JUDGMENT CALLS

Selling the Green Economy

Environmentalists maximize the dangers of global warming while pretending we can conquer it at virtually no cost.

By Robert J. Samuelson |
Apr 27, 2009 | Updated: 1:41  p.m. ET Apr 27, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: donc711 @ 08/23/2009 3:05:32 PM

    Yes going green does cost something, try to find free green enrgy devises, there are none. Totallling up the cost of home electric generating systems you might come up with a cost of around $20,000 up front maybe more. Then there are the regulations one needs to accomodate. Lisencing and tying into the grid or disconecting from it. Most employed people would have to finace it and retired or unemployed can not aford it. The payback time is long. But even so I am for going green when I consider the alternitives, like no more crude oil. that leaves us without transportation, no food production, and no heating or cooling as needed. It matters little at that poiunt where the crude use to come from. We will run out one day. So green is not an option but a neccesity we can not be without.

  • Posted By: mmm0507 @ 05/08/2009 6:33:29 PM

    why dont we let the market decide whether green energy is cost effective instead of subsidizing green industries?

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 05/07/2009 3:05:02 PM

    I think that citing number of scientsts is misleading. More trustworthy reporting focuses on the number of scientists whose fields are directly related to earth and climate studies. I'm a scientist, but I won't weigh in on the issue because it isn't my field and I haven't seen the data, experimental design, etc. I would love it if the climate changes we've experience are just part of a natural cycle, but I would like to err on the side of caution.

  • Posted By: Torsten Mandal @ 05/07/2009 2:22:41 PM

    Low-cost solutions possible

    Some solutions are expensive, other even profitable. For a low-cost solution (with many benefits incl. adaptattion to climate change) based on direct seeding of fast-growing nitrogen fixing multipurpose trees, with many benefits incl. adaptattion to climate change, see my article from the large 2009 scientific climate congress: www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/41/412031/ees9_6_412031.pdf

  • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 11:36:46 AM

    Where is any of your evidence that environmentalists are "maximizing" the dangers of global warming. Actually, now scientists are saying that the effects of global warming are going to happen at a much faster rate than even environmentalists predicted. Are you saying you know more than scientists trained to study the environment and what affects it?

    Also, you forgot to include the amount fossil fuel dependency costs our nation. From billions of dollars in tax breaks, billions of dollars in cleanup of oil spills (along with destruction of ecosystems), billions of dollars in wars to safeguard our oil supplies, and health costs due to exponentially increasing pollution and allergies due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere which causes plants to overproduce pollen; I think you are minimizing the costs of a fossil fuel economy. And have you even heard of the air quality and health problems in countries with huge and completely unregulated pollution like China?

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/28/2009 12:49:31 PM

      How is claiming that the seas will rise over Manhatten, that the polar bear is on the verge of extinction (despite actual counts that indicate the highest number since we began counting); that all the doom and glloom predictions ARE NOT maximizing the situation to their benefit? Get real. These scare tactics and arguments of "consensus science" are what we all should be damn spetical about. It was the consensus back in time that the earth was flat. It was the consensus in the mid 1970's that the world was going into an Ice Age. The consensus of science is an oxymoron...scientists, if left alone to do real science debate endlessly about the most inane issues...which is a good thing. No one is arguing that fossil fuels don't have a cost nor don't come with problems...but to think we can simply wish ourselves into a different world is ridiculous and far more dangerous.

      • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 3:19:08 PM

        This post was so ridiculous that I almost didn't respond, but here goes. No one here is talking about wishing ourselves into a new world. We are talking about building ourselves a more sustainable world and stimulating our economy at the same time. So you agree that the majority of scientists have concluded that global warming is real. I laughed when I read your post... you are actually arguing with me that the majority of scientists are wrong because scientists were wrong about an issue in the 70s and an issue many hundreds of years ago. Great logic, Einstein. Maybe go take a discrete math class to work on your logical skills. Yes theories are constantly being updated, proved, or disproved, but this global warming theory just keeps getting stronger the more data scientists have. I'm going to keep my bets on the scientific consensus, thank you very much.

        • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/29/2009 10:37:31 AM

          No, you missed the point of my post... My argument and skeptism is in this Gore mythology that there IS a concensus of science to begin with...there is not. And to think that scientists today are not just as fallable as they were thirty years ago is also foolish. In fact, there is a growing number of scientists today who are voicing their concern and skeptism of "green funding" biased science, and policy decisions on computer-based models rather than on hard, observed data --- data that when taken as a whole and in context over time do not fully support two very important keypins to the "Green" movement. One, that global warming is man-induced and NOT a product of normal variability, sun flucuations, and alike. And secondly, that WE can even do anything about it. After all, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a minute fraction of the total composition...that massive amounts come from every living creature (you've heard of the cow fart jokes I assume?) and that by eliminating ALL of man's input, we would still see a "greenhouse" effect.

