In an email lamenting Donald Trump’s vicious hacking away at alternative energy subsidies that should not be needed since it’s now cheaper and better and all-round marvellous, Canary Media chirps “But renewables are at least doing better around the rest of the world”. Meaning what exactly? Outperforming conventional fuels and hence not needing subsidies from good people or bad? Or doing better at attracting endless tax dollars because they can’t make money the old-fashioned way? It’s kind of important to the story.
The actual article starts:
“Globally, investors are pouring more money into renewable energy than ever – even as they pull back on spending in the U.S. Over the first six months of this year, a total of $386 billion flowed to projects ranging from small rooftop solar installations to massive offshore wind farms, according to research firm BloombergNEF. That’s 10% higher than what investors doled out in the first half of 2024.”
Except their chart shows the biggest spending is in the People’s Republic of China. So those aren’t investors. They’re a tyrannical government and its puppets. As for the non-puppet parts of the world:
“But the story is very different when you zoom in on the U.S. As President Donald Trump enacts a scorched-earth campaign against renewables – particularly offshore wind – clean-energy investors are fleeing the nation’s increasingly volatile market. Spending was down by 12% compared to the first half of last year.”
Boo Trump! But why would the investors flee from a profitable opportunity just because lavish subsidies ended? Doesn’t that prove the whole scheme is a money pit?
Which didn’t stop Bloomberg Green from droning on that:
“China Is Beating the US in the Battle for Energy Export Dominance/ China’s exports of clean energy technology hit a record in August, with $20 billion shipped globally.”
But the fact that foolish governments in various places are buying things made by a foolish government in China is not proof that any of it is money well spent. You figure that one out by seeing what consumers choose in a fair and open market.
Technically the problem is not entirely state-owned firms or ones in a system where everything is controlled by the state. But it is entirely subsidy-farmers. The Canary Media item adds:
“To an extent, the U.S.’s loss may have been Europe’s gain, according to BNEF. The European Union saw investment jump by 27% in the first half of this year, due in large part to major offshore wind developers shifting their focus from beleaguered projects on America’s East Coast to those in Europe’s North Sea. In the U.K., another offshore wind hot spot, investment tripled compared to the first half of last year, rising to $6.6 billion.”
Indeed. And in places like, oh, say, the U.K., energy prices are horribly high and real private investment is fleeing in consequence, because of the massive subsidies which make even a really bad investment profitable.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to teach economics at journalism school or on the job any more than they do climate science. Thus another New York Times “Climate Forward” piece starts:
“In the first six months of the year, renewables like solar and wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time ever, according to a report published Tuesday by Ember, an energy think tank. But at the same time, the International Energy Agency on Tuesday lowered its forecast for renewable energy growth in the United States over the next five years by almost 50 percent.… As the United States moves swiftly away from policies that address climate change, renewables are making big gains in the rest of the world.”
But the fact that governments are continuing to tax people heavily in order to subsidize technologies no one would volunteer to build proves only that if you subsidize something you get more of it. Which is not, or should not be, news. The Canary Media item is frankly advocacy, ending:
“Overall, the investment figures are trending in the right direction: up. But the growth remains sluggish compared to the blistering pace needed for the world to shift away from planet-warming fossil fuels.”
But despite the Panglossian gloss, that last sentence actually tells you, as does the collapse in the industry in the U.S. as the subsidy rug is yanked out from under, that these kinds of energy do not appeal to end users, just to governments who, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out long ago, sooner or later run out even of other people’s money.
The alarmists are constantly accusing us of cheery picking. So when they crow about China's increased use of renewables, they forget to mention China isn't closing down coal plants as they increase renewables. This just goes to show how much smarter China is compared to the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia.