Not exact matches
Among her plans of what she'd
like to accomplish once elected: Promote / support bills in Congress that adopt clean sources of energy by helping to end the intricate system of public
subsidies that keep dirty sources of energy artificially cheap, and promote
renewable sources: solar, wind, and hydro; Protect waterways / drinking supply by reducing the risk of contamination and ensure that when contamination is found, the responsible parties are held accountable; Fight
for public financing of elections; Work every day to overturn Citizens United.
These include ending
subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, boosting energy efficiency, advancing
renewable sources
like wind and solar power and moving away from the idea that «drill baby, drill» is a solution.
But if the main effort to cut emissions is through
subsidies for chic
renewables like wind and solar power, virtually no good will be achieved — at very high cost.
By masking the true cost of nuclear power,
subsidies also allow the industry to exaggerate its economic competitiveness; consequently, they diminish or delay support
for more economical and less risky alternatives
like energy efficiency and
renewable energy.
To pay
for the
renewable incentives, the House bill is expected to repeal about $ 21 billion in tax
subsidies extended to big oil and gas producers
like Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp..
Conservatively it looks
like his Climate Act of 2008, with its targets
for carbon emission cuts, will cost us # 300 billion by 2030 in
subsidies to
renewable energy, in the cost of connecting wind farms to the grid, in VAT, in costs of insulation and new domestic appliances, and in the effect of all this on prices of goods in the shops.
Recent procurements by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority have given
renewable projects state
subsidies averaging $ 22 per MWh
for 20 years, on top of federal
subsidies like the $ 23 per MWh Production Tax Credit.
Some would
like to see these
subsidies end, but I'd say that fossil fuel
subsidies should be cut first; that would save more money, and be fairer since they've been around
for decades while
renewable energy is still a relatively small industry.
Hence, if you want to change directions, you have to influence the politics — you have to work to prevent the Koch Brothers from destroying California
renewable energy initiatives, you have to work to eliminate federal
subsidies and liability caps
for fossil fuel projects (which would mean that oil drillers would have to post $ 10 billion bonds
for every deepwater project they initiated), and —
for academic scientists — you have to lobby your academic administrators to cut their ties with shady fossil fuel interests
like BP and Exxon, and work to open
renewable energy research institutes at America's leading universities.
We have noted
for years that wood stoves are hot, but are they green enough to merit
subsidies and tax credits
like solar panels and other
renewable energy technologies?
He also wants Trump to level the playing field by eliminating
subsidies for renewable energy sources
like solar and wind.
After all, if these
renewables were cost - competitive, there would be no need
for RPSs or
subsidies like the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).