WSJ Poll On Solar and Wind Power Subsidies

Should solar and wind power be subsidized? That is the question being asked by a current Wall Street Journal (WSJ) public poll. Generous funding from the federal government has led to explosive growth in US wind and solar power installations. Lost among the election year hoopla is the fact that many of those subsidies are set to expire soon unless Congress acts. Here is an opportunity for you to express your preference by voting online.

As most people who live in the US know, green energy is all the rage these days. Building roofs are being tiled with solar cells and every pasture and hillside sprouts gigantic wind turbines. What most people do not appreciate is that this green energy gold rush is being caused by government subsidies—the only reason one can build a green energy plant at a profit. The WSJ poll is attempting to sense public opinion for an up coming special report in that newspaper. Here is how the journal frames the question:

Supporters say the subsidies will allow renewable technologies to grow enough to become cost-competitive with conventional energy sources—and that their benefits include reduced pollution and decreased dependence on foreign oil.

Critics want to scale back or eliminate the subsidies, arguing that renewable sources have had decades to get established but still aren’t cost-competitive with conventional energy.

The poll offers a choice of four positions regarding the subsidies: they should be increased, they should stay the same, they should decline, and they should be eliminated. Below is a snapshot of the results taken after 12,289 responses.


The WSJ poll on wind and solar power subsidies at 12,289 votes cast.

We here at The Resilient Earth urge our readers ,whether US citizens or not, to visit the poll site and vote. As can be seen from the snapshot results shown above, the race is neck-in-neck.

Poll Update, Sept 8:

The number of votes in the WSJ green energy poll has passed the twenty thousand mark and the anti-subsidy block seems to have taken the lead.


The WSJ poll on wind and solar power subsidies at 20,490 votes cast.

Green Living

It all depends on what amount of Energy you are trying to generate and whether you have the atmosphere in your area for Wind or Sun. And it depends on what you will be using it for such as, just to operate your computer and printer or you want to do a major installation which includes your hot water tank, your swimming pool, your a/c and heat for your whole house.
Making your own electricity with wind power and solar power is becoming more popular and you can expect more government subsidies to help the homeowner who wants to become energy independent. The politicians of both parties, realize that our dependence on foreign oil is costly in both economic and military aspects.

Blaiming in all on Big Oil

Has anyone read some of the comments on the WSJ site? A bunch of liberal whiners bemoaning humanity's rape of the earth and blaming green energy's uncompetitiveness on a conspiracy between Big Oil and right wing politicians. How the innocent lambs of the left love to attack Big Oil. I say innocent because they are in a state of grace, unencumbered by knowledge of science, industry, economics or human history. Without fossil fuels our lives would not be the same: we would be cold in the winter and hot in the summer; there would be no fresh vegetables year round, only what was in season or stored in the root cellar; travel to distant locations would be tedious, time consuming and only for the rich. Is your place of work more than walking distance from your home? Better find another job. Do you have loved ones in another city, state or country? You might never see them again. The price of all goods would increase, because all commodities travel on fossil fuel powered conveyances. Food would be especially hard hit, since modern agriculture relies on fossil fuels to plant, cultivate, harvest and ship food to market.

Taking a more realistic and immediate view, the oil companies pay more in federal taxes than any other single industry group, allowing our unctuous politicians to curry favor with the masses using federal funds. The claims of obscene profits are inane and only voiced by fatuous fools and perfidious pundits—what do liberals think companies do with their profits? Stockpile moldering bills in huge cash silos or burn money to heat their boardrooms? What is not used to expand their business or hire new employees is sent to their stockholders. You think that those stockholders are only rich fat cats? Think again. Most oil company stock is held by institutional investors, the people who manage retirement funds for unions and 401Ks. Chances are your retirement fund profits from Big Oil, at least in the years they do turn a profit.

Without fossil fuels, without Big Oil, your life would have probably ended before you hit puberty. If you did reach the Medieval equivalent of maturity you would spend your days tilling soil and staring at the rear end of an ox for the rest of your mercifully short life. Having as many children as you could in the hope that some of them would survive to maturity. Every major advance in the quality of life for average people has required a new energy technology. Our ancestors went from wood to coal and spent 300 years inventing trains, steamships and mass production of iron and steel. Then oil made cars and airplanes possible shrinking the globe and freeing people to travel to find work and better lives. Fifty years ago the way forward was shown to us in the form of nuclear power, only to have that dream aborted by know-nothing green fanatics. You should give thanks every day that fossil fuels exists and man has learned how to harness them to the enrichment of people everywhere. If you want to reduce fossil fuel use tell your Representatives and Senators that the time has come to move ahead into that bright, clean nuclear future promised us long ago.

More Green News

Finding good content can be a challenge and news aggregation sites are a good resource that makes the job easier. News aggregation sites have a list of rss feeds of sites that contain valuable information. Information at is usually up to date, well written and relevant. Sites that are listed on news aggregation sites are often manually approved by the owners of the rss aggregation site. This mean the sites listed are of a higher quality than you expect.
News aggregation sites usually cover a wide range of topics. Eg green news. Using a news aggregation site to keep track of the latest green and environmental news can save you alot of time.

This green energy gold rush

This green energy gold rush is being caused by government subsidies—the only reason one can build a green energy plant at a profit. The WSJ poll is attempting to sense public opinion for an up coming special report in that newspaper.sustainability statement

[ Admin Note: the link above points to a green consultancy group. It was allowed because our users may find the site interesting. This in no way constitutes an endorsement of the company that owns the referenced site. ]