Al Gore's Mea Culpa

[TimG]

The problem with your neoliberal economic theory is that it only works in theory.

It works in practice. Every private sector job in this country was created because investors choose to risk their capital in order to make greater profits in the future. It is the foundation of our economy. Without people taking risks with their money we have nothing.

What is the end game of this stuff if it's not a wealth redistribution excercise upwards into the hands of the few who can take advantage of it?

The discussion in this thread is about how "green jobs" are an illusion because any money spent on "green jobs" is money that was taken away from investments with a greater ROI. There may be some dubious rational for these dubious schemes but it is not jobs. We will have more jobs if the government does not waste money on such things.

[Pliny]

What if businesses have been given tax break upon tax break and incentive upon incentive and concession upon concession...

Money used for the purpose of incentives and penalties is the wrong purpose. It is just a controlling mechanism. Unfortunately, government feels it can manipulate the economy and society with money incentives (subsidies, bailouts, tax credits, etc.)and penalties (taxes, fines, licences, duties, etc.)

And they still leave for Mexico and the US(or China...Or Viet Nametc.),as was the case of John Deere in Welland,Ontario...

Governments are competitive by granting incentives and penalties. If the Mexican government didn't want them there the penalties would be high. They obviously do want them there.

Governments and Unions tend to guarantee wages to buy votes and favour, mistakenly thinking they are doing the citizens a vast service. In the short term, a generation or two, it works, in the long term it doesn't. The politician being a short term job, is more often concerned with the short term than the long term.

The problem with your neoliberal economic theory is that it only works in theory...These folks won't be happy until they pay almost no taxes and get almost no regulatory interference.To do that,they will play off one jurisdiction against another,until they get what they want...This is the spiraling race to the bottom unfettered Capitalism has us in.It's a nightmarish scenario as frightening as any Marxist nightmare I can think off...

As TimG says, it works in practice. You have the cause and effect relationship backward though. It is not the corporations and businesses that make the rules. Like anyone else, they will go where the rules benefit them the most.

There are winners and losers in every endeavour. It is never a good idea to use money as an incentive or punishment to engineer society but it is the major activity of governments. They don't want to be perceived as using force to do what they want so they use money to try and force what they want.

What is the end game of this stuff if it's not a wealth redistribution excercise upwards into the hands of the few who can take advantage of it?

As you well know, you would never allow that and if the government did nothing about it you certainly would be storming the castles. The "peasants", your regular average citizen, would be hanging or guillotining such behavior. Basically, that's all that governments are trying to prevent; that they do a poor, short-sighted job is evident.

It's almost time to take to the streets, Jack. You seem to believe that government has abandoned you and are doing nothing to give you what you want. You are way ahead of your time though. Wait, another ten years or so and the people will be on the streets...oh...maybe not even that...have you checked out the streets of Europe lately?

Edited November 26, 2010 by Pliny

[blueblood]

It works in practice. Every private sector job in this country was created because investors choose to risk their capital in order to make greater profits in the future. It is the foundation of our economy. Without people taking risks with their money we have nothing.

The discussion in this thread is about how "green jobs" are an illusion because any money spent on "green jobs" is money that was taken away from investments with a greater ROI. There may be some dubious rational for these dubious schemes but it is not jobs. We will have more jobs if the government does not waste money on such things.

I don't think I would include the ethanol industry in the "green jobs" category.

A quick google search has the subsidies valued at 6-7 billion dollars per year.

The historical corn futures price in 2002 (before the ethanol industry) was about $2.30 per bushell. In 2006 it was around $2.50 per bushell.

Today's corn futures price with 35-40% of corn being used as ethanol is about $5.38 per bushell.

A quick google search shows that corn production in the US is 13.2 billion bushells this year.

The US gov't by spending 7 billion dollars has indirectly generated about 38 billion dollars through farm gate receipts alone. Then there is the improved stock prices of all those agribusiness companies.

I'd call that a positive ROI.

Wind and solar on the other hand...

