Originally posted at ScalingGreen.com.
Merriam-Webster: Irish Confettiย – โA rock or brick used as aย missile.โ
We recently wrote about professional clean energy criticย Andrew Morriss being schooled by Center for American Progressโs Kate Gordonย before a friendly crowd at the fossil industry-funded CATO Institute. Back in April, Mr. Morriss couldnโt answer Ms. Gordonโs inconvenient points about the huge government welfare checks received by the dirty energy industries that fund him while he rails against pro-clean energyย policies.
Morriss, you see, is a front man for the front group, the Koch-fundedย Mercatus Center at George Mason UniversityProperty & Environment Research Centerย (PERCInstitute for Energy Research. Iโm guessing that he, like others in the cottage industry of anti-clean industry front groups, has been trying to raise more dirty energy money by showing he can put an equals sign between the Solyndra bankruptcy and broad pro-clean energyย policies.
In fact, thatโs the only explanation I can come up with for why Mr. Morriss would volunteer for another embarrassment. The latest one took place on theย Dylan Ratigan Show. Morriss once again blundered right into the core question for which people of his kind have no answer: Why small government advocates ignore $52 billion or more in taxpayer welfare to dirty energy interests โ but have the time to waste blathering about how pro-clean energy policies arenโt a good use of ourย money.
Mr. Ratigan was having none of it, starting off the interview with a round of Irish Confetti: ย โโฆwe do not have a free market for energy, becauseย the actual cost of fossil fuel in our economy is not reflected at the pump; the militaryโs not in there, the environmentโs not in there, and thereโs a wide variety of differing fuel subsidies and tax treatments for all sorts of different fuel sources depending on their relation with our government. So, how can a marketplace decide the fuel source, when one fuel, particularly being gasoline and fossil fuels, have such a substantial comparativeย subsidy?โ
Morriss, stumbling:ย โRight, right, well, you know, thatโs a good point, but the answer to one bad subsidy is not to have two badย subsidiesโฆโ
Ratigan (cutting off Morriss): โButย I didnโt say that, I didnโt bring you on to indict the president. Iโm with you, the president thatโs crazy, what theyโre doing is crazy, letโs not waste our time on it. Butย letโs talk about the actual problem, which is that the marketplace cannot function if the actual cost of what is in it is rigged. And in this case, we are not paying the actual cost of the fossil fuels,ย and as a result, no one wants to see $8 a gallon for anything, when I can get $4 a gallon and pass the military costs and all the rest of it off. I guess my question to you is,ย what would the marketplace do if it was faced with paying the real cost of fossil fuel at theย pump?โ
Morriss, again stumbling: ย โWell, people would use a lot less of it, and thatโs what we wantโฆand so if you price them accurately, people will conserveโฆso, we have a mechanism to get conservation, itโs worked for 100 years, weโve been conserving energy in a variety of thingsโฆpeople conserve when prices go up, itโs a simple thing itโs not popular with politicians, but itโs a simple way to fix theย problem.โ
Morrissโs Palin-esque wanderings only invited more, this time from co-host Sam Seder: โHey, Andrew, Iโve got a question for you. If itโs the case thatย we subsidize oil, and weโve been doing carbon-based subsidies since we built the highways, since we promoted cars, since we subsidized these oil companies directly, $50 billion worth of nuclear subsidies, why write an entire book about the tiny subsidies?ย I mean, you can shrug off the notion of one subsidy isnโt as good as the other butย we have the chance to incentivize and to build an industry that will have benefits across the spectrum of society. Why are you focused on thatย one?โ
Morriss, once again stumbling: โWell, Iโm currently writing a book attacking gasolineโฆ โWhy Gasoline Costs So MuchโโฆYouโre right that there is a great opportunity for innovationโฆand we know how to do innovationโฆwhat we donโt want to do isโฆturn to politicized decision making, and thatโs what weโreย seeingโฆโ
The questions kept coming, hard, fast and painful โ much as the Irish Confetti Mr. Ratiganโs (and my) fellow Irishmen threw in big-city riots during the 19thcentury. This treatment wasnโt only just desserts, it was a proof point to a wide array of clean energy advocates that they can and should start throwing some Irish Confettiย themselves.
Thatโs because the Solyndra bankruptcy has drawn the predictable fly swarm of people on a mission to hurt one of the few parts of the economy that is actuallyย growing and creating jobs across the country. Michele Malkin, former fossil fuel fundraiser Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, Darrell Issa, Rush Limbaugh, and Inhofe acolyte Marc Morano. All of them are actively trying to andย hurt solar company valuations, popularity andย job-creating momentum.
From here on in, getting lucky with on-air hosts who wonโt let nonsense pass for answers isnโt a sufficient strategy. Clean energy success will require us to demand the media press guys like Morriss to answer the hard, obvious questions about where the fat really is in government โ welfare checks to mature, highly profitable fossil interests such as ExxonMobil, Chesapeake Energy and Peabodyย Energy.
Left to themselves, Morriss and crew will gladly hurt the industries of Americaโs future, and make no apologies for it in theย process.
If that doesnโt deserve some Irish Confetti, I donโt know whatย does.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts