Obscene Green Gold Rush Embarasses the New York Times
show comments
  • Kris

    “We will probably be hearing less of those claims now”

    Ah, but the only problem was that the policy wasn’t implemented well. This time, it’ll be different, you’ll see!

  • Soul

    Well, that’s encouraging to see!

  • Luke Lea

    Best case yet for the end of climate skepticism. 🙂

    Was it Voltaire who said ridicule is the most effective weapon? I think so.

  • Nate

    The Green Industrial Policy projects may indeed be stupidly done by incompetent dreamers at best, or pork project opportunists at worst. But the money spent is still a drop in the bucket compared with the energy subsidies we give to oil, coal, nuclear, etc. There’s no good reason to separate energy subsidies, nor any reason to suggest that the well-intentioned green subsidies prop up unprofitable industries, without mentioning that apparently all our other energy industries can’t survive without government largesse and tax breaks either. So if we have to support one, why not pick the energy sources that leave the planet in better shape, and don’t give money to dictators and theocrats?

  • a nissen

    Come now. Easily as dumb:
    ” In the economics corner, Larry Summers a few years back stated that there is no limit to the carrying capacity of Earth for humans. More recently, Tim Harford concluded, in The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World, “The more of us there are in the world, living our logical lives, the better our chances of seeing out the next million years.” Though I don’t want to bias you too much, keep in mind that about 99.9 percent of economists failed to predict our recent global financial meltdown.”
    more: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6949

  • Hale Adams

    Professor Mead,

    You write: “….. massive excess, failure and fraud that have turned the Obama administration’s green subsidy program into a symbol of good intentions gone awry.”

    Pardon me, sir, but that is “bolshoi” of the first order.

    Some good intentions may have been at work in this, but why does it seem that every single one of the “green investments” that have quite publicly blown up recently involve owners or other beneficiaies who are closely associated with the Democrats?

    Professor, this isn’t about good intentions. This is all about party advantage and lining the pockets of supporters.

  • Eurydice

    Oh, the NYT is just suffering a momentary lapse. It won’t be long before a raft full of blue/green apologists arrive to tell them what they should really think. That the fear of failure shouldn’t stop us from taking bold chances – that everything’s OK if the intentions are good – that at least the money isn’t being spent on war. And everybody knows the GOP hates the environment – they’re probably lighting up $100 cigars right now to celebrate the extinction of the West African black rhino.

  • gavin

    the evil oil industry is not subsidiesed it is a tax cow of the govt.

  • Randy

    I eagerly await Paul Krugman’s next column denouncing such shoddy reporting from a third-rate fishwrap like…uh….wait…never mind.

  • Kate

    These projects fail and will always fail, because these so called “alternate” sources cannot do what the proponents claim.

    It’s the physics, stupid.


  • jim

    The interesting thing about the article was that 90% of the commenters on their website blasted the Times for publishing it.

    They want a lot more of this kind of thing, not less.

    The reporter is probably in re-education right now!

  • buddy larsen

    “…apparently all our other energy industries can’t survive without government largesse and tax breaks either” says Nate @ #4.

    We hear this continually, but nobody knows what this largesse and these tax breaks ‘are’.

    The only explanation one hears –and you won’t hear even this unless you press for it –involves the same ‘tax break’ (costs deducted from taxable income) that IRS *universally* allows, meaning that the ‘largesse’ must refer to the failure of IRS to select oil for ‘special treatment’ by *stripping* it of this universal treatment (which amounts, BTW, to the mere recognition of the reality that risk capital has already been fully taxed).

  • The drunken sailor on shore leave style economic stimulus spending gets special attention as wasteful, misguided and lavished on corporate welfare for energy giants.

    This is an unfair analogy. Drunken sailors on shore leave spend only their own money.

  • PTL

    The country turned over the key to the Mint
    to the Chicago Mob. Why the surprise that they are stealing. That’s what they do no matter the ideology. When the new administration takes office they’ll find out that the Mint and the money printing machines are missing. It was said that the Mexican presidency was worth a billion dollars. Obama, as Clinton before him
    will set a new price on the value of the American presidency.

  • Luke Lea

    Wow! This is real news, and on the state of the science itself no less. Thank you, IPPC! The climes are not a’changin . . .

  • Brian H

    I’m not so sure about one statement in the article. Pig, green lipstick, Ralph Nader — I can see it fairly clearly, actually.

  • boqueronman

    A dumber mass movement than the greens? I’ll take the plunge… OWS. They combine dumb with immature – a twofer!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.