[TimG]

The US gov't by spending 7 billion dollars has indirectly generated about 38 billion dollars through farm gate receipts alone. Then there is the improved stock prices of all those agribusiness companies.

And how many jobs has that artificial inflation of corn prices cost? I can give you one anecedote: a box maker faced with radically higher glue costs (glue made from corn). A similar problem exists for US manufacturers of products that use corn syrup. Then you have the higher fuel costs that affect everyone.

Lastly, all of the land used for corn could be used for other crops - probably crops with a much greater ROI because there would be no subsidies to compensate for.

As I said before, the only way government spending can produce sustainable job growth is if it does something that increases private sector productivity. Ethanol subsidies do not do that and are most likely net job killers.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

The discussion in this thread is about how "green jobs" are an illusion because any money spent on "green jobs" is money that was taken away from investments with a greater ROI. There may be some dubious rational for these dubious schemes but it is not jobs. We will have more jobs if the government does not waste money on such things.

The problem is the term "green jobs" mostly describes emerging sectors/technologies. You have no idea what the ROI from this activity will be when all is said and done.

If a positive ROI was required for investment to happen in an emerging industry then youd still be riding a horse for transportation.

[blueblood]

And how many jobs has that artificial inflation of corn prices cost? I can give you one anecedote: a box maker faced with radically higher glue costs (glue made from corn). A similar problem exists for US manufacturers of products that use corn syrup. Then you have the higher fuel costs that affect everyone.

Lastly, all of the land used for corn could be used for other crops - probably crops with a much greater ROI because there would be no subsidies to compensate for.

As I said before, the only way government spending can produce sustainable job growth is if it does something that increases private sector productivity. Ethanol subsidies do not do that and are most likely net job killers.

That would be a problem if the US didn't export any corn and didn't import any petroleum. The US is the worlds largest corn exporter, so I don't see many if at all any jobs lost at all. The other crops also benefit from higher corn prices due to a competition of acres needed for production.

Then there is the petroleum issue, the sheer volume of ethanol being burned takes a great proportion of petroleum off the table. Considering that US farmland has been steadily utilized pre ethanol as it is today, the use of petroleum in production is a non issue. I wouldn't be surprised if ethanol production has saved 5-10 dollars per barrel of oil. I'm fairly certain there are increases of costs with increased petroleum prices.

In the end it's a choice of sending money to unfriendly countries to pay for oil or sending money to ag producers to make ethanol. Also doubling the value of their exports is the icing on the cake.

If the US can save 5-10 dollars on petroleum and double corn prices (which they export in large qttys) then that's a positive ROI. Given that energy use worldwide is projected to steadily increase over time, they need all the energy they can get.

The sharp increase in corn prices has led to a boon in private sector productivity in the ag business with more research funding for higher yielding crops due to increase share prices of various companies, producers spending vast sums of money upgrading their operations to make them more efficient, and various ag companies able to charge more for their products due to the vast amount of cash in the market.

Had the US not been a corn exporter and didn't import such a high percentage of its oil used, I don't think they would be investing so much money in ethanol production.

[Wild Bill]

What if businesses have been given tax break upon tax break and incentive upon incentive and concession upon concession...

And they still leave for Mexico and the US(or China...Or Viet Nametc.),as was the case of John Deere in Welland,Ontario...

The problem with your neoliberal economic theory is that it only works in theory...These folks won't be happy until they pay almost no taxes and get almost no regulatory interference.To do that,they will play off one jurisdiction against another,until they get what they want...This is the spiraling race to the bottom unfettered Capitalism has us in.It's a nightmarish scenario as frightening as any Marxist nightmare I can think off...

What is the end game of this stuff if it's not a wealth redistribution excercise upwards into the hands of the few who can take advantage of it?

Jack, you seem to think that all companies are old fashioned manufacturers, like Stelco or General Motors. I've worked for both modern and old-fashioned companies. I think your criticisms apply mainly to the old ones. Newer companies tend to have far fewer employees and are dealing with factors that keep them in the country. They also get little or no government money, since each company represents only a comparative handful of votes.

