Ah yes… more of the “both side of the argument”. Let’s pick this apart and there’s absolutely nothing “lib” about my claims that this is a bullshit “article”. Let me bullet point this:
The title is misleading and hyperbolic. There is absolutely nothing “crippling” about the economic costs of subsidizing green energy. In fact we subsidize Fossil Fuels to the tune of 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars PER YEAR. The article lays out that we will be on the hook for between $500B and $1T by 2046… If my math is right, that’s 23 years out. At the lower end, that’s just over $21 BILLION PER YEAR for Green energy. It’s a pittance comparatively. We are talking orders of magnitude more “crippling economic costs” of subsidizing by Fossil Fuels vs. this one target for cost overruns. This alone means the article is FUD. But it goes further in basically singling this one piece of the green energy pie out and then editorializing how this impacts the US… I won’t even go into how much of the money is spent on those very green jobs that the article purports as a "jobs killer"
By the way, that differencial in costs to subsidize make this gem from the “article” posted kind of hilarious:
Despite spiraling deficits – almost $2 trillion in the fiscal year that ended this past October – green energy subsidies will be financed with still more government debt.
The “realcleanenergy” org is 100% fossil fuel backed. There’s no neutrality, there’s no big picture of energy independence, or even a whiff of something like Global Warming, and zero comparison of the Trillions we pump into “drill drill drill” that always ignore the military costs to secure those resources and the carbon footprint that results
I’m not calling the article “conservative bullshit” - it absolutely makes itself clear on this point just by looking at the rest of the articles posted by this entity. It’s 100% biased. BTW, Reuters very regularly centers out in terms of left/right leaning: www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters So I’ll put my articles against this any time.
I actually think the article is FUD, but the examples they use are based.
If you think the article is FUD yourself, and this example is “based”, I implore you to look at who’s saying it and why. Fossil Fuels want to live and linger as long as they can because it makes a handful of people very wealthy at the expense of our environment. I’m not dismissing the article. I’m saying I can pick it apart with facts and I’m saying look at the comparables for how much we spend to keep Fossil Fuels alive. If we didn’t spend 7.5 Trillion in a decade on fossil fuels and instead put that into green energy or just let those die out, we wouldn’t need to subsidize Green Energy… it would win as the lower cost alternative. Renewables are winning today despite the money being thrown into oil and coal and NG!
Now, I invite you to explain exactly where my line of discussion is flawed. I have ample articles, many by our own military, GAO, and can even find begrudgingly admitted articles in right-leaning news to back it up. I’m not trying to slam you personally - in fact I hope to share just how influential stuff like this is because it’s looked at uncritically or one piece of the article resonates for a person and they take the rest as gospel.