Global Climate Change Fox News Style

Any radical (or even progressive) who has been paying attention knows that people who listen or watch no news at all are better off, accuracy-wise, than people who watch Fox News.  So it will be little surprise that Fox News is running an anti-green energy campaign, when it is not relabeling nuclear power plants as environmentally advantageous.

i was only slightly surprised to see that Fox News was claiming the reason that Germany’s solar energy program was so successful is that Germany is so sunny.  Fox News Business reporter Shibani Joshi said, referring to Germany: “They’re a smaller country, and they’ve got lots of sun. Right? They’ve got a lot more sun than we do.”

blue is poor sun

blue is poor sun

For geographically challenged US Americans it is useful to note that Boston and Rome are at the same latitude, so it turns out the solar energy profile of Germany is similar to that of Alaska.  And for the record, it is feed in tariffs and investor protection which has spawned the growth in renewables in Germany, not either the sun or wind resources.

Just as reality TV is generally disconnected from reality, Fox News is a sly satire in the style of the Daily Show, with the joke being on the viewers.

Tags: , , ,

About paxus

a funologist, memeticist and revolutionary. Can be found in the vanity bin of Wikipedia and in locations of imminent calamity. buckle up, there is going to be some rough sledding.

9 responses to “Global Climate Change Fox News Style”

  1. Kip Gardner says :

    This one will probably get shared with my classes when we get to the section on energy resources and usage. thanks!

  2. Jan Haverkamp says :

    If the German (oops – and don’t forget the Danish and Swedish increases in PV use!) success shows anything, it is that PV even makes sense in Alaska…

  3. Jacqueline says :

    That is so funny! Germany more sunny than the US? They have obviously never been to Northern Europe. Most Americans will actually believe this because they don’t know jack about geography outside their own country.

  4. Loran says :

    Germany’s solar programs “success” has nothing to do with the country being sunny and everything to do with huge subsidies the government has lobbed at the industry. But logic is returning to the Germans and the subsidies will be phased out:

    Closer to home, the only reason Twin Oaks can have a huge photovoltaic array is due to it being the beneficiary of enormous federally funded State rebate program.

    I understand the sentiment is “cool, it’s solar”. I’m enthused about solar too. But it most of this country, and certainly in Germany, solar PV is simply unsustainable. Perhaps you think it is great that the government subsidizes solar power. But each subsidy literally taxes other parts of the economy, resulting in hidden costs and huge distortions. Imagine if the money spent on solar subsidies was instead spent on schools, on first time homebuyer credits, or simply on reducing the tax burden.

    A sustainable energy program would not focus on favoring one energy source over another, but rather would give citizens the freedom to choose and let the market decide the preferred sources of energy.

    • paxus says :

      Dearest Loran:

      The solar and wind subsidies in Germany have always been designed to get them market share and then fade out, this is not returning to logic, this is the logic since the beginning.

      Please dont bore us with this nonsense that the market should decide about energy use. Fist off, there is no uninfluenced market. Subsides for nuclear
      exceed the wholesale value of the energy created in the US by 40% (in other words we would have been better off not building it in the first place). See

      i have worked in the oil industry, i know the elaborate and powerful tax scams
      with the oil depletion allowance and off shore drilling platform dodges, plus billions in other oil industries subsidies tax breaks and full on give aways.

      Please dont tempt us with the idea that there is a working market out there for
      energy, especially while there is no cost on carbon – you would have us
      just burn coal endlessly? Because that is what the market would tell us –
      destroy the planet as fast as possible.

      Paxus at the Keep
      11 Early Flowers 2013

  5. Loran says :

    Hey Pax,
    I’m flattered that you worry others may find my ideas “tempting”. But your facts are so far off base they’re not even in the ballpark.

    Regarding the “elaborate and powerful tax dodges”, well, advocate simplifying the tax code if you wish. Depletion allowance are little different than real estate depreciation allowance – because oil wells deplete.

    Unlike solar power, no one is giving oil drillers money just to look for new oil, and no one pays oil well owners a monthly subsidy just to keep marginal wells in production. The investor take the full hit on that. Contrast this with how solar power is subsidized – marginal installations like at Twin Oaks get monthly cash, just for having a solar installation that otherwise wouldn’t pay for itself. What you are essentially saying is, “Don’t subsidize that other guy — subsidize ME!”

    If you don’t want the people to have the freedom to buy the form of energy they want, then who? The government does a good job of picking losers like Solyndra – who or what will do better? Your musing about coal is all off — check the facts, coal use in the U.S. has declined steadily over the past decades.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Renewable Highlights October 2013 | your passport to complaining - October 20, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: