The Symbolic Symbolism of Fakery
Posted by Ryne McClaren on March 7, 2010
Initially I wasn’t particularly concerned about President Obama’s “green” initiatives, until I remembered that America had just elected a complete fraud.
And while the following story doesn’t have anything to do with our current administration per se, I think it’s handy to remind ourselves that you can pick any issue of the day out of a hat, and whatever the government can do, the private sector can do better, cheaper, faster.
To wit: this informative Tom Steward post at Big Government titled ‘Symbolic Wind Turbines Generating more P.R. Than Power.
Now that most of twelve California wind turbines retrofitted for Minnesota winters are finally operational, several cities have acknowledged to the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota that the $5 million project may be more suited for generating PR—both good and bad—than producing significant quantities of power.
The wind power project involves utilities in eleven cities scattered across the state from the metro area to East Grand Forks in a consortium called the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA). Each of the eleven member cities received one turbine, and the twelfth was given to the MMPA owned and operated Faribault Energy Park in Faribault. It was supposed to be a step toward meeting the state renewable energy mandate that requires 25 percent of Minnesota’s power be from renewable energy sources by 2025.
It turns out, however, the twelve wind derricks will produce power for perhaps several hundred homes, hardly making a dent in the MMPA’s 57,000 household and business customers.
“They’re basically for public relations, educational purposes. They’re just not feasible for any significant amount of electrical generation,” said Dan Voss, Municipal Utilities Director for the City of Anoka.
President Obama’s campaign pledge to promote “green” spending and research hasn’t flowered. But when it does — pending the collapse of health care “reform” and any number of other items on his agenda — I expect that we’ll see a lot more of this sort of thing.
“Going green” is a farcical notion, in both the corporate and political sense. “Green” products are stamped as such to induce the consumer to buy them, so caveat emptor. “Going green,” in the political sense, is a lullaby to convince you to open your wallet to the cats who run Washington, DC and your state legislature.
I’m a pretty solid advocate of research and development of alternative energy sources, as well as the technology to reduce energy consumption. My political and ethical philosophies are both aligned with being good stewards of the earth, and being effective managers of the resources that are available to us. I don’t think that makes me any more or less like any particular political party, I think it makes me similar to the majority.
But do we honestly believe that the accounting shell games run by our state and federal governments will ever produce actual, reality-based technologies to make our lives cleaner, more efficient, and more affordable?
I certainly do not think so. If you read the linked story above, and apply it at the macro-level, you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Until “green” R&D presents an actual, accountable savings to the population, it’s never gonna fly. But when the stars align just so, then we can look forward to a cleaner and more sustainable style of living.
Clean, renewable energy will have to be 1.) profitable to the producer, and 2.) profitable to the consumer. So ask yourself this: who do you trust to pull this one off?