabody had been required to fill the holes with the tailing when done.

    2. djrippert Avatar

      Kind of. Silver mining is instructive given its use in solar panels. Mexico, Peru, Chile and Bolivia are in the top 10 countries that mine silver. So are China, Australia, Russia, Poland, Argentina and the United States.

      I get your point about the dirty side of clean energy. Environmentalists tend to turn a blind eye to a lot of problems caused by so-called green power. However, I also think that the facts need to be laid out on both sides.

      My issue remains … there is no proof at all that Virginia’s expensive conversion to so-called green power will make a measurable difference to global warming.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        so – look at it this way – if you add up the energy that solar will generate and then calculate how much greenhouse gas would have come from generating that much energy from fossil fuels – would that be a measurable difference ?

  27. As Jim mentions, solar is the cheapest form of energy. Really? Not sure about that. I do agree Jim has always been pro-solar.

    Anyways this is tip of iceberg, If we ban fossil fuels, which Democrats (and Biden doubles-down on the extremism) say is tantamount to mass murder, then we have to replace all of the fossil fuel power plants. And that is one helluva lot a of electrons. Then we have to replace all the gasoline and diesel in the cars. And that is one helluva lot of electrons, and then we have to replace all the natural gas and oil going to home heat in the Northeast etc. and that is one whale of lot of electrons.

    1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
      Baconator with extra cheese

      And replace fuel for tugboats, transoceanic shipping vessels (but they’ll be filled with Russian oil to bring us Chinese plastic), bulldozers, water well rigs, jetfuel, etc….
      Can’t wait to see where we get all the batteries…. and store the dead ones.
      Not to mention ag equipment….
      Guess who will be able to replace their equipment to meet the new restrictions? It sure won’t be small business, minority business, or the family farmer.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        We used to burn whale oil and tallow and use mercury for tanning leather, horse buggies, leaches for medical, on, on… what’s the deal? That we cannot make changes and progress when we know we can and must?

        do much looking at things as half glass full instead of empty?

  28. As Jim mentions, solar is the cheapest form of energy. Really? Not sure about that. I do agree Jim has always been pro-solar.

    Anyways this is tip of iceberg, If we ban fossil fuels, which Democrats (and Biden doubles-down on the extremism) say is tantamount to mass murder, then we have to replace all of the fossil fuel power plants. And that is one helluva lot a of electrons. Then we have to replace all the gasoline and diesel in the cars. And that is one helluva lot of electrons, and then we have to replace all the natural gas and oil going to home heat in the Northeast etc. and that is one whale of lot of electrons.

    1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
      Baconator with extra cheese

      And replace fuel for tugboats, transoceanic shipping vessels (but they’ll be filled with Russian oil to bring us Chinese plastic), bulldozers, water well rigs, jetfuel, etc….
      Can’t wait to see where we get all the batteries…. and store the dead ones.
      Not to mention ag equipment….
      Guess who will be able to replace their equipment to meet the new restrictions? It sure won’t be small business, minority business, or the family farmer.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        We used to burn whale oil and tallow and use mercury for tanning leather, horse buggies, leaches for medical, on, on… what’s the deal? That we cannot make changes and progress when we know we can and must?

        do much looking at things as half glass full instead of empty?

  29. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    We’ve been told for over 20 years that climate is an existential crisis and the apocalypse is on the horizon but that horizon keeps receding as we approach it. The policies that include a big push for wind and solar along with large subsidies to promote them will make proponents feel good but taxpayers not so good. In the end, pursuing the wrong policies will accomplish little. Before I am called a denier, I am not and all should take a look at the experience of countries that have been the pioneers in this rush to renewables, especially Germany.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Let me ask. How many years did it take to convince most people that cigarettes were a mortal threat to their life?

      these are long term issues and the science is more like predicting a hurricane path and you have multiple models. We don’t know with precise certitude no more than a doc can tell you how many packs a day will lead to cancer when.

      That’s not a reason to reject the science. That’s more of a denial and rationalization… to avoid believing at all.

      When you see the fossil fuel industry participating in the ‘science” to undermine it the same way the cigarette makers did it with cigarettes, does that not concern you?

      When 90+% of scientists around the world and NASA and NOAA say something – how do you explain that concurrence as more of a conspiracy than consensus?

      Now, before you get pissed off. I’m NOT impugning you personally and if you think I am, then I apologize right now – just keep the dialogue/debate open without personal rancor.

    2. Personally, I do not see USA discussion as a Climate Change debate. I see it as preference for non-US-fossil-fuel energy, on the basis of there could be nothing worse for mankind than USA fossil fuels. I think the hate is wrong-headed and over-blown, but right now liberals will not tolerate what they see as murder of their families, and just plain dislike for the industry.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Your citation discusses AGW not GW.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        I agree. Climate Change is the excuse to accomplish what the far left and extreme environmentalists have been seeking for decades. Fossil fuels have enabled mobility and rising standards of living without dependence on the privileged class and they cannot let that happen.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Have you looked at the polls? It’s way more than “far left” folks.

          Fossil fuels HAVE done major good things for us but there has been a cost – not unlike what coal did for us for electricity but we have major pollution problems, air quality, acid rain, mountains removed, and coal ash cleanup.

          this is not “far left:

          https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/06/PS_2020.06.23_government-and-climate_00-05.png?w=640

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            These polls always show people being willing to do more than they will actually do when the price tag becomes obvious. Remember the reaction to raising the gasoline tax? I stand by my comments.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            My point is there is far more of them than “far left”.

