The Cato Institute is airing a podcast called "How Not to Subsidize Renewable Energy" that explains how "The renewable portfolio standard subsidizes renewable energy in states via higher energy costs for low-income people."
It's a two-pronged, self-defeating argument that solar advocates make without seeming to notice how the second prong makes an utter shambles of the first. Solar energy is a powerhouse new industry in NC, and if you removed any governmental favoritism, it would come to utter ruin.
Cronyism is directly opposed to market competition. After all, you don't have government forcing people to do what they'd do anyway. That's why there's no law saying you have to put on your pants before your shoes.
And the headline reads… China’s first all-electric zero-emissions cargo ship is going to be used to transport coal The vessel, designed for inland waterway transport, will have a pilot shipping voyage next month, and be put into commercial use early next year. It will travel a fixed route on…
Since at least the 1970s, renewable energy advocates have said their industry is just a few short years away from competing with traditional energy sources, so they need government support for only a few short years more. Now a Forbes headline asks, "Renewable Energy Tax Credits — Forever?"
Arguing against subsidies for traditional energy sources and for more subsidies for renewable energy sources is just another example of arguing "That cronyism is bad because it can't go to this cronyism." How about no cronyism at all?