… and in conclusion.
Never underestimate the power of irrational prejudice.
4 Likes
While a short column is not capable of going to the problems of offshore wind, for example, over the two years before the present administration or the issues of intermittent generation or the much higher grid costs, he should at least mention there are problems/issues.
DB2
3 Likes
Thank you for recognizing that his post was one sided.
2 Likes
Oh you don’t have to worry about Dr Bob seeing the “one side” of renewable energy. He’s a Jedi master at it.
6 Likes
Which means you end up with fuller picture. Most people only read Krugman.
DB2
3 Likes
No, most people don’t read anything. (True fact®). They listen to what politicians and other thought leaders say, and by extension their friends spout, and most of that is gibberish, third hand, simplified and strained until only the barest semblance of truth remains.
Some people deal in facts. Krugman is one of them, although he has a point of view to be sure. I have noticed that you also deal in fact. Also with a distinct point of view. If you are going to criticize someone else for that, maybe you could think about the implications more universally? Just a thought.
11 Likes
I don’t worry about Dr. Bob’s one sided posts. I thought it was funny that he complained about someone else doing it.
6 Likes
He is incompetent.
20/15
1 Like
Krugman is a fact. I don’t like his points of view which is another fact.
So much for facts.
The Captain
2 Likes
3 Likes
One of my favorites:
The Captain
2 Likes
…and his fate is still unknown!
Loved their whole ouevre.
I don’t think you read Krugman’s article.
3 Likes
It’s a lot easier to dismiss if you haven’t read it and base your response on “what I believe, no actually know, about Krugman.”
In looking at the article (and I’m not a universal yes-man to PK), he brings up some good ideas, but the counterpoint is always about risk. The main divide in the clean energy debate lies in how each side prioritizes risk.
Critics tend to emphasize the near-term dangers of an aggressive policy, whether higher regulatory burdens, rising public debt (that’s always interesting coming from the other side), potential grid instability, and reliance on foreign supply chains. They see these as threats that could undermine economic stability and national security.
On the other hand, Krugman stresses the far greater long-term dangers of unchecked climate change and the lost opportunity to drive innovation and competitiveness through public investment. In essence, the conflict is less about whether clean energy is desirable and more about which risks, the short-term costs or long-term catastrophe, should weigh more heavily in shaping policy decisions.
I enjoyed looking at this through his lens, though, since it is always worthwhile to consider different viewpoints.
And this all greatly impacts macroeconomics, of course.
Pete
7 Likes
There are problems/issues with every form of energy generation.
I don’t think that was the point of his article. Specifically, his point was that everyone expected reduced funding for new renewable energy projects. Few anticipated actually shutting down almost complete projects. Fewer still anticipate shuttering sites that are currently producing electricity…just you wait.
6 Likes