Green Energy Scandals Cost Taxpayers Billions

A comprehensive report by the non-government organization Carbon Market Watch concluded that large companies are making billions from emissions certificates while CO2 emissions aren't improving at all. The study looked at the 20 strongest countries from 2008 to 2015. The figures show how easy it is to make money from pollution and just how much the lobby-watered down CO2 trading system has failed. ¹ A botched green energy subsidy will cost UK taxpayers more than $1.4 billion, or more than 45 times its initial cost projection. The Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) was initially projected to cost $30 million by requiring farmers and businesses in Northern Ireland to use green power. But a whistle blower claims they were able to manipulate the program to receive about $200 dollars in subsidies for every $120 they spent on green fuel. ²

Once it became obvious people could make money off the program there was a massive influx of new applications that increased the program costs. The program has been in place since 2012 and has benefitted roughly 2,000 people. Some who manipulated the subsidy scheme were able to reap about $1.8 million in profits. The RHI was supposed to cost 25 million pounds in its first five years but the bill is likely to reach 1.5 billion pounds over 20 years. This isn't the first time the British government wasted million of dollars on global warming projects. ³ Another case: In October 2016, the UK government gave $11 million to the Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did. Much of the research CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money either wasn't about global warming, was written before the organization was even founded, or written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP. ² The government never checked CCCEP's supposed publication lists, saying they were 'taken on trust.' CCCEP tried to falsely claim credit for research it never did while attempting to get another $5.4 million of government cash. Studies that receive financial support from the public sector have to disclose it as an ethical conflict of interest, even when that support is in the million of dollars. Recent studies in the US, which the EPA uses to support the 'scientific' case for its massive power plant regulations, the Clean Power Plan, saw the agency give $32.1 million, $9.5 million and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors—all of whom essentially provided the agency with the 'results' it wanted. The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted that the result of his study was predetermined, saying, 'in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.'⁴

---

Paul Homewood ⁵ Provides a number of other cases: -Wale's 18 million Euro tidal energy flop. The first full scale tidal generation project is lying in ruins on the Pembrokeshire sea bed because the company that ran it—Tidal Energy Ltd—has gone into administration. It failed after three months of operation. This is a problem all too familiar with so many projects in the renewable energy sector. Because the expensive power they produce is not commercially viable, they fold as soon # the government subsidies dry up. - Anaerobic digesters are machines that turn crops into fuel by converting agricultural waste into methane which is fed into the national gas grid. This is a very expensive way (216 million Euros worth) of producing energy. A gullible British government actually decided that sunbeams from cucumbers were such a good idea that they massively subsidized it through the Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) mentioned earlier in this article. Some problems: there's not enough agricultural waste to fuel these machines, so instead crops such as eco-friendly maize are being grown specifically to provide fuel for them. This is not cost effective; methane gas produced in this way costs three and a half times as much as that from fossil fuel sources. Also, these anaerobic digester plants can be highly polluting in the form of increased traffic. One project involved nearly 13,000 extra vehicle movements per year in a hitherto tranquil rural area. Another issue is leaks like one that contaminated 70 acres of a farmer's land. Also, there was an explosion that blew up a containment tank at an agricultural college. Lastly, in the United States, it is no secret that Past President Obama's and green energy supporters foray into venture capitalism events has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case. ⁶ The truth is the problem is widespread. The government's picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. By late 2012, thirty-four companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers were faltering—either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. The list included: First Solar ($1.46 billion), SunPower ($1.2 billion), Solyndra ($535 million), and SpectraWatt ($ 500 million). The remaining 30 can be found the article by Ashe Schow. ⁶

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

References

1. Pierre Gosselin, “Spiegel: EU corporations have raked in 25 billion Euros through corrupt emissions trading scheme,” notrickszone.com, December 3, 2016
2. Andrew Follett, “Green subsidy scandal costs taxpayers $1.4 billion,” dailycaller.com, January 3, 2017
3. Sean O”Neill, “Taxpayers face one billion pound bill over green energy subsidy scandal,” the times.com, January 3, 2017
4. Andrew Follett, “Top university stole millions from taxpayers by faking global warming research,” dailycaller.com, October 24, 2016
5. Paul Homewood, “Delingpole: Green energy is a charter for crooks and liars. The scam must end now,” notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com, January 7, 2017
6. Ashe Schow, “President Obama's taxpayer backed green energy failures,” dailysignal.com, October 18, 2012