After reviewing your WaPo article (oh, and why that rag is ever touted as left-leaning continues to be beyond me), I see that there is a subtle but perhaps important difference between the companies that contributed to the President's last campaign and the Solamere investors. It all goes back to an old joke: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Say what you will about solar and wind, but they prove to be alternative sources of energy because of the subsidies provided to "tried-and-true" carbon-based energy sources. Because of this uneven playing field, the alternatives only enjoy a market advantage in limited areas (mostly off-grid installations). If you were an alternative energy provider, how would you change that?
Given that most carbon companies give to Republicans, you would likely give to the alternative political party. It seems that happened, and with a vengeance. Ah, but even if you get your guy elected, the carbon subsidies are still in play. You can get access to the market, maybe, but you won't be able to get access to a fair market. So you run the risk of going bust. As they have.
That doesn't mean the product you deliver isn't a good one, or that it isn't needed in today's dwindling carbon resource environment. It just means you can buy enough political influence to get in a market that will crush you.
By contrast, the Solamere investors I pointed out are providing sub-standard products, at least, as I've said, the ones with which I am familiar. Do check out the Frontline pieces on the dental services and for-profit colleges. Not good for the people that attend either in quite a few cases, but very, very profitable. That I find more offensive and repugnant than the track record of Obama supporters in an un-even playing field.
After you even the playing field for energy by removing the carbon subsidies, though, what would you call the alternative energy sources that work?
Energy sources.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 27/10/12 17:51 (UTC)Say what you will about solar and wind, but they prove to be alternative sources of energy because of the subsidies provided to "tried-and-true" carbon-based energy sources. Because of this uneven playing field, the alternatives only enjoy a market advantage in limited areas (mostly off-grid installations). If you were an alternative energy provider, how would you change that?
Given that most carbon companies give to Republicans, you would likely give to the alternative political party. It seems that happened, and with a vengeance. Ah, but even if you get your guy elected, the carbon subsidies are still in play. You can get access to the market, maybe, but you won't be able to get access to a fair market. So you run the risk of going bust. As they have.
That doesn't mean the product you deliver isn't a good one, or that it isn't needed in today's dwindling carbon resource environment. It just means you can buy enough political influence to get in a market that will crush you.
By contrast, the Solamere investors I pointed out are providing sub-standard products, at least, as I've said, the ones with which I am familiar. Do check out the Frontline pieces on the dental services and for-profit colleges. Not good for the people that attend either in quite a few cases, but very, very profitable. That I find more offensive and repugnant than the track record of Obama supporters in an un-even playing field.
After you even the playing field for energy by removing the carbon subsidies, though, what would you call the alternative energy sources that work?
Energy sources.