"Green" Energy: the Hidden Threat

So-called "green energy" should really be called "red energy." Red, as in communist, or, more precisely, anti-capitalist.

The hidden agenda of many in the environmental movement isn't simply cleaning up the world. They are interested in fundamentally undermining the basic foundations of capitalism in the energy business.

Take my coal-burning power plant as an example. It functions as a traditional good corporate citizen: we pay to mine the coal (with millions spent on extravagant and over-regulated worker protections), we pay to process the coal, we pay to transport the coal to the plant, we pay to unload and burn the coal in the plant, and we charge a small fee to energy consumers. All along the way, we inject wealth into the system. You might say that when you see coal burning, you can see money burning, which is fuel for the engine of the economy.

So-called green energy is just the opposite. There are no mines, no transportation costs, no processing costs, no refineries to build. The "fuel" simply appears as wind or sun or ocean waves, with no charge, no billing address, no opportunity for wealth creation. This represents a fundamental breach of economic protocol: a flooded supply chain without opportunity for branding or market share. There seems to be no way to offer a value-added wind or sunshine product to consumers--they simply receive it without industrial or commercial enhancement. That is a dangerous anti-growth precedent to set.

Besides the economic disruptions that "green" energy is bringing, consider the social costs: so-called green energy would teach people to be lazy, expecting energy to come simply from the wind or the sun. When these technologies became standard parts of homes and businesses, consumers will take energy for granted--as something that simply comes for free, as a function of their physical plant. With this country already struggling with an obesity epidemic, a lazy sense of unlimited-energy-entitlement is the last thing we need.