          However, less you think that I have an oil well in my back yard....I am all for reducing our dependancy on oill for many reasons, not the least of which is the geopolitical crap that comes along with it. But I most certainly am NOT a fan of flooding the landscapes with 400 ft. windmills, nor blindly thinking that any policy with the word Green attached to it is good. And to think that we are not seeing an almost fanatical wave of devotion and unhealthy acceptance of ANYTHING remotely associated with "going green" and that dooms-day scenarios are NOT being used daily by the media to scare us into "going green" then you are either being disingenious or have severely limited your field of vision.

          • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 05/01/2009 7:01:54 PM

            Actually when the majority of scientists in a specific field related to the issue agree, I would call that a consensus. I'm not saying scientists aren't fallible, but you are trying to make it seem like all of the scientists who have been studying the climate change for years and all of the researchers like the ones at NASA who believe that global warming is anthropogenic don't know what they are talking about. I suppose you are also one of those people that are skeptical of the Darwin theory.

            You also imply that policy decisions are being made soley on computer-based models. That is just not true. They are being made on a wide range of data, that happens to also include computer-based models. I addressed the whole 'global warming is caused by the sun' myth in one of my other posts here. I also addressed how even though CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere, it has a large impact. But yes, even after eliminating all man-made emissions, we would still see a greenhouse effect. The natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is what allows the earth to maintain a temperature suitable for life. The greenhouse effect is NECESSARY. It takes a LOT of co2 to change the amount of c02 in the atmosphere by one part per million, but changes on the order of parts per million can cause changes on the order of degrees in the planet temperature. Changes of just a few degrees can cause serious climate change.

            Just because you choose to align yourself with the small minority of scientists who do not go along with the anthropogenic global warming theory does not mean that those of us who do are fanatics and blindly following anything with the 'green' label. Yes there are people like that but I am not one. I follow the science.

  • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 11:37:15 AM

    The Green movement is allowing so many more people to start new businesses, which is what the U.S. is about. This is what will fuel economic growth. The fossil fuel industry is already saturated and basically impossible for small businesses to get into at the top of the chain. The best type of jobs people can hope to get into with the fossil fuel industry is running a gas station that sells oil (even though they barely make any profit off of the oil), low- and mid-level employees at places like Exxon, or contractors in the oil field, which can be a dangerous job. Also, green technology is something the U.S. can do to bring us out in the lead over countries like China and Japan in new technology and manufacturing.

    There are a lot more ramifications of continuing with a fossil-fuel economy that you aren't taking into effect, especially because you don't seem to have the foresight to think beyond the next few years. Even if just a few of the things scientists are predicting actually happen (increased extreme weather such as hurricanes, droughts, flooding, etc), rising sea levels, collapsing of entire ecosystems, loss of farm-able land, etc) the costs will be catastrophic for the entire world, and the U.S. usually ends up having to help out all of these other countries financially. What happens when the rain is heavier than the storm drains can handle? Usually massive flooding. Use this scenario to think about the earth. It can regenerate and handle certain amounts of pollution, but if we are polluting at a faster rate than the earth can handle, we need to be prepared for what might happen. And my opinion is that I will listen to a scientist telling me what might happen over you any day.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/28/2009 12:42:10 PM

      You need to start reading a broader array of scientists -- and not just those whose funding comes from the Go Green At Any Cost sources. When the basis for arguing for dramatic shifts in the realities of how our economy works is science fiction then it is in everyone's interest to be damn skeptical. Can we make incremental shifts into using more solar or tidal power? Sure, no one is arguing otherwise. But biomass fuels are a joke; and solar won't run my car (beyond twenty miles an hour). Think of how we got scared into the Iraq War...don't you see any similarity here?

      • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 3:05:54 PM

        I think it is obvious to anyone who actually reads said scientists, that I read a broader array of scientific articles and journals than you do. Most of the scientists who say that global warming doesn't exist or think humans are not to blame, are actually not environmental scientists. I do agree with you that ethanol is a joke, as it causes more problems than it actually solves.

        The basis for arguing for dramatic shifts in our economy is not science fiction. Yes it would have been nice to make more incremental shifts over the last 10 years, but powerful oil interests suppressed research into energy alternatives during that time. Now we need these alternatives You might remember that a panel of scientist from 113 countries gathered and produced an international report that said global warming is caused by humans with 90% certainty. The Bush administration actually bullied the scientists into downgrading their certainty from 99% to 90%, upsetting many of the scientists. If I held a gun to your head and said that I was 90% certain that when I pulled the trigger there would be a bullet in the chamber, would you take that risk? You are assuming that a green economy is all or nothing. The fuel standards of American cars aren't even up to standards of other countries. Maybe if they hadn't dragged their feet on energy efficiency, they wouldn't be going into bankruptcy now.