You don't think that governments shove money at steel companies because they truly care about the steel industry, do you? They give money because there's a lot of votes involved and not for any other reason!

I worked for a while at a couple of different Canadian Westinghouse locations. They reminded me of General Motors - 1954! Westinghouse was one of the earliest to start outsourcing jobs out of the country. It actually cost them more than any increased profits. Wages of course were far lower but the quality of the workforce was also far lower. The scrap rate went up exponentially. Politically, no one dared to mention things like scrap rate. We all just oohed and aahed at the wage savings and ignored all else. The attitude was that if you just kept your head down and waved the company flag hopefully you'd be laid off LAST!

My take on it is that all the jobs that have gone to China and other such countries are a trend that is not yet complete. These older companies are exporting jobs because they're all copying each other! Somebody wrote an article in Business Week about "Outsourcing! The New A-Go Go Way to Go!" and every manager who wanted to make a name for himself was off and running.

I'm not saying that all outsourcing is bad, just that most companies never properly looked at the whole picture. There are always "soft" costs involved that might not be clear but if you don't account for them they will bite you on your ass! At one Westinghouse location I was a buyer. I was rated solely on price savings. That meant I always went with the lowest bid. Sometimes that meant buying from a vendor who I knew was a total screwup and when he fell short on delivery and stopped our production line it cost us a fortune! No one in management even understood what was happening. I tried to point it out a few times but got slapped down. I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut.

That Westinghouse location is now a parking lot, BTW.

Every business has its own specifics and sometimes the benefits of keeping production close to home outweigh any wage savings. Especially when automation has made wages much less of a factor in the total cost anyway! I'm saying that most North American management, especially the bigger and older companies, were trained in the Dilbert school.

Moving to China is just one step in the process of these old companies dying off! The sooner they're gone the sooner newer, more compact and efficient companies can take over.

We will likely never see the days of high paying big company manufacturing jobs again but that might be a good thing. It's a hard nut for those caught in the transition but for the new generation there will likely be more security.

I'm just saying you should look at the big picture, Jack. Not the OLD picture!

[TimG]

The problem is the term "green jobs" mostly describes emerging sectors/technologies. You have no idea what the ROI from this activity will be when all is said and done.

I have no issue with investing a modest amount of taxpayer money in high risk ventures with the potential for a huge ROI in the future. My problem is the amount of money being sunk into renewables today far exceeds what I think it is reasonable given the likely ROI.

[dre]

I have no issue with investing a modest amount of taxpayer money in high risk ventures with the potential for a huge ROI in the future. My problem is the amount of money being sunk into renewables today far exceeds what I think it is reasonable given the likely ROI.

I think energy technology is one of the MOST worthy things to invest in. Id probably even divert money away from things like defense and social spending and put way MORE money into energy research.

A potential energy crisis over the next 50 years is probably the single biggest threat the human race faces and spending should be proportionate to that threat. The quality of life enjoyed by humans in the future will depend largely on there being a cheap and stable energy supply.

Edited November 26, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

I think energy technology is one of the MOST worthy things to invest in. Id probably even divert money away from things like defense and social spending and put way MORE money into energy research.

Trouble is the money gets dumped into politically trendy projects instead of the ones with the best long term potential. For example, thorium power looks great on paper but it obviously has draw backs or we would be using it. Take the billions away from a technology that is limited use like wind and solar and put it into something that actually has the potential to meet most of our energy needs like thorium. Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Trouble is the money gets dumped into politically trendy projects instead of the ones with the best long term potential. For example, thorium power looks great on paper but it obviously has draw backs or we would be using it. Take the billions away from a technology that is limited use like wind and solar and put it into something that actually has the potential to meet most of our energy needs like thorium.

Youre doing exactly what youre complaining about. Your choices in technology are just as politically motivated as everyone elses, and you apply completely different standards to your pet technologies that you apply to other ones.

