Purveyors of green energy profit at expense of people in poverty

Sen Doug Whitsett

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

President Obama has selected the illegal expansion of EPA administrative authority as his tool of choice to ignore both the rule of law and the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court

The stated goal of President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” is to cut carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants to 32 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2030. His alleged purpose for the Plan is to save the environment by reducing climate change.

His administration is employing climate change hysteria to advance his political goals of gaining more control over the public and the free market economy. The Plan represents his administration’s latest policy created to benefit well-connected entities in the government-dependent renewable energy industry, at the expense of society’s most vulnerable citizens.

The 1560-page “plan” is the product of administrative rules developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through executive fiat, to advance his personal anti-fossil fuels agenda. He has selected the illegal expansion of EPA administrative authority as his tool of choice to ignore both the rule of law and the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Other choices for achieving similar carbon reduction goals are available without relying on the heavy, coercive hand of government. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) can and are being accomplished through free market principles based on voluntary actions.

Two days after Obama announced his “Plan,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration released a report stating that monthly power sector carbon dioxide emissions in America reached a 27-year low in April. The report concluded that the U.S. leads the world in natural gas production, and that increased use of natural gas was responsible for over 62 percent of electric power sector CO2 savings in the years between 2005 and 2013.

The Bend-LaPine School district offers another example of emission reduction through voluntary, market-driven means. This case study explains how Oregon’s seventh-largest school district created a win-win for the environment and its own budgets by substantially reducing both its fuel costs and its GHG emissions.

District officials converted 40 percent of the district’s bus fleet to propane autogas, creating significant fuel cost savings. Propane actually outperforms diesel in mileage, as well as engine performance and maintenance, while costing 57 percent less than diesel, at $1.31 per gallon compared to $3.11 per gallon for diesel.

The District’s cost savings were accompanied by an 80 percent reduction in total hydrocarbon emissions and the virtual elimination of particulate pollution. During its useful life, each converted bus will eliminate 169,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from the District’s carbon footprint.

The combination of emission reduction and the cost savings to the District make this a practical, realistic, market-driven approach to solving excessive diesel emissions.

The inescapable fact is that wind and solar renewable energy simply do not pencil out for consumers. They are entirely dependent upon big government subsidies that divert taxpayer and utility ratepayer funds from other, more beneficial purposes.

Several states, including Oregon, have been adopting the European Union’s renewable energy strategies. Those policies have caused average European residential electricity rates to be more than double the rates in the United States in 2013.

The economic realities of those policies have prompted some of Europe’s political leaders to reconsider their green energy mandates. They have recognized their ill-advised green energy programs have caused disastrous economic outcomes, including sharp downturns in their business economies and rapidly escalating job losses.

Implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan will nearly guarantee rolling blackouts caused by even more of our electricity being produced from unreliable and inefficient renewable sources. Moreover, the sharply increased cost of energy is already challenging the budgets for minority families and people living in poverty.

The environmental movement is often predicated and defended upon the basis of “social justice” for the poor. Obama’s Clean Energy Plan will certainly cause higher priced food and energy, which will disproportionately harm the poor, because they spend a significantly higher percentage of their household incomes on energy and food.

All of the money derived from increased spending by people in poverty is shuttled-off to enhance the profits of the purveyors of green energy.

Senator Doug Whitsett is the Republican state senator representing Senate District 28 – Klamath Falls

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Global Warming, Government Overreach, Green Energy, President Obama, Uncategorized | 22 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Here’s one for you. The National Black Chamber of Commerce estimates that this new EPA plan will increase the black poverty rate to 32% from 26% today. Hispanic poverty increases to 29% from 23%. The new EPA rule also confirms electricity costs will increase substantially; so much so, it includes state taxpayer based financial assistance to offset these cost increases for the poor.

    You always get the rube saying how much more fossil fuels are public subsidized than renewable energy as currently bandied by state governments like Oregon and the Obummer Administration. But a review of income statements for major oil companies over the past five years shows them paying billions of dollars in income taxes per year, whereas their seems most assuredly an actual substantive red public money outflow propping up wind and solar. The so-called subsidies are accelerated depletion which many other businesses get as accelerated depreciation.