        We got scared into the Iraq war because people listened to politicians who were being controlled by the oil industry. You can't compare people listening to politicians versus people listening to scientists. Thankfully, our current administration actually listens to scientists rather than lobbyists.

        • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/29/2009 10:50:13 AM

          The study that you refer to...panel of scientists from 113 countries...used computer projections, NOT actual observed data. Flawed....as is most UN sponsored crap. IAnd their conclusions were not that human caused global warming, but rather than humans impacted global warming. A HUGE difference. Also, why so much faith scientists? If you actually read as much science as you claim then you must skip over all the debate, dissent, and patently false or erroneous findings that the process of scientific discovery involves. The reality of today's funding of environmental science should concern all of us...for it most certainly comes with an agenda. Scientists are just as suceptable to bias and outright manipulation to meet an end as are all people.

          • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 05/01/2009 6:39:25 PM

            Actually computer projects were only one component of the data the scientists used. They used many other components, including data from climate research teams around the world. You must skip over the data, period.

  • Posted By: kenfromillinois @ 04/28/2009 1:33:25 PM

    There has been plenty of documentation on the high cost of going green: destruction of the economy, millions of deaths worldwide - all without any impact on CO2 levels or global warming. You just don't read them in the media; you have to read science journals.

    • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 2:35:11 PM

      Going green will not cause the destruction of the economy. It might cause the failure of some of the large polluting businesses that have dragged their feet about implementing more energy-efficient processes, but there will be many new green businesses taking their place. Actually, the surge in new green businesses is already happening. Going green will not destroy our economy; it will stimulate it.

      I do read scientific journals. I have never seen anything about green economies causing worldwide deaths. Please provide references for any outlandish claims like that. Even if a green economy somehow caused deaths worldwide, the number would be far, far less than deaths caused by global warming. Scientists predicted that global warming would cause extreme weather, which we are already seeing in the increase of strong hurricanes, severe flooding, and draughts. Those cause a lot of deaths.

      • Posted By: ceanf9 @ 04/28/2009 3:06:24 PM

        no, going green will not cause the destruction of the economy. it will simply make EVERYTHING much more expensive. now if you are well off, then it will be an inconvenience more than a problem. but for those that are already struggle, it will make things much much worse. you want to claim that global warming will cause many deaths, and you want references from the author to support his claims that a green economy will result in worldwide deaths. well i want evidence and references that global warming will cause numerous deaths. i want evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon output and will lead to extreme weather. and i want real, scientific based evidence. not the predictions of a green leaning scientist. not al gore's misleading presentations on global warming. not computer models that cant even predict historical weather patterns when given historical weather data. but you, and all the global warming groupies, cant do that because the fact is evidence indicating human carbon output is the definite cause of global warming and that global warming is somehow causing extreme weather simply does not exist.

        • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 3:43:39 PM

          Your sentence #2 is outright false. I've experienced it firsthand. My home town in southwest Iowa had one wind turbine constructed. It provided jobs, and the initial investment has been more than returned. Over the winter when utility bills were so high, everyone in my town was extremely happy. The turbine provides an average of 13% of the town's energy needs and keeps their utility bills much lower than that of neighboring towns.

          Also, you must be one of those people that can't look past immediate costs and factor in future costs. Yes maybe the gas guzzling car you buy now is cheaper than a more fuel-efficient vehicle, but you aren't factoring in the extra costs due to global warming, such as higher insurance premiums on homes/buildings and higher medical insurance premiums, as well as the taxes you'll have to spend for future environmental disasters like Hurrican Katrina and the flooding in Fargo, North Dakota. You aren't figuring in the extra taxes that we have to pay to keep these auto companies afloat because they aren't able to compete with the foreign companies that have the more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the rest of the nation was worried about the salmonella outbreak in spinach, I happily ate my sustainably grown, organic spinach, even though I paid a little more upfront for it, knowing that organic practices do not lead to salmonella.

          Secondly, I'm not going to provide you with references for widely held beliefs that are in thousands of scientific articles and journals, written by scientists from all around the world. I'm asking you to provide a reference for a claim that I and most people have never heard of before. Unless you can do this, I won't waste my time responding to your unsubstantiated claims.

          • Posted By: ColoradoBob @ 04/28/2009 4:10:11 PM

            So you're claim is that "man-made" global warming caused Katrina and flooding in Iowa. Do you think that hurricanes and floods just started after we started pumping crude out of the ground? Interesting, but not supported anywhere I've ever read.

            • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 4:22:35 PM

              I'm not saying that global warming has always caused all floods and hurricanes. Please read more carefully in the future. I'm saying that global warming is responsible for increasing the number of occurences of severe weather patterns. This usually makes sense to people who have studied physics. The greenhouse effect is non-disputed, and physics allows us to predict what happens when things start heating up.

              • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/29/2009 10:01:49 AM

                Correction needed; the "greenhouse" effect is most certainly hotly (excuse the pun) contested since our dynamic atmosphere is not fully understood either. The doom & glood computer generated scenarios of the greenhouse effect are but one theory -- still yet to be shown in sync with actual observed data...which is all over the map and very open for interpretation. Don't let the hype of Al Gore fool you -- skeptism is much needed.

                • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/29/2009 12:39:33 PM

                  Actually I think you are confused. The greenhouse effect is a well-documented physics phenomenon. You can simulate it yourself with a few supplies. Look it up.

                  You are correct that our dynamic atmosphere is not fully understood. That is due to something called the Chaos Theory. But actual observed data, from temperatures taken at the poles and equator and in the ocean at those locations, to data gleamed from geological specimens like hundreds of thousands of years of rock sediment, to increasing severe weather patterns is all not only falling in line with what was predicted, but it is making climate scientists nervous because the predicted scenarios are happening at a faster rate than expected.

                  I am a skeptic. I have a degree in computer science and engineering, so not only do I understand the physics behind the scientific claims, but I have exceptional logical thinking skills. I don't fall for all of the green hype. I think that ethanol-based cars cause as many if not more problems that they are supposed to solve. Don't let the Republican hype fool you. A very small minority of scientists (less than 1% of climate scientists based on published literature) is extremely vocal and brainwashing people to think that there is actually more dissent among credible scientists than there actually is. Everytime I read published scientific studies, I look for the source of the funding for the study. 99% of the time, the source was a group with a conflic of interest.

                  • Posted By: WyleEHokie @ 04/29/2009 2:13:43 PM

                    Ribbey101:
                    Okay, if you have such a great education and logical thinking, please explain how CO2 emitted by man, which will account for a fraction of 1% of all atmospheric gases, can account for the predicted surge in global temperatures? From all the scientific articles I've seen: 1) the vast majority of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is natural in origin, 2) water vapor is the leading "greenhouse" gas.

                    You mention the "physics" of the situation. Then what about those scientists who postulate, and have laboratory experiments to back them up, that the impact of solar activity via cosmic rays inducing cloud formation has a significant impact.

                    From other articles I've read, it appears as if there is a better correlation between those than between man emitted CO2 and temps.

                    • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 05/01/2009 6:36:32 PM

                      First off, please learn how to use a computer and stop spamming the site. Secondly, see my response to libertyfirst addressing the solar issue. Third, you are making the assumption that changes on the order of parts per million can't have an effect on a large system. They can and do. Yes water vapor is the leading greenhouse gas, but it has nowhere near the capability to absorb radiation that carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases have. Changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have a much greater impact on temperature than changes in the water vapor levels. Actually, before industrialization, co2 levels in the atmosphere were about 280 ppm. Since then the co2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by 100 ppm and global temperature has increased 33 degrees F.

                  • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/29/2009 2:52:05 PM

                    No I am not confused with regard to the uncertainty of the greenhouse effect of our planet. There has been shown to be many difficulties in extrapolating a classroom experiment to our atmosphere --- as you correctly point out is still not fully understood and significantly difficult to predict. Just predicing the weather accurately is challenging enough. Still, my main point...and that of many skeptics is over not whether temperature readings are reflecting an increase, but the cause and whether the planet has "been here before." There is ample evidence that we have. And in geological terms, we're talking a timeline way beyond what we have in ice core data. So what are the speculative causes. There are many impassioned scientists who also argue that the main culprit is the Sun. Its variablility is also well documented and the effects thereof.
                    Lastly, I do hope you are skeptic. My concern is over the public policy decisions that seem to be made by a populist agenda -- based on what appears to be a hell of a lot of Al Gore hype. And any skeptic should be well aware of Gore's own self-interest in his carbon foot-print crap as well as the carbon credit malarchy. But I am for shifting research dollars and efforts into exploring alternative energy...I hear of no one...not even the much hated Rush speak otherwise. But I will fight tooth and nail when government rams down ill-conceived and poorly thought out plans to re-engineer our economy...based on the hip and cools concept of "going green." I suspect you will too.

                    • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 05/01/2009 5:16:21 PM

                      Actually, yes you are confused. Very little life on earth could exist without the greenhouse effect. How do you think the earth retains its surface temperature? It is these atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide that help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. As these gases increase, so does the temperature of the earth. Small earth temperature changes have the largest impacts at the poles and equator.

