Ohio Takes Step Backwards

[Sunstone]

Renewable energy attacked in Ohio by Libertarians, conservatives. Jobs, savings, and the environment take a hit.

Gov. John Kasich just signed into a law a bill that freezes Ohio’s renewable energy mandate for the next two years, making Ohio the first state to make negative progress on its green energy goals. Good job, Ohio.


As Salon reported last month when the state House of Representatives first approved the bill, SB 310 removes the requirement, first set in 2008, for utilities to add renewables to their energy mix. It sounded like a good idea then — it passed almost unanimously — and has done pretty well for Ohio since: clean energy’s brought 25,000 jobs and at least $1 billion in private sector investment, and cut electricity rates by 1.4 percent, resulting in over $230 million in cumulative savings.


Unfortunately for jobs, savings and the environment, conservative, libertarian and Koch-affiliated groups like the Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council have made renewables a political target.

Please discuss.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why should any one be surprised.
The climate of opinion is always short sighted.
The time will come, when all we have is renewables.
oil based energy is highly profitable, why would businesses not prefer it for its short-term gains? For them it is just another commodity to be traded.
However the last thing that the green energy industry needs is a stop go "uncertainty" policy. Investment can not work in that atmosphere.

 

[Valjean]

They've got a good racket going. They don't want interlopers moving in on their territory.

 

[4consideration]

I'm just going from the article, and not from any personal familiarity with what is going on in Ohio, but I don't see that as being any sort of major problem.

To me, the removal of a mandate for 2 years is simply the removal of a governmentally imposed requirement. I don't see that it prohibits anyone, or any utility, from actually continuing to move forward with the implementation, or addition, of renewable energy sources that have been shown to work and are economically feasible.

Typically, I would consider the words "negative" and "step back" as something that would necessarily reduce -- as in, subtract from -- efforts already made. I don't think suspending compulsive requirements for two years qualifies as that. I think of what seems to be happening more like a pause. Sometimes a pause is a good and beneficial opportunity for reassessment and reevaluation.

I think if the efforts already being made have been shown to be productive and worthwhile, there's a good likelihood there are those that would be willing to continue to invest their own money in support of continuing with efforts in the same direction. It may actually end up being a great investment for those that choose to continue to go after implementing renewal energy, while others who might have done it only through compulsion focus their resources elsewhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good ole Salon.....they didn't name a single libertarian politician, they didn't state
reasons for the vote, they didn't examine the other side of the issue, & they didn't
give details about the bill. But they did make it clear whom they despise....they
just don't put much effort into it. And their audience doesn't seem to ask for much
except taking the 'correct' side. Are they trying to out-Fox the Fox?

Consider this paragraph from the article....

As Salon reported last month when the state House of Representatives first approved the bill, SB 310 removes the requirement, first set in 2008, for utilities to add renewables to their energy mix. It sounded like a good idea then — it passed almost unanimously — and has done pretty well for Ohio since: clean energy’s brought 25,000 jobs and at least $1 billion in private sector investment, and cut electricity rates by 1.4 percent, resulting in over $230 million in cumulative savings.

Things are bad in Ohiostan (I've many friends there suffering thru the recession.)
Salon paints such a rosy picture for the bill's effects. So it raises the question,
why would this be opposed? The answer of evil Big Oil is just to facile.

FTR:
I read the article.
I favor clean & renewable energy.
I think Salon & Fox are both poopy heads.

 

[metis]

I think it's quite safe to say that today's Republicans more march to the tune of politics and corporate donations than to science.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's quite safe to say that today's Republicans more march to the tune of politics and corporate donations than to science.

How did the Salon article even address science?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Here in the real world, we can't afford renewables.

Yes I get a warm fuzzy feeling living in an off grid home.

I just don't believe people are ready to pay more for less.

 

[Avi1001]

Would you have believed we would be paying $4/gal. 40 years ago? I don't think so. We need to develop renewables in a serious way, so as petroleum becomes depleted we are ready for the change. Remember, all energy comes from the sun.

Here in the real world, we can't afford renewables.

Yes I get a warm fuzzy feeling living in an off grid home.

I just don't believe people are ready to pay more for less.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If we look to the future renewables are the only way.

If you work for minimum wage, your more concerned about the short term keeping the lights turned on.

 

[LuisDantas]

If people are not ready to deal with renewables, it must follow that they don't particularly care about having a society that can sustain itself.

I have never understood how that can be, but apparently such is the case anyway.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Here in the real world, we can't afford renewables.

Yes I get a warm fuzzy feeling living in an off grid home.

I just don't believe people are ready to pay more for less.

Sure we can. You and others keep saying we can't but we can. I'm not saying that at this point in time going green totally is the answer but mixing it in is a good step forward. Doing so will lead to more and more innovation further reducing cost and fostering competition....(and the Mayor of Greenburg KS is Bob Dixon, a republican, who initiated and supports the move to alternative energy).

Google

Sustainabie Kansas town | TravelWritersMagazine

Ikea store in Merriam plans to have the largest rooftop solar array in Kansas | Wichita Eagle

Bates County, MO, town drawing energy using solar power - KCTV5

How about we cut back or cut out pork projects (See: Mitch McConnell - Kentucky), far subsidies, oil subsidies, some foreign aide as well as foreign war adventurism (costing us billions and trillions)....and invest in our own future...?

 

[metis]

Here in the real world, we can't afford renewables.

Yes I get a warm fuzzy feeling living in an off grid home.

I just don't believe people are ready to pay more for less.

To me, it should be more of an evolution than a revolution, but we can't just start tomorrow.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm as green as they get, most people would not sacrifice to achieve anything close to how I live.
The state of Kentucky is losing coal jobs and will become wards of the state sucking funds instead of paying taxes
I have never seen cleaner air or water in my life time.

Meanwhile factories will be built where cheap energy is still available

 

[metis]

If we look to the future renewables are the only way.

If you work for minimum wage, your more concerned about the short term keeping the lights turned on.

Then maybe boosting the minimum wage is in order.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Then maybe boosting the minimum wage is in order.

Great solution pay them more so they can spend it keeping the lights turned on.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Where does this additional money come from?

 

[Reverend Rick]

You have to be a rich man to live a green lifestyle

 

[metis]

Great solution pay them more so they can spend it keeping the lights turned on.

Beats throwing up our hands and saying "We can't do it!" when we actually can do it.

 

[metis]

You have to be a rich man to live a green lifestyle

Actually it's more the other way around. Being conservative with our resources actually saves more money, and also helps deal with some other problems, such as pollution and global warming. Going green is a win/win approach if handled correctly.