            And the reality is that they DO SUPPORT some of these things that are said to be “far left”.

            They’re not. About 75% of society is on board with these changes.

            Some may drop off when price comes up but these folks are not the wild-eyed far left by any stretch of the imagination.

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            The history of polling doesn’t support that view. And, its not just the far left but they are the drivers of this perspective that is designed for others to sacrifice to save the planet. What is Al Gore’s carbon foot print?

  30. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    We’ve been told for over 20 years that climate is an existential crisis and the apocalypse is on the horizon but that horizon keeps receding as we approach it. The policies that include a big push for wind and solar along with large subsidies to promote them will make proponents feel good but taxpayers not so good. In the end, pursuing the wrong policies will accomplish little. Before I am called a denier, I am not and all should take a look at the experience of countries that have been the pioneers in this rush to renewables, especially Germany.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Let me ask. How many years did it take to convince most people that cigarettes were a mortal threat to their life?

      these are long term issues and the science is more like predicting a hurricane path and you have multiple models. We don’t know with precise certitude no more than a doc can tell you how many packs a day will lead to cancer when.

      That’s not a reason to reject the science. That’s more of a denial and rationalization… to avoid believing at all.

      When you see the fossil fuel industry participating in the ‘science” to undermine it the same way the cigarette makers did it with cigarettes, does that not concern you?

      When 90+% of scientists around the world and NASA and NOAA say something – how do you explain that concurrence as more of a conspiracy than consensus?

      Now, before you get pissed off. I’m NOT impugning you personally and if you think I am, then I apologize right now – just keep the dialogue/debate open without personal rancor.

    2. Personally, I do not see USA discussion as a Climate Change debate. I see it as preference for non-US-fossil-fuel energy, on the basis of there could be nothing worse for mankind than USA fossil fuels. I think the hate is wrong-headed and over-blown, but right now liberals will not tolerate what they see as murder of their families, and just plain dislike for the industry.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Your citation discusses AGW not GW.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        I agree. Climate Change is the excuse to accomplish what the far left and extreme environmentalists have been seeking for decades. Fossil fuels have enabled mobility and rising standards of living without dependence on the privileged class and they cannot let that happen.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Have you looked at the polls? It’s way more than “far left” folks.

          Fossil fuels HAVE done major good things for us but there has been a cost – not unlike what coal did for us for electricity but we have major pollution problems, air quality, acid rain, mountains removed, and coal ash cleanup.

          this is not “far left:

          https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/06/PS_2020.06.23_government-and-climate_00-05.png?w=640

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            My point is there is far more of them than “far left”.

            And the reality is that they DO SUPPORT some of these things that are said to be “far left”.

            They’re not. About 75% of society is on board with these changes.

            Some may drop off when price comes up but these folks are not the wild-eyed far left by any stretch of the imagination.

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            The history of polling doesn’t support that view. And, its not just the far left but they are the drivers of this perspective that is designed for others to sacrifice to save the planet. What is Al Gore’s carbon foot print?

  31. LarrytheG Avatar

    the “history of polling”? what does that mean? that the polls are not valid?

    Al Gore has nothing to do with any of it except in the minds of the skeptics.

    Anyone who says they believe in the science and that we should take action is tarred as a “hypocrite” if they don’t live in a cave or some such.

    But poll after poll , not only in the US shows what the Pew Poll shows.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Wekk, Larry I’ll explain. You have to distinguish between polls based on contingent valuation and those based on willingness to pay. Short hand, talk is cheap.
      The point about Gore is his sanctimonious preaching is not consistent with his life style and very large carbon foot print.
      So, let’s start with the facts and then derive policy that is consistent with them.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Fair point on the polls but when a significant number of people say they support something – that drives the politics and voting.

        on Gore. I think you can say that ANY leaders or any person who is a high profile person, a celebrity, etc… has a high carbon footprint but that does not negate their positions in most folks eyes. On the skeptics, yes but on folks who believe there is climate change, it does not impact their thinking.

        People WANT to do the right thing. They recycle. They buy cars that get good gas mileage. They support laws to restrict pollution. They want to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. They want o have more energy efficient homes and appliances…

        AND they DO put their money where their mouth is when they can.

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ycgbqf8aseu6vvilb1x32q.png

  32. LarrytheG Avatar

    the “history of polling”? what does that mean? that the polls are not valid?

    Al Gore has nothing to do with any of it except in the minds of the skeptics.

    Anyone who says they believe in the science and that we should take action is tarred as a “hypocrite” if they don’t live in a cave or some such.

    But poll after poll , not only in the US shows what the Pew Poll shows.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Wekk, Larry I’ll explain. You have to distinguish between polls based on contingent valuation and those based on willingness to pay. Short hand, talk is cheap.
      The point about Gore is his sanctimonious preaching is not consistent with his life style and very large carbon foot print.
      So, let’s start with the facts and then derive policy that is consistent with them.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Fair point on the polls but when a significant number of people say they support something – that drives the politics and voting.

        on Gore. I think you can say that ANY leaders or any person who is a high profile person, a celebrity, etc… has a high carbon footprint but that does not negate their positions in most folks eyes. On the skeptics, yes but on folks who believe there is climate change, it does not impact their thinking.

        People WANT to do the right thing. They recycle. They buy cars that get good gas mileage. They support laws to restrict pollution. They want to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. They want o have more energy efficient homes and appliances…

        AND they DO put their money where their mouth is when they can.

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ycgbqf8aseu6vvilb1x32q.png

Leave a Reply