                      Yes the planet has had global warming periods before, but none of them have proceeded at the exponential rate that this one is proceeding at.

                      Also, there are not many impassioned scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is the sun. There is one impassioned scientist, by the name of Abdussamatov, who believes that sun activity is the cause for global warming. His research and theories are highly criticized by the rest of the climate scientist population, but the republicans and global warming naysayers jumped on his statements as proof that global warming is not anthropogenic.

                      Only a very small component of global warming is caused by the solar irradiance changes. The radiation output of the Sun fluctuates based on solar activity, but the change is only about 1/10th of 1%, which is not enough to be one of the main culprits of global warming. The NASA GISS (space studies) issued a press release saying that in global warming, ???greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role???. In the past, solar fluctuations have been thought to influence the earth???s temperature, like when there was a 75 year period of no sunspot activity, which you might know as the ???Little Ice Age???. Recent studies cast doubt on this and suggest that the sunspot activity was only a small factor. Actually, researchers at the NASA GISS say that even if another halt of sun spot activity were to occur, it wouldn???t be enough to counteract the global warming expected to take place through 2100. Currently the sun is at a solar minimum in its present solar cycle, even though global warming is increasing.

                      Try not to let your intense hatred of Al Gore cause you to just keep spouting more republican catch phrases and propagating claims unaccepted by the majority of the scientific community. Yes, I would also be upset if the government was ???ramming ill-conceived and poorly thought-out plans to re-engineer our economy???, and I???m sure that not all of the plans that come out in the next four years will be wonderful, but I am happy that we finally have an administration that listens to the majority of scientists.

                  • Posted By: WyleEHokie @ 04/29/2009 2:13:21 PM

                    Ribbey101:
                    Okay, if you have such a great education and logical thinking, please explain how CO2 emitted by man, which will account for a fraction of 1% of all atmospheric gases, can account for the predicted surge in global temperatures? From all the scientific articles I've seen: 1) the vast majority of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is natural in origin, 2) water vapor is the leading "greenhouse" gas.

                    You mention the "physics" of the situation. Then what about those scientists who postulate, and have laboratory experiments to back them up, that the impact of solar activity via cosmic rays inducing cloud formation has a significant impact.

                    From other articles I've read, it appears as if there is a better correlation between those than between man emitted CO2 and temps.

                  • Posted By: WyleEHokie @ 04/29/2009 2:11:40 PM

                    Ribbey101:
                    Okay, if you have such a great education and logical thinking, please explain how CO2 emitted by man, which will account for a fraction of 1% of all atmospheric gases, can account for the predicted surge in global temperatures? From all the scientific articles I've seen: 1) the vast majority of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is natural in origin, 2) water vapor is the leading "greenhouse" gas.

                    You mention the "physics" of the situation. Then what about those scientists who postulate, and have laboratory experiments to back them up, that the impact of solar activity via cosmic rays inducing cloud formation has a significant impact.

                    From other articles I've read, it appears as if there is a better correlation between those than between man emitted CO2 and temps.

                  • Posted By: WyleEHokie @ 04/29/2009 2:11:36 PM

                    Ribbey101:
                    Okay, if you have such a great education and logical thinking, please explain how CO2 emitted by man, which will account for a fraction of 1% of all atmospheric gases, can account for the predicted surge in global temperatures? From all the scientific articles I've seen: 1) the vast majority of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is natural in origin, 2) water vapor is the leading "greenhouse" gas.

                    You mention the "physics" of the situation. Then what about those scientists who postulate, and have laboratory experiments to back them up, that the impact of solar activity via cosmic rays inducing cloud formation has a significant impact.

                    From other articles I've read, it appears as if there is a better correlation between those than between man emitted CO2 and temps.

  • Posted By: crippled self-identity @ 04/29/2009 5:14:35 PM

    The Earth's present orbital pattern most closely resembles an interglacial cycle called Marine Isotope Stage 11, about 400k ago. We may stay warm for the next 50k years. Minimizing the damage that will be partially caused by nature itself (without throwing up our hands and saying it's nature's fault, we don't have to do anything) will keep us from condemning ourselves for not caring and becoming a small, bitter, guilt-ridden race. Everyone just needs to cut through the crap and practice some balance and give nature a place in their spiritual self-identities, cause if we don't, children will be born on a unhappy planet.

  • Posted By: ...brutus @ 04/29/2009 1:35:11 PM

    Wow, a relatively balanced article. From Newsweek, of all places. I can hardly believe it.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/29/2009 2:54:46 PM

      My first thoughts as well! But Samulson does pull out some good pieces on occasion...but he's certainly a lone wolf in a sea of liberal sheep.

  • Posted By: ...brutus @ 04/29/2009 1:44:09 PM

    Wow, a relatively unbiased article. From msm member Newsweek, of all places. I can hardly believe it. Would that the rest of the msm would likewise find the unbiased common sense the seem to have lost so long ago, and put this rosy "green economy" under the harsh light of scrutiny it deserves.

  • Posted By: aerotexan @ 04/29/2009 1:03:29 PM

    Thanks to SavingGreen for posing some ???real-world??? numbers on the cost of home solar power generation. Problem is, if you want to extrapolate that to the cost of going solar for a large percentage of the economy, you would first have to strip out those insane government subsidies, and base it on the open market. So, removing the $10,000 Federal Tax Credit and the $9,200 Maryland State Grant leaves your electricity savings and the SREC???s. And since SREC???s are another government subsidy that have little reality in the marketplace, allowing half the stated value brings your total three year savings to $2,005. So, in a non government-subsidized reality, the amortization for your solar set-up is 50.3 years, not 3. And that doesn???t include the costs of maintenance, panel replacement or the cost of the money for the initial set-up.

    Unless solar gets a lot cheaper, it???s an economic dead-end.

  • Posted By: Herbie2 @ 04/29/2009 11:40:24 AM

    " Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates." I cannot believe that the EPA or Samuelson could publish this comment with a straight face. The last time I checked, the only money the government has to use on any program is what it takes from the people. Getting a rebate of our own money to artificially lower the cost ot energy, does not lower the cost of energy. It just takes our money out of a different pocket.

  • Posted By: kenblade @ 04/27/2009 9:32:41 PM

    I would like to see more stories like this one that pick apart much of the hype surrounding the green agenda.
    Just watching a few hours of the discovery green channel gives you claims like 'Install a 50k solar panel and make your money back in 3-5 years'. You see these 'savings' claims on about anything solar or wind related and they never
    add up. It sounds like nuclear is really the only way to keep our lifestyle intact and have any hope of reaching these goals. The sad reality seems to be the people pushing the green agenda really want to use this as an excuse to push these large scale social engineering goals instead.

    • Posted By: SavingGreen @ 04/28/2009 1:22:26 PM

      First off, I do not believe in Global Warming but I do believe in saving money and natural resources.
      I too did question the costs and figures with installing solar. Here are my real world numbers that show I will make my money back in 3 years with my system.

      I installed a $33,600 3.68kWh PV system.
      I received a $10,000 Federal Tax Credit
      I received a $9,200 Maryland State Grant (Taxed by the Federal Government at 28% - $6,624)
      I save $655 in electricity per year (3 year total $1,965)
      I earn $2,700 in SRECS (3 year total after tax)
      Total return after three years - $21,289

      In addition, there is a formula to compute the value added to your home. Obviously, a $33,000 system does not add 33K to the value of your home. Most home improvement projects like a remodeled kitchen or bathroom return 80% - 85%. As per a 1990's survey of home prices with solar and without solar ??? they determined that for every one dollar saved in electricity it adds $20 to the value of your home. Therefore, saving $655 per year in electricity adds $13,100 to the value of your home.
      Added value to my home - $13,100

      Therefore, after three years - I will have saved $21,289 and gained $13,100 in home value = $34,389
      If you do not calculate the increase in home value the breakeven point is 13 years. Please keep in mind that Federal and States offers are constantly changing grants and tax breaks. In my case getting solar was a no brainer. My ROI is 7-8% per year - better than CD's or the volatile market. I would suggest that each person research their state grants to see if solar is worth it. You may just be surprised.

      • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/29/2009 10:08:19 AM

        Like your analysis...wished it had worked out that way for me. I ran the numbers as well -- as I am building a new home and was really wanting to go solar. But Maine's solar rebate program ran dry; the federal tax credit is still unclear (nor actual money in the bank) and our local electric company offers fairly cheap hydro-electric...making the up front cost comparison just too expensive. I was looking at nearly 22K extra...right up front; more than I could afford to pile atop the house construction cost. It's frustrating to see solar panel technology remain so damn expensive. THAT is something I'd be all for a market-based cost reduction.

      • Posted By: ColoradoBob @ 04/28/2009 2:51:51 PM

        So in reality, most of the money you saved was taken from the rest of us. Those of us who pay taxes that is.

        If the green technology is really that good, then why can't it just compete on it's own merits and not on the backs of the taxpayers.

        • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 3:21:09 PM

          What do you think the fossil fuel industry does? They just get their tax money in a slightly different way.

          • Posted By: ColoradoBob @ 04/28/2009 4:01:02 PM

            I don't know of any tax credits for installing natural gas or electric feed lines into a private residence. And I'm not saying that a lot of industries don't get tax breaks, but if you're trying to prove the merits of spending money on "green" projects, you should know where a lot of the individual value comes from.

            • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 4:10:11 PM

              You must not have read my post very clearly. I said that the oil companies still get our taxes, but in a different way. Where do you think the money came from to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Exxon paid part of it, but not anwhere near all. How do you think the government makes up for the billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies. Who do you think is paying for this Iraq war? I would much rather my taxes went toward green tax breaks than to companies like Exxon.

      • Posted By: AUBrian @ 04/28/2009 3:37:12 PM

        That's great that your breakeven point on those solar cells is 13 years. Unfortunately, most solar cells currently in production, are typically rated to last 10 years...

      • Posted By: ColoradoBob @ 04/28/2009 2:59:25 PM

        And all of you who are advocates of wind and solar power. What do you think happens at night, when the sun doesn't shine or at random periods when the wind does not blow. In order to run you IPODS, your plug in hybirds, your 60 inch plasma tvs, someone probably has to burn some fossil fuels or push in some nuclear fuel rods to keep the electricity flowing.
        There's just no such thing as a free lunch, unless you're eating at the taxpayers table, when most of the politicians are proposing.

    • Posted By: SavingGreen @ 04/28/2009 1:21:38 PM

      First off, I do not believe in Global Warming but I do believe in saving money and natural resources.
      I too did question the costs and figures with installing solar. Here are my real world numbers that show I will make my money back in 3 years with my system.

      I installed a $33,600 3.68kWh PV system.
      I received a $10,000 Federal Tax Credit
      I received a $9,200 Maryland State Grant (Taxed by the Federal Government at 28% - $6,624)
      I save $655 in electricity per year (3 year total $1,965)
      I earn $2,700 in SRECS (3 year total after tax)
      Total return after three years - $21,289

      In addition, there is a formula to compute the value added to your home. Obviously, a $33,000 system does not add 33K to the value of your home. Most home improvement projects like a remodeled kitchen or bathroom return 80% - 85%. As per a 1990's survey of home prices with solar and without solar ??? they determined that for every one dollar saved in electricity it adds $20 to the value of your home. Therefore, saving $655 per year in electricity adds $13,100 to the value of your home.
      Added value to my home - $13,100

      Therefore, after three years - I will have saved $21,289 and gained $13,100 in home value = $34,389
      If you do not calculate the increase in home value the breakeven point is 13 years. Please keep in mind that Federal and States offers are constantly changing grants and tax breaks. In my case getting solar was a no brainer. My ROI is 7-8% per year - better than CD's or the volatile market. I would suggest that each person research their state grants to see if solar is worth it. You may just be surprised.

  • Posted By: motorherz @ 04/29/2009 7:23:05 AM

    The biggest problem selling green economy is simple: why do I have to stop relying on one abundant fuel America has - coal - when that other guy - China - is building coal plants like there's no tomorrow? Why do Americans protest their own plants pollution, but are perfectly content with buying Chinese junk that is done on plants that flush untreated waste down into the ocean?

    I understand that only a tiny minority of green types have the guts to confront China, but in order to sell the green economy, it needs to be done. And it may come as some sort of carbon tariff on imports. More has to be done to show that everyone is serious about climate challenge, not only some concerned people here.

  • Posted By: GustoMaybe @ 04/28/2009 7:14:25 PM

    MORONS. AMERICAN PUBLIC THROUGH THEIR PUCs TOLD UTILITIES TO BUILD COAL PLANTS. SHAREHOLDERS WILL GET REIMBURSED... EONS OF CASE LAW TO SUPPORT THAT. SO MASSIVE PAYMENTS COME DUE AND WHO PAYS? PEOPLE IN COAL BURNING STATES. THEN THEY'LL BE FORCED TO ALSO BUILD NEW NUKES OR NAT GAS PLANTS AT THE SAME TIME? WE"LL HAVE NO JOBS LEFT IN THIS COUNTRY. EUROPE STRUGGLES UNDER CARBON TAXATION SCHEMES AND THEY REDISTRIBUTE LIKE CRAZY. WE"LL HAVE TO COLLECT MORE TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO CARBON EMITTERS TO NOT ALLOW THE JOBS TO GO TO CHINA. AND SO IT GOES. NOONE WILL KNOW THE PRICE OR VALUE OF ANYTHING IN OUR COUNTRY AND THAT IS WHAT THESE SOCIALISTS WANT.

  • Posted By: kerryqp @ 04/28/2009 9:11:27 AM

    Is the solution to carry on as if cancer and carcinogens are not poisoning our bodies and our earth? should we ignore the warnings and continue to develop every green space at bare minimum building codes and risk building failure? A green movement will feed the economy by creating jobs. The environmental movement has not created the present economic crisis...look at who was at the helm over the past 8 years. It was the Anti-Environmentalist. Put the earth first. It is the only one we have. Put your children first. They are the only ones you have.

