No win for taxpayers
To rebut the letter “Wind, environment win” (Jan. 8 and TribLIVE.com) by Mary Kate Ranii, Western Pennsylvania field organizer for PennEnvironment: First, so-called “global warming” is not proven science. It is a scheme generated by environmental extremists and liberals as a United Nations global redistribution of wealth.
How can she prove wind power is reducing global warming emissions equal to 218,000 cars, and what are the current emissions rates?
Facts that she fails to disclose:
• The wind industry has benefited from this egregious subsidy for 20 years. If it can't survive on its own for 20 years, wind energy is not self-sustaining.
• Wind-industry firms have laid off approximately 2,800 employees, one-third of them from Siemens alone since September.
• Wind power is not reliable for consistently producing energy. “Wind” says it all, and when the wind doesn't blow, then what? Run off batteries?
• The tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour lasts for 10 years. A wind farm built in 2012 will continue to receive the subsidy until 2022 at an approximate cost of $12 billion in tax money.
Failed “green” energy projects subsidized by the Obama administration — Solyndra, A123, Tesla, Chevy Volt, etc. — have cost taxpayers billions.
It's not government's role to pick winners and losers. Wind power is another failed taxpayer subsidy that must end. Drive to the Johnstown area and see how many wind turbines sit idle.
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.
- Find hilarity in the headlines
- ‘PC’ Ebola approach deadly
- Behind tax inversions
- Not for expressway
- Won’t stop drilling
- Opposed to efficiency?
- GCC 19, sportsmanship 0
- Wrong decision on Harmar church
- Export more oil
- Better choice
- Hidden Ebola agenda?