    Even Bill Gates who poured millions into the new renewable energy has recently come to the conclusion these energy sources are still badly uneconomical.

    Then you witness the environmental country club lawyers parking outside the steps of Salem working the politicians inside for a piece of the public tax loot. What a scam.

    • guest

      “What a revolt’n development this is!” – Life of Riley, Wm Bendix

    • DavidAppell

      Bob Clark: Because the poor need cheap energy does not mean you do. You’re wealthy enough to pay for clean energy. Stop using the poor as your excuse.

  • Eric Blair

    “The combination of emission reduction and the cost savings to the District make this a practical, realistic, market-driven approach to solving excessive diesel emissions.”

    Or, perhaps, partly fueled by various tax credits provided by the government.


    • thevillageidiot

      but doesn’t make you feel good that your taxes are doing good things? and higher taxes to support the “low income” to pay for increased energy costs will make you just ecstatic. not to mention it goes along with your own more costly green energy bill. the government does not subsidize your increased costs but the utility will be jacking the rates again. You are left with less spending and the economy continues to drag because you are not contributing to the GDP.

      • Eric Blair

        Wow…so many assumptions, and we know what happens when you assume (just for the record, it has nothing to do with me!). 😉

        Of course you could try asking how I feel about things before you jump to unfounded conclusions. Is that truly too much to ask for?

        • and that’s the toot

          EB, You’re a lose canon-ade for everything that’s left of US. So’s David Applell too.
          Twit, both your’s parlor better flavor on BlueKoolaidOregon.

          • Eric Blair

            And you’d find a better home on 4-Chan. But I think we’re both going to stay. So, unlike you, I prefer to not spit into the wind. Or tug on Superman’s cape – 😉

          • Fete Breaking Muse

            Announced ‘toady’ – a left wing team, aka, “Appell and Blair” announced their intent to unite under a new moniker, twit “The Tweedlekins” but declined to ID who was D. Dumber than the other.

  • NAFTA Refugee

    With ice caps melting on Mars (per NASA) I wonder what Obama will do about their factories? It begs the question, what kind of SUVs do the Martians drive?

    • DavidAppell

      Where did NASA say the ice caps are melting on Mars? Link?

      • NAFTA Refugee


      • Stunning Pfasare

        The Warner Bros spacaman has you incite.

        • DavidAppell


  • DavidAppell

    Sen. Doug Whitsett: What are the costs of NOT addressing climate change?

    • Moon Surface

      Strikes me as nebulous question. I’m still here despite another downing another draft of Goreing beer.

      • DavidAppell

        Actually, it’s a very straightforward question. One that Doug Whitsett, and you, would prefer to think does not exist. But smart people know that it does….

    • redbean

      There are multiple ways to “address climate change” besides handing control of the global economy to government planners and their corporate masters.

      When the elites pushing these schemes commit to a whole lotta skin in the game, skeptics might start paying heed. In the meantime, the ball is in the court of those who push arbitrary CO2 emission reduction goals to show that the goals will produce desired results.

      • Eric Blair

        So what do you think should be done? Doing nothing is probably not a good option.

        • John 3:16

          Maranatha human being, Thank God you might finally get some of the compassion, despite the NWO or its Islamic ISIS on the cake-allure.

        • redbean

          Doing nothing might be preferable to awarding carbon tax credits to affluent corporations while sending carbon tax proceeds to hedge funds.

          Knowing that climate change is a fact of life on planet Earth, i.e. droughts and floods can be expected, we could instead spend the money on disaster preparedness, relocation when/where appropriate and agricultural changes. Think globally, act locally.

          At the very least, prominent public figures pushing for an elite global entity to manage carbon emissions should be held to higher standards. Since this is more about perception than science, no air travel for these folks, starting with the US president. As for scientific and UN conferences, these can be held using web technologies, no air travel needed. Let’s see some sacrifice from the leaders of this movement.

          Gosh, come to think of it, do we really need Congress to meet in DC? Why not stay home and meet online? How about the UN? No more NY night life – set up each member with satellite web service and they can stay closer to their constituents.

      • DavidAppell

        What are some of these “multiple ways?”

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)