[An4ximandros]

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/13/ohio_just_signed_its_terrible_anti_renewable_energy_bill_into_law/

This stupidity is saturating me with rage...

[Luis Dias]

I very much want to raise my flag with you there but salon ugh.

But yeah, I think that now that renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper, we will see a lot of this kind of lobbying against it. Sad, but inevitable.

[Klaustrophobia]

repealing a mandate for renewable energy is not a law AGAINST renewable energy....

[The E]

When said mandate has driven away business from fossil energy producers and apparently resulted in savings for customers, yes, it is.

[SypheDMar]

This is embarrassing. I feel personally offended.

[Dragon]

While I'm no fan of the renewable craze, it looks that it's actually been profitable for Ohio. That's what happens when you let politicians run the country...

[The E]

While I'm no fan of the renewable craze, it looks that it's actually been profitable for Ohio. That's what happens when you let politicians run the country...

No, it's what happens when humans run the country. Specifically, humans that can be influenced by lobbyists. Do not delude yourself into thinking that the brand of dictatorship you prefer would be any more rational.

[headdie]

What really makes me lol is that the fossil fuel companies have decided to spend this money lobbying instead of looking into renewable energy as a diversification of their business portfolios, potentially increasing their annual profits

[swashmebuckle]

The money they could make investing in renewables would result in money being sucked out of their existing (much higher ROI) business so that's a major loser for them.

[headdie]

The money they could make investing in renewables would result in money being sucked out of their existing (much higher ROI) business so that's a major loser for them.

certainly short term, certainly would take a number of years to see a return worth the investment but then i suppose thats the crux of the problem, piss off the investors/shareholders/stock markets for the long view or keep them happy in the short term

[Dragon]

This shows how dysfunctional corporate system is. Long term gains are all too often sacrificed for short term, shareholder-pleasing "solutions" that solve nothing, but net the CEO a hefty bonus for keeping stock high.

No, it's what happens when humans run the country. Specifically, humans that can be influenced by lobbyists. Do not delude yourself into thinking that the brand of dictatorship you prefer would be any more rational.

Well, the idea is to have humans (or even just a single one) who can not be influenced by lobbyists and bribery (isn't the former just the latter by another name, anyway?). Whatever system of government you chose, it's important that it works towards the benefit of the country, not towards gains of it's own members. And politicians are a particularly poor choice to run anything; they're only good at winning elections and staying in power (because that's what politics amounts to), not actual management. And I noticed democracies have an annoying habit of electing politicians and not actual administrators.

[General Battuta]

Your thesis is at odds with history. Democratic elections have produced numerous capable leaders and administrators. Comparative outcomes analysis between democratic and authoritarian states does not favor the authoritarian regimes in effectively any respect.

[swashmebuckle]

The money they could make investing in renewables would result in money being sucked out of their existing (much higher ROI) business so that's a major loser for them.

certainly short term, certainly would take a number of years to see a return worth the investment but then i suppose thats the crux of the problem, piss off the investors/shareholders/stock markets for the long view or keep them happy in the short term

I think that these companies do all individually weigh their short and long term priorities and have probably determined that "make as much money as possible while you are in a dominant position" is a better overall strategy than "invest heavily in technologies that might become dominant in the future." They're sitting on a mountain of gold and you're trying to push bitcoin.

[Dragon]

Except that fossil fuels are going to run out someday. If they were smart, they would look for other sources of income, and do it now, before someone else grabs them. If they were very smart, they'd start pushing for nuclear power, because unlike renewables (which are only good as a suplement), it'll definitely become dominant as extracting oil becomes more expensive and as power demand rises. And it will rise, there's no stopping that.

[swashmebuckle]

Having a really huge pile of money is probably the best way to guarantee that you will be able to secure sources of income in the future (way better than the crapshoot of actually funding research yourself). Fossil fuel companies will probably be in as good of a position as anyone to jump on the next primary energy source when it actually becomes a reality.

[Grizzly]

What really makes me lol is that the fossil fuel companies have decided to spend this money lobbying instead of looking into renewable energy as a diversification of their business portfolios, potentially increasing their annual profits

This strikes me as odd as well. Shell actually does invest in renewable energy (since they want to keep existing as a company in the next 100 years, basically), it strikes me as odd that some of their competitors would choose a different path.

[Luis Dias]

...as extracting oil becomes more expensive and as power demand rises. And it will rise, there's no stopping that.

What is no stopping is demand rise, which has (and will continue to) drive prices of oil up, up, up. If you have no competitors, they will go even more up. Pressure from extraction costs will only add to the troubles, they will lobby as much as they can to destroy any competition.

What really makes me lol is that the fossil fuel companies have decided to spend this money lobbying instead of looking into renewable energy as a diversification of their business portfolios, potentially increasing their annual profits

This strikes me as odd as well. Shell actually does invest in renewable energy (since they want to keep existing as a company in the next 100 years, basically), it strikes me as odd that some of their competitors would choose a different path.

It only looks odd as long as you don't look at the figures they have every quarter for oil, coal or ... ahhh.. solar, wind. Once you skim over those figures, you'll understand everything.

[Grizzly]

It only looks odd as long as you don't look at the figures they have every quarter for oil, coal or ... ahhh.. solar, wind. Once you skim over those figures, you'll understand everything.

Luis, when you make statements like this, can you please please please provide links?

[Luis Dias]

Do I really need to? Do you remotely believe their revenues on renewables are more than a tiny percentage of the total? It's like you're asking me evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese.

[Colonol Dekker]

I thought this was a thread about the Godzilla film