And theres no reason to dump more money into the nuclear industry because utilities refuse to buy plants (except with public money), and private sector has absolutely no interest in them. All the public money dumped into nuclear has resulted in an industry that hasnt sold a single plant in North America in 30 years.

If our investment in wind and solar energy dont result in an industry that the private sector will invest in after another decade or so then we should stop funding those as well.

Edited November 26, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

And theres no reason to dump more money into the nuclear industry because utilities refuse to buy plants (except with public money)

Do you know that thorium power is a completely difference process with a completely different fuel? The only thing it has in common with the existing nuclear plants is it uses radioactive decay as its energy source. I did not say we should put any more money into uranium based power. There are no commerical-scale thorium plants today as far as I know and that makes it a perfect candidate for government R&D money.

private sector has absolutely no interest in them.

The private sector has lots of interest when governments make it an option. Renewable buffs like to point to the 8 billion loan guarantee in south carolina as a subsidy but it is really an regulatory insurance policy (i.e. if the government has skin in the game it is less likely to delay approvals). If everything goes according the plan it does not cost the government one cent. Furthermore, the entire project is $14 billion which means $9 billion is coming from private investors which shows your are wrong on that front.

If our investment in wind and solar energy dont result in an industry that the private sector will invest in after another decade or so then we should stop funding those as well.

Why a decade? Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

The private sector has lots of interest when governments make it an option.

Nope. They want loan guarantees, they want liability caps to reduce their insurance cost, they want the government to provide all the fuel, and they want the government to process the waste, they want government to reduce taxes on the decommissioning trust funds because they dont even have the cash to shut down exists plans that expiring soon, never mind the money to build new plants.

And of course they wanted the government to do all the research, and design and test the first plants.

Theres no such thing as a more "public" private industry than the nuclear industry.

[Wild Bill]

Youre doing exactly what youre complaining about. Your choices in technology are just as politically motivated as everyone elses, and you apply completely different standards to your pet technologies that you apply to other ones.

And theres no reason to dump more money into the nuclear industry because utilities refuse to buy plants (except with public money), and private sector has absolutely no interest in them. All the public money dumped into nuclear has resulted in an industry that hasnt sold a single plant in North America in 30 years.

If our investment in wind and solar energy dont result in an industry that the private sector will invest in after another decade or so then we should stop funding those as well.

Are you really being fair here, Mr. Dre? The major factors for a lack of new nuclear power plants are all political and not economic! The anti-nuke activists have done a great job convincing the average Joe that a nuclear reactor is really the same as a nuclear bomb. So NIMBYism reigns supreme! There are so many unnecessary and redundant codicils involved in building a new plant that anyone can understand why private investors would say "Screw it! If governments want to put so much red tape into it then let them build their own nukes!" Meanwhile, they can make more money as the kilowatt hour price keeps climbing, without having to invest a thing into new production!

It's similar to our situation with oil refineries. Canada has very few left, as they have been slowly closing down over the years. A business investor would need his head read before building a new refinery! Refineries are considered smelly and nasty. Nobody wants them around. They have had so flippin' many 'green' and 'eco-clean' rules applied to their construction and operation that the costs have spiraled out of sight! Again, private investors walk away.

Notice too that the government hasn't stepped up to the plate. They did have a PetroCan refinery in Oakville, Ontario that they inherited by buying out Shell Oil's ownership. When it reached the end of its life cycle they closed it down. Once again, it's because having a crimp in the supply chain ensures a higher price! There's always no shortage of crude. The shortage is with refining capacity! If you had a surplus of refining capacity you would have competitive pressures to keep prices down. The gas companies have no interest in that situation. Several times in the last year alone we've been told that a spike in prices at the pump was due to a refinery problem in Quebec or somewhere.

It's obvious that if our governments truly wanted to give us a break with gas prices they would build us a new refinery or two. We're not going to see that happen! Not with the HST on the pump price! As it goes up so does the take to the feds and the provinces. They have no interest in anything that would keep prices down or even lower them.

Electricity is a bit dicier for a government like McGuinty's. A lack of production capacity will move prices up but he has to be careful that we don't have any blackouts! He's starting to get enough flack about the size of the price hikes but that will be nothing compared to the reaction if we start having power failures, especially if it's in the dead of a cold winter. If it happens on a cloudy day or at night, with no wind, all the MicroFit generators in the world won't help light one extra LED Christmas bulb! Non of that MicroFit power from wind or solar can be stored for dark and calm times. You either have it available at that time or the lights go out.

It appears we agree that wind and solar should not be subsidized. If they can't be profitable on their own then they're really just another drain on our tax dollars. However, nuclear power is in a different position. How can we tell if it is profitable with all the red tape slapped on it for political reasons?

I think the answer is simple. Nuclear reactors are quite popular in other countries, build by private business. If private business won't build in Canada then its likely our politicians have screwed something up!

[Jack Weber]

Are you really being fair here, Mr. Dre? The major factors for a lack of new nuclear power plants are all political and not economic! The anti-nuke activists have done a great job convincing the average Joe that a nuclear reactor is really the same as a nuclear bomb. So NIMBYism reigns supreme! There are so many unnecessary and redundant codicils involved in building a new plant that anyone can understand why private investors would say "Screw it! If governments want to put so much red tape into it then let them build their own nukes!" Meanwhile, they can make more money as the kilowatt hour price keeps climbing, without having to invest a thing into new production!

It's similar to our situation with oil refineries. Canada has very few left, as they have been slowly closing down over the years. A business investor would need his head read before building a new refinery! Refineries are considered smelly and nasty. Nobody wants them around. They have had so flippin' many 'green' and 'eco-clean' rules applied to their construction and operation that the costs have spiraled out of sight! Again, private investors walk away.

Notice too that the government hasn't stepped up to the plate. They did have a PetroCan refinery in Oakville, Ontario that they inherited by buying out Shell Oil's ownership. When it reached the end of its life cycle they closed it down. Once again, it's because having a crimp in the supply chain ensures a higher price! There's always no shortage of crude. The shortage is with refining capacity! If you had a surplus of refining capacity you would have competitive pressures to keep prices down. The gas companies have no interest in that situation. Several times in the last year alone we've been told that a spike in prices at the pump was due to a refinery problem in Quebec or somewhere.

It's obvious that if our governments truly wanted to give us a break with gas prices they would build us a new refinery or two. We're not going to see that happen! Not with the HST on the pump price! As it goes up so does the take to the feds and the provinces. They have no interest in anything that would keep prices down or even lower them.

Electricity is a bit dicier for a government like McGuinty's. A lack of production capacity will move prices up but he has to be careful that we don't have any blackouts! He's starting to get enough flack about the size of the price hikes but that will be nothing compared to the reaction if we start having power failures, especially if it's in the dead of a cold winter. If it happens on a cloudy day or at night, with no wind, all the MicroFit generators in the world won't help light one extra LED Christmas bulb! Non of that MicroFit power from wind or solar can be stored for dark and calm times. You either have it available at that time or the lights go out.

It appears we agree that wind and solar should not be subsidized. If they can't be profitable on their own then they're really just another drain on our tax dollars. However, nuclear power is in a different position. How can we tell if it is profitable with all the red tape slapped on it for political reasons?

I think the answer is simple. Nuclear reactors are quite popular in other countries, build by private business. If private business won't build in Canada then its likely our politicians have screwed something up!

The refinery in Oakville was not shut down because it reached the end of its life cycle...It was shut down,dismantled,and,rebuilt in Pakistan!!!!!

You are right about the greed of the oil industry and it's manipulation of a supposed free market...

Control the supply and create the demand....

As far as nuclear goes,it seems the Province announced this week that it was nowprepared to get in the business(again) of funding the construction and refurbishment of reactors...

It's about time,in my opinion....

