Monday, January 27, 2014

The Foul Smell Emanating from the Climate & Energy Project in Kansas

The wind from this survey wreaks like a fart storm.

The Climate and Energy Project, out of Kansas, has published a new report that says “91% of Kansas voters are strongly supportive of using renewable energy”.    And I’m sure there is another survey out there to purport the majority of Americans support the “Affordable Care Act” over Obamacare.  John, a farmer in Kansas suggested some more pertinent questions The Climate and Energy Project could have surveyed some much tougher questions.    

Do you support routing one of the largest HVDC power lines ever built, through the flint hills?

Do you support routing one of the largest HVDC power lines ever built, through the lesser prairie chicken habitat?

Do you support routing one of the largest HVDC power lines ever built, across the major flyway of the whooping crane in Kansas?

Do you support locating one of the largest HVDC power lines ever built, within 300 feet of many rural Kansan's homes?

Do you support the idea of exporting wind-generated electricity from Kansas to the East Coast?

Sure, who is against the theory of energy that produce no pollution?  Several assumptions can easily be made with surveys claiming 91% of respondents support using renewable energy.  With ambiguous surveys like that by CEP, assumption are made by the respondents such as, the price from all sources of energy are competing at an equal price.  If price between different forms of energy is not equalized within a margin of error, a good portion of consumers freely admit, no they do not want renewable energy.   Yes, organizations and businesses that fund the Climate & Energy Project (Big Wind Energy and Transmission) claim surveys also state consumers are willing to pay more for wind energy, but when ratepayers are given an option to buy electricity from renewable sources or cheaper sources, economically priced energy wins.

So why do groups like the Wind Collation, the American Wind Energy Association, or the Climate & Energy Project support Renewable Portfolio Standards and mandates to buy wind energy at premium prices?    Perhaps it is because ratepayer choice scares the heck out of the wind industry as they cannot compete in an open and fair market.  To them, deregulation of the energy generation industry is good, just don’t give ratepayers a choice is the philosophy behind Renewable Portfolio Standards.

 Maybe the Climate and Energy Project should ask Kansas residents how they feel about funding east coast renewable energy supplying over 260,000 acres of wind turbines and the state ratepayers on benefiting.  Perhaps CEP should ask Kansas residents how they feel about potentially exporting more than 50% of the wind energy generated in Kansas to other state.  Perhaps CEP should ask Kansas residents how they feel about sacrificing to supply urban population centers with energy. 

These pseudo “climate” organizations attempt to follow the “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” philosophy of renewable energy but yet promote a “free market” within their little corner of the energy marketplace.  The definition of "ability" and "need" is carefully defined through propaganda.  With "need" defined through Renewable Portfolio Standards define to benefit wind energy companies and "ability" is defined with omission of the capabilities of offshore wind.  When Climate & Energy Project advocate for companies like Clean Line Energy, they are promoting taking privately held land of thousands of landowners through eminent domain so billionaires like the Michael Zilkha’s and Dirk Ziff’s can profit. 

Sure these industry funded organizations for the “environment” and “rural development” that support Clean Line Energy claim the farmers will benefit by royalties paid from wind energy companies but the profits of a few outweigh the sacrifices of the many is the true motive behind these organizations.

Are people at the Climate & Energy Project that supports the Grain Belt Express profiting from their advocacy?   It’s not surprising the Climate & Energy Project Farce has Mark Lawlor as a board member.  Mark Lawlor is a director of development (company lobbyist) for Clean Line Energy.

So who really funds groups like the Climate & Energy Project?  Could it be Clean Line Energy?  Somebody have to fund and support these groups.  I seriously doubt it’s the public. 

No comments:

Post a Comment