    • Posted By: Gordon90 @ 04/28/2009 12:09:41 PM

      Kerryqp,
      If you're talking about the collapse of the economy, you can thank Congress for that. They are the ones who forced Fannie & Freddy to loosen their requirements for mortgage loans, to such an extent, that people who should NOT have been able to qualify, were being qualified. When the mortgage crisis hit, the whole economy went down the crapper. BTW, Bush tried on multiple occasions to get Congress to correct their mistake and they just rejected him without even looking at the data ___ they (Congress) had an agenda, which they were unwilling to alter ___ much like the Global Warming Crowd's agenda ! "CO2" must be eliminated - it's BAD say the green folks ! Well if it didn't exist neither animals (that includes people) nor plant life would exist ! Animals exhale CO2, while plants inhale CO2 ___ it's called the carbon cycle, and it is required for life to exist !

      • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 5:02:34 PM

        There are a lot of things that are good for us or necessary for life in moderate amounts, but lethal in large amounts. Yes the planet needs a certain balance of CO2 to remain viable for life, but the balance has been greatly shifted. What happens when the amount of CO2 'exhalation '(due to the exponentially increasing number of cars and coal plants) keeps increasing in relation to the amount of CO2 'inhalation' (plants)? What happens is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps increasing, and then you get the greenhouse effect.

    • Posted By: ColoradoBob @ 04/28/2009 4:15:29 PM

      So all problems in the economy, the environment, the morals of men were created in the last 8 years. The world is to complex for that to be true!

  • Posted By: richard123 @ 04/28/2009 4:37:11 PM

    Al Gore a brilliant scientist - how incredibly ridiculous. Remember Al was going to put Social security into his little bitty LOCK BOX. Why are many serious/intelligent people listening to this ? -because it's agenda driven, government control and super higher taxes.
    The climate has been changing since EARTH began - why would it stop now ? This is nothing new - wake up folks!!!!!!

  • Posted By: mas8baller @ 04/28/2009 4:36:48 PM

    Dems what something for nothing & tell the lies expecting people with brains to not see through them. Fire the cult leader & his henchmen. 1361 days till he's out.

  • Posted By: arianacooks @ 04/28/2009 12:10:16 PM

    This is an embarrassingly one sided article. The author who has the nerve to call himself a journalist should be ashamed.
    In regards to "going green", the benefits far outweigh the costs. If we only take into account monetary costs in our efforts to prevent serious, irreversible climate change - we will surely be on the losing end of this battle. Can we afford not to err on the side of caution?

    • Posted By: ColoradoBob @ 04/28/2009 4:13:22 PM

      Why is it that every article that presents ideas must, in the minds of the thought police, present two sides to a story. The author presents a point of view and it's up to the intelligent readers to decide whether it has relevance or is accurate. That's what you do as a reader. Don't criticize the writer because he didn't present your point of view.

      • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 4:31:15 PM

        A point of view needs to be criticized when it propogates false or misleading information. Too many people aren't willing to do their own research and just repeat false and unsubstantiated claims. For instance, there are still quite a few Americans under the false impression that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 disaster.

    • Posted By: jonbronson @ 04/28/2009 4:07:09 PM

      Ariana nailed it.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/28/2009 12:34:26 PM

      You need to re-read the article...but first take off your Green Vision glasses and put down your World According to Al Gore book. Samulson is correctly pointing out that it will COST dearly to blindly go into this one-green world scenario the climate zealots are pushing. In fact, its rather ironic that the entire thesis for so much of the changes proposed in energy policy and choices is based on computer models...computer models notoriously wrong on nearly every other major human activity AND computers which made from toxic chemicals and alike. Ohhh...how horrid!

  • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 11:37:31 AM

    Environmentalist aren't saying there is no cost to moving toward a green economy. But have you ever heard of the term 'investing'? That is what environmentalists are asking the U.S. to do, because the returns of a green economy stand to be so much greater in the future than a fossil fuel economy. Also, just like with oil refineries, the more widely available a technology is, the cheaper it becomes.

    Your arguments are weak and don't take into account the whole picture.

    • Posted By: topgunusn @ 04/28/2009 12:52:11 PM

      When I invest, I have an expectation of a return for my investment. This is money down the drain. Kudo's for Newsweek for finally printing an article with critical thinking that challanges the statements made by politcians and the government/university complex. Are we seeing a return to real journalism instead of a repeat of political talking points?

      • Posted By: ribbey101 @ 04/28/2009 2:19:06 PM

        Exactly where do you get that it is money down the drain? Maybe you only watch Fox news and read articles like this... that would explain your view.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse