Wrong on wind credit II
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Jan. 13, 2013, 8:53 p.m.
While claiming the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) distorts the energy market, the editorial “The wind energy credit: A shafting grows” is a gross distortion of the facts.
The Joint Committee on Taxation's $12 billion cost estimate for the PTC is over 10 years, putting the cost per year at slightly over $1 billion, substantially less than the $4 billion a year that fossil-fuel companies receive while boasting extreme profits. They should give taxpayers back $4 billion a year to cover the health-care costs and property damage from extreme weather caused by the soot, carbon and methane released during excavation and incineration of oil, gas and coal.
Secondly, “windmills” grind flour and bring up groundwater; wind turbines employ 4,000 Pennsylvania steelworkers and power 229,541 homes.
Lastly, putting “the rich” in quotes, as if to imply that the Trib does not acknowledge social stratification, demonstrates how truly out of touch the Trib is, particularly in regard to economic issues. As journalists, the Trib's Opinion staff should be aware that quotes should only be used when quoting someone, not to demonstrate disbelief in the wealth of a select few overprivileged Americans.
The writer is a Clean Air Council (cleanair.org) support-staff member.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saved her life
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Weakness shows
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Wildlife & humans
- Quit drilling in state forests
- Not reviled abroad
- Conspicuous by absence
- Needs sign added