The UK Guardian publishes a damning indictment of Florida's failure to adopt solar energy at the consumer and business level.
The reason ties to the antipathy of Florida's political elite, welded at this hip to the state's top contributors to political campaigns: regulated utility industries.
Florida's climate of denial tracks both political fortunes and the determination of the statez's electricity producers to box out competitors from solar, irrespective of benefits to taxpayers. The UK Guardian quotes FPL, a routine corporate expression of plausible deniability.
It is literally a shameful performance by all concerned, but especially voters who refuse to tie their choices for political office to what's best for their wallets: rapid adoption of solar energy at the base level of homes and business rooftops.
The reason ties to the antipathy of Florida's political elite, welded at this hip to the state's top contributors to political campaigns: regulated utility industries.
"The gloom of renewable energy and climate advocates in Florida is exacerbated by envy at the solar boom occurring in the north-east states and out west in California. “You see states with snow and far more cloud than Florida and they have more solar than us,” said Alissa Schafer, communications and policy manager at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “That can be a bit frustrating. These other states are kicking our butt, to put it bluntly.”
This disparity is no longer a mildly diverting quirk. With Donald Trump’s administration gleefully crushing any federal policy with any whiff of climate change about it, the urgent task of emissions cuts is starting to depend more heavily upon cities and states. Currently, Florida derives less than 1% of its electricity generation from solar."
Florida's climate of denial tracks both political fortunes and the determination of the statez's electricity producers to box out competitors from solar, irrespective of benefits to taxpayers. The UK Guardian quotes FPL, a routine corporate expression of plausible deniability.
It is literally a shameful performance by all concerned, but especially voters who refuse to tie their choices for political office to what's best for their wallets: rapid adoption of solar energy at the base level of homes and business rooftops.
1 comment:
Solar has upfront expenses. Yet, solar energy would eventually save taxpayers money if installed on schools and government offices, etc. Several VA Hospitals have solar-paneled parking lots. There was, however, at least one incidence of significant installation cost overruns, which garnered bad publicity for Obama's admin. - and solar energy.
Yet, municipalities could set an example by investing in solar energy - as many government buildings have huge electric bills. And once the panels are paid-off, the energy is free. (What a great platform for a politician!)
Solar-paneled parking lots have potential as well, especially as EV car fueling stations. The cars could be refueled during the day while people are at work. Emission-free driving - and no oil wars to fight. And if everyone drove a solar-powered car, there wouldn't be the overriding need for fracking.
S. Florida does have its hurricanes. Panels would need to be strongly secured.
The US needs all the alternative energy sources it can muster. Solar energy should be front and center. Our politicians are very short-sighted.
Post a Comment