During a climate change policy debate between CF's Matt Brouillette and PennFuture's Jan Jarrett, Jarrett gave the audience some misleading statements which I think should be addressed.
First, Jarrett touted a study that sites the proposed House Bill 80 legislation as a job creating and cost savings bills.
- This study however is based on faulty assumptions that even the authors admit are likely flawed, such as the passage of the federal 'cap and trade' legislation, along with significant subsidies to alternative fuels.
Next, Jarrett stated she believes we need a variety of energy sources.
- Jarrett has a very narrow definition of what this variety of resources should be, lobbying against both nuclear power and natural gas. The reality is Pennsylvania cannot run on alternative sources that have to be heavily subsidized to exist.
Finally, Jarrett stated traditional energy sources get subsidies and renewable energy must also get subsidies to level the playing field.
- Below is a chart using the most up-to-date information from the EIA; solar energy receives 55 times more subsidies per MWH than coal, likewise, and wind receives 52 times more than coal. Does the playing field look level? Alternative Energy like solar or wind would not exist if they weren't being held up by tax dollars.
You can read more about the debate here.
Subscribe to this feed