[dre]

Are you really being fair here, Mr. Dre? The major factors for a lack of new nuclear power plants are all political and not economic! The anti-nuke activists have done a great job convincing the average Joe that a nuclear reactor is really the same as a nuclear bomb. So NIMBYism reigns supreme! There are so many unnecessary and redundant codicils involved in building a new plant that anyone can understand why private investors would say "Screw it! If governments want to put so much red tape into it then let them build their own nukes!" Meanwhile, they can make more money as the kilowatt hour price keeps climbing, without having to invest a thing into new production!

It's similar to our situation with oil refineries. Canada has very few left, as they have been slowly closing down over the years. A business investor would need his head read before building a new refinery! Refineries are considered smelly and nasty. Nobody wants them around. They have had so flippin' many 'green' and 'eco-clean' rules applied to their construction and operation that the costs have spiraled out of sight! Again, private investors walk away.

Notice too that the government hasn't stepped up to the plate. They did have a PetroCan refinery in Oakville, Ontario that they inherited by buying out Shell Oil's ownership. When it reached the end of its life cycle they closed it down. Once again, it's because having a crimp in the supply chain ensures a higher price! There's always no shortage of crude. The shortage is with refining capacity! If you had a surplus of refining capacity you would have competitive pressures to keep prices down. The gas companies have no interest in that situation. Several times in the last year alone we've been told that a spike in prices at the pump was due to a refinery problem in Quebec or somewhere.

It's obvious that if our governments truly wanted to give us a break with gas prices they would build us a new refinery or two. We're not going to see that happen! Not with the HST on the pump price! As it goes up so does the take to the feds and the provinces. They have no interest in anything that would keep prices down or even lower them.

Electricity is a bit dicier for a government like McGuinty's. A lack of production capacity will move prices up but he has to be careful that we don't have any blackouts! He's starting to get enough flack about the size of the price hikes but that will be nothing compared to the reaction if we start having power failures, especially if it's in the dead of a cold winter. If it happens on a cloudy day or at night, with no wind, all the MicroFit generators in the world won't help light one extra LED Christmas bulb! Non of that MicroFit power from wind or solar can be stored for dark and calm times. You either have it available at that time or the lights go out.

It appears we agree that wind and solar should not be subsidized. If they can't be profitable on their own then they're really just another drain on our tax dollars. However, nuclear power is in a different position. How can we tell if it is profitable with all the red tape slapped on it for political reasons?

I think the answer is simple. Nuclear reactors are quite popular in other countries, build by private business. If private business won't build in Canada then its likely our politicians have screwed something up!

Are you really being fair here, Mr. Dre? The major factors for a lack of new nuclear power plants are all political and not economic!

No sorry, thats an urban legend. The refusal on the part of utilities to buy nuclear plants is based entirely on economics. These people dont give a rats ass about what environmentalists think. They wont invest in nuclear plants EVEN THOUGH the government pays for the fuel cycle and dumps mountains of free cash, subsidies, tax breaks, etc into the industry. Investors would simply rather build coal plants.

Nuclear reactors are quite popular in other countries

Yes. Its used in countries that dont have much coal or natural gas.

[blueblood]

I think the answer is simple. Nuclear reactors are quite popular in other countries, build by private business. If private business won't build in Canada then its likely our politicians have screwed something up!

If you would take a look at the rapid expansion of the ethanol industry in the US, you would want to pull your hair out in frustration of how Canada won't develop increased nuclear power - as was the case in Saskatchewan a few years back or the most logical alternative fuel which is natural gas. Natural gas happens to be the only commodity that remained flat if not trended downward during the recent bull market for commodities.

Being a commodity producer myself, it would be extremely foolish to not support the ethanol industry because who wants to turn away money?

Personally, I think its in Canada's best interest to have high commodity prices, namely energy prices. So much of the value of the TSX is tied up in it, so many Canadian's retirement and investment portfolio's are tied up in it, and such a large proportion of the Canadian economy is tied up into it. The beauty with fossil fuels from an economic perspective is that they are quickly consumed, and when they are consumed they are gone!

