Non-existent Green Jobs, MACT, CSAPR and "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." - Barack Obama 01/2008

br />

“Obama’s dreams of green jobs have run into some snags lately. The bankruptcy of solar panel company
Solyndra, which received half a billion dollars in loan guarantees, is not good for the goal of greenifying our lives. Objectively speaking, there is one simple reason that companies like Solyndra just couldn’t make ends meet: the prices that they need to charge for their products are simply too high to create true market demand“.

For instance, the EPA’s Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule (MACT) requires all coal-fired plants to reduce emissions of specific toxic air pollutants like mercury emissions. The problem with this is that it would “require coal-fired power plants to install equipment that in some cases is too expensive to afford and in other cases does not currently exist commercially.”

So essentially, borrowing a phrase from President Obama, “If someone wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” This is not some reading between the lines to figure this out, as noted above, this is the actual words spoken by candidate Obama and the MACT rule is the perfect example of it in action. The requirements aren’t just onerous, they’re in some cases impossible to meet which of course results in massive fees levied against the company.

So what is the result of this?

Well this one rule could force enough coal-fired power plant shutdowns to equal about 30-70 gigawatts of electricity across the country. That means that businesses and families will need to move towards more expensive alternatives for energy to keep the lights on. This explains why the administration was so intent on investing in solar energy to the point of ignoring due diligence in favor of “hurrying up.” This standard will lead to double-digit increases in rates in keeping with another famous quote from President Obama where he acknowledged that under his plan “power bills would necessarily skyrocket.” For families that will mean tightening their belts in an economy which they can ill afford to do so. For businesses, it will also mean tightening belts which means cutting corners and yes, cutting jobs.

But MACT isn’t the only rule with alarming implications. The EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) will also target coal-fired power plants. This time it’s to prevent polluted air from crossing state lines. As is the case with MACT, it doesn’t accomplish this in a sensible way that allows the companies managing the plants to stay in business and continue providing power while implementing the changes. Again, it’s overly stringent with unrealistic timelines that are designed to be virtually impossible to comply with.

Brian Shaw of the Washington Examiner notes:

This rule will impose onerous new costs on coal-fired power plants, causing many to shut down, and threaten electrical generation reserve capacity all over the country. These reserve margins are needed to avoid power disruption during times of peak demand. Even temporary loss of reserve capacity risks dangerous blackouts.

In terms of job losses, CSAPR is ahead of the game causing job losses even prior to its actual implementation. Luminant, a Texas energy company, announced a wave of shutdowns and layoffs as the rule’s compliance deadline moves closer”. - President Obama and the EPA’s War on Jobs - by Ben Howe, redstate.com, 09/15/2011

The link to the entire story,President Obama and the EPA’s War on Jobs by Ben Howe, appears below:

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/09/15/president-obama-and-the-epas-war-on-jobs/

　

ObamaCare and the government delivery system

Why choose a government delivery system?

Who can forget the above flow chart of the bureaucracy associated with ObamaCare. Tens of thousands of additional government workers will populate a new mega bureaucracy produced by ObamaCare and another 16,000 IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare penalties/fines.

The above flow chart begs a question: why choose a government delivery system? That is, why choose a delivery system that is managed by a monopoly, that is very well known as a highly inefficient system, a system that has been known to breed corruption and waste, that is full of red tape that frustrates the end users of the system?

The government delivery system as the first choice rather than last choice

Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia puts forth the following observations:

(a) people tend to forget about the possibilities of acting independently of the state,

(b) presumably what drives people to use the state's system of justice is the issue of ultimate enforcement,

(c) similarly, people that want to be paternalistically regulated forget the possibilities of contracting into particular limitations on their own behavior or appointing a particular paternalistic supervisory board over themselves. (1)

What Nozick is observing the use of the state as the first choice rather than a last choice. That the state is used for enforcement. That those subscribing paternalism have a quest to broaden their paternalism to all individuals rather than focusing upon themselves.

Conflict of Visions

Thomas Sowell has described a conflict of visions. That two broadly defined groups exist: the empirical camp vs. the anointed/intelligentsia camp. The empirical camp is based on the concepts that the vast collection of mundane knowledge possessed by individuals based on experience and empirical evidence, individual and property rights, and individual freedom to choose - is in direct conflict - with vision of the anointed/intelligentsia group who's position is based on "special knowledge" which is a non-empirically proposition based upon "the way things ought to be" delivered through verbal virtuosity resulting in painting the world in one's own self image. (2) (3)

The mega state vs. the small state

Although the two groups described by Sowell are clearly in conflict of visions, both groups subscribe to Nozick's points (a) and (b) described above. To one extent or another both groups choose the state to deliver their vision. The difference being that the empirical group wants a smaller state to deliver and enforce their vision whereas the anointed/intelligentsia adds Nozick's point (c) yet wants everyone to subscribe to paternalism through an all encompassing state to deliver and enforce their vision (rather than self imposed paternalism upon only themselves).

Delivering the vision

ObamaCare is in fact a "vision" of the anointed/intelligentsia. Beyond the laundry list of short comings associated with ObamaCare, beyond an attempt to mold a health-care system based on "the way things ought to be", the chosen delivery system, the state (government), will never deliver the "vision". That is to say, no matter how well a construct or how poorly a construct, the "vision" can not be delivered through a monopoly, that is a well known highly inefficient system, a system that has been know to breed corruption and waste, that is full of red tape that frustrates the end users of the system.

Notes:

(1) Richard Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Page 14.

(2) Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell.

(3) Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell.