Alrighty, here comes my first impression of Intersolar North America 2014. I normally roll up my observations of the entire conference in one long blog post, but this year I'm giving the opening ceremony its own special treatment. Politicians were the stars of this particular show.
The Governor of the Golden State spoke about his ancestral acreage filled with wildlife. It had nothing to do with solar energy. In fact, nothing he said had anything to do with much of anything at all. He seemed to lose his train of thought in places, but recovered when he realized he didn't have much to say. He could have addressed the State of California's energy policy, which has a detailed clean energy implementation plan. He could have mentioned the important partnerships working for California's Clean Energy Future. He could have mentioned Go Solar California's roots in the previous Governor's Million Solar Roofs program. I did not hear any details of these success stories. Career politicians have a knack for connecting with people who feel rather than think. This gentlemen excels at his chosen career. He is indeed a man for our times.
The Mayor of The City was a study in contrasts. He was distinctly proud of his effort to extend the PACE financing of GreenFinanceSF to residential developments. He briefly mentioned a tax exclusion for clean technology companies, which I believe is the Clean Technology Payroll Expense Tax Exclusion for businesses in the San Francisco Green Business Program. The man's background as a city planner is a huge plus. He knows how public policy makes life better.
Some state senator from the Empire State got up and spewed pure ignorance. It was painful to watch but the morons in the crowd, presumably locals, loved the performance. He stumbled over prepared text and made several factual errors. Citing specious claims of drowned polar bears did not help his case for induced climate change. He failed to articulate the full name of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and then laughed it off to the audience's delight. His selective use of annual temperature data would have been more credible had he mentioned it in the context of NOAA's NCDC US Climate Extremes Index (CEI) and the periodic adjustments NOAA has made to its data. This Telegraph UK article is exemplary of news media efforts to question NOAA's constant data adjustments. I am dismayed to think the US government's scientific data is as unreliable as its economic data. This state senator's only positive contribution to the climate change debate was his mention of Harvard University's "Climate Extremes" report, funded by the CIA. Keep that connection in mind; it will come in handy later.
The CALSEIA official was a class act after the state senator's jackass act. She had data to back up her ideas. Environment America's "Shining Cities" report from April 2014 is a good foundation for solar energy development's role in urban renewal. She mentioned CPUC's net energy metering (NEM) program and noted that CPUC has adopted very favorable treatment of solar installations; this blog post from Renewable Energy World has a good summary of CPUC's decision crediting solar production.
I want to touch on a point related to my blog article from earlier today about climate change as a stalking horse for a new green religion. Recall my note above about the CIA's interest in funding climate change research that justifies continued national security planning. Religious fervor motivates behavior. If waving a monotheistic standard is an insufficient motivator for power projection, then another supernatural justification must take its place. A growing body of strategic thinking now supports American intervention for humanitarian and environmental reasons. Americans like to think of themselves as the world's generous saviors. Deploying to save the children and the rainforests is a much easier sales pitch to urban elites than deploying to preserve access to mineral resources.
I'll conclude by saying that I am not disappointed at all to hear career politicians play emotional themes or mangle facts. The ones who talk that way are not really in charge and they probably know it. They like their careers because they love the limelight. The rare politicians who talk sensibly know who benefits from good public policy: voters maybe, businesses probably, deep state elites certainly. I am totally in favor of cultural programming that employs innovative memes to direct public enthusiasm for elite management of civilization. I am totally on board with ruling class direction of public policy. I totally understand the role public leaders play in propagating pre-approved themes. It's a fun game to watch and even more fun to play.
The Governor of the Golden State spoke about his ancestral acreage filled with wildlife. It had nothing to do with solar energy. In fact, nothing he said had anything to do with much of anything at all. He seemed to lose his train of thought in places, but recovered when he realized he didn't have much to say. He could have addressed the State of California's energy policy, which has a detailed clean energy implementation plan. He could have mentioned the important partnerships working for California's Clean Energy Future. He could have mentioned Go Solar California's roots in the previous Governor's Million Solar Roofs program. I did not hear any details of these success stories. Career politicians have a knack for connecting with people who feel rather than think. This gentlemen excels at his chosen career. He is indeed a man for our times.
The Mayor of The City was a study in contrasts. He was distinctly proud of his effort to extend the PACE financing of GreenFinanceSF to residential developments. He briefly mentioned a tax exclusion for clean technology companies, which I believe is the Clean Technology Payroll Expense Tax Exclusion for businesses in the San Francisco Green Business Program. The man's background as a city planner is a huge plus. He knows how public policy makes life better.
Some state senator from the Empire State got up and spewed pure ignorance. It was painful to watch but the morons in the crowd, presumably locals, loved the performance. He stumbled over prepared text and made several factual errors. Citing specious claims of drowned polar bears did not help his case for induced climate change. He failed to articulate the full name of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and then laughed it off to the audience's delight. His selective use of annual temperature data would have been more credible had he mentioned it in the context of NOAA's NCDC US Climate Extremes Index (CEI) and the periodic adjustments NOAA has made to its data. This Telegraph UK article is exemplary of news media efforts to question NOAA's constant data adjustments. I am dismayed to think the US government's scientific data is as unreliable as its economic data. This state senator's only positive contribution to the climate change debate was his mention of Harvard University's "Climate Extremes" report, funded by the CIA. Keep that connection in mind; it will come in handy later.
The CALSEIA official was a class act after the state senator's jackass act. She had data to back up her ideas. Environment America's "Shining Cities" report from April 2014 is a good foundation for solar energy development's role in urban renewal. She mentioned CPUC's net energy metering (NEM) program and noted that CPUC has adopted very favorable treatment of solar installations; this blog post from Renewable Energy World has a good summary of CPUC's decision crediting solar production.
I want to touch on a point related to my blog article from earlier today about climate change as a stalking horse for a new green religion. Recall my note above about the CIA's interest in funding climate change research that justifies continued national security planning. Religious fervor motivates behavior. If waving a monotheistic standard is an insufficient motivator for power projection, then another supernatural justification must take its place. A growing body of strategic thinking now supports American intervention for humanitarian and environmental reasons. Americans like to think of themselves as the world's generous saviors. Deploying to save the children and the rainforests is a much easier sales pitch to urban elites than deploying to preserve access to mineral resources.
I'll conclude by saying that I am not disappointed at all to hear career politicians play emotional themes or mangle facts. The ones who talk that way are not really in charge and they probably know it. They like their careers because they love the limelight. The rare politicians who talk sensibly know who benefits from good public policy: voters maybe, businesses probably, deep state elites certainly. I am totally in favor of cultural programming that employs innovative memes to direct public enthusiasm for elite management of civilization. I am totally on board with ruling class direction of public policy. I totally understand the role public leaders play in propagating pre-approved themes. It's a fun game to watch and even more fun to play.