This all sucks for the manufacturing sector which is a large part of the Ontario and Quebec economies, and what used to be the main strength of the US economy, but considering the big money that entrepreneurship and the energy sector bring, how can manufacturing compete with the energy sector/entrepreneurship with emerging markets willing to do that at a much less cost. I think there is a correction going on in the world as far as this goes when I look at GDP growth rates from emerging markets vs. developed markets. When the time comes when the wages in emerging markets along with freight result in more expensive products than products produced here, I expect our economy to not grow as fast as one would like.

[dre]

Do you know that thorium power is a completely difference process with a completely different fuel? The only thing it has in common with the existing nuclear plants is it uses radioactive decay as its energy source. I did not say we should put any more money into uranium based power. There are no commerical-scale thorium plants today as far as I know and that makes it a perfect candidate for government R&D money.

I agree.

[Wild Bill]

If you would take a look at the rapid expansion of the ethanol industry in the US, you would want to pull your hair out in frustration of how Canada won't develop increased nuclear power - as was the case in Saskatchewan a few years back or the most logical alternative fuel which is natural gas. Natural gas happens to be the only commodity that remained flat if not trended downward during the recent bull market for commodities.

Natural gas is a good point! For some reason, McGuinty has a hard on against natural gas and coal for electricity production. This is totally politics for the ignorant and has nothing to do with 'green'. Other countries have successfully developed scrubbers and other technologies that make these fuels as clean as almost anything else. Yet McGuinty will not even consider using them!

With the discoveries of shale gas deposits, enough for our needs for centuries to come, along with the existing known reserves, natural gas is going to remain a reasonably priced fuel, unless the politicians find a way to lie and get more tax money out of us.

McGuinty has chosen to go with wind and solar as the 'sexy' choices. Unfortunately, he also intends to more than double our costs in only a few years, as paying ridiculously high prices to wind and solar producers is the only way he can attract them to build. He hopes to build jobs by forcing producers to use locally made solar cells and wind turbines. This is the antithesis of free trade and already he has challenges pending from other countries over breaking trade agreements.

He's trying to build an artificial economy based on energy sources that are not by themselves profitable, in order to create jobs that only exist due to government subsidies. Meanwhile, he is deliberately ignoring fuels like coal and gas that are cheap and plentiful, pretending to be ignorant of modern ways to use them cleanly. He says he's going to upgrade our nuclear capacity but he keeps dithering and delaying actually doing it! He's already broken several promised timelines.

Only someone who lives in a pampered bubble could fail to understand that the average citizen cannot afford such high economic shocks in such a short time. The average wage is not likely to rise enough over the same time period to cover the amount he has heaped in taxes and on the electricity bill. Certainly, pensions for the retired on fixed incomes certainly won't! Surely he could have chosen a more gradual approach. We've spent many decades digging our hole. Why the rush to get out of it so quickly and expensively?

More and more, I'm convinced this man is an idiot! I think he really believes his own BS! I seriously doubt if he has any technical understanding of the problems of his own.

Look what he did with the HST. Look what he did in Caledonia. Look how he's handling our electricity.

This man is making Stephane Dion look like a paragon of practicality!

Maybe someone is pulling his strings. Samsung sure got a sweetheart deal with their manufacturing plant...

Edited November 27, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Pliny]

This man is making Stephane Dion look like a paragon of practicality!

A monumental almost impossible achievement!

[Oleg Bach]

Something is horrifically wrong with our thinking - and highly un-natural when you take good food and feed it to a car or other machine. Stuffing good corn into your gas tank is ubsurd and sinful.

[Pliny]

Being a commodity producer myself, it would be extremely foolish to not support the ethanol industry because who wants to turn away money?

Doesn't seem to be that ethanol has a bright future.

Gore flip-flops on ethanol.

What else is AL Gore wrong about? This is why the markets and not government should decide what is a workable sustainable energy technology.