It would seem prudent and appropriate for the United States federal government to subsidize clean energy for the simple fact that not only would our dependence on foreign energy sources be decreased, it would also contribute significantly to our producing a smaller carbon footprint, thereby helping to save the world from its projected rendezvous with more cataclysmic planetary conditions and weather systems as a result of global warming and its offspring.  We currently subsidize the ethanol industry to the tune of billions of dollars, even though ethanol production is no more than a micro step below gasoline production as far as CO2 emissions are concerned.  The oil industry is even more heavily subsidized, as the following graphic shows.

According to a Chicago Tribune article from 18 September 2011, “The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts.”  The piece goes on to say that the scandal is nothing more than politics as usual – the good ole quid pro quo where corporations make political contributions and the contributee repays them by granting them a largesse from the government cash trough.  It is also “reported that the U.S. Department of Energy employee who helped monitor the Solyndra loan guarantee was one of Obama’s top fundraisers.”

President Obama is investing much political capital in the so-called green industry.  USA Today ran a story about the President’s outmaneuvering Congress to further his green agenda: ” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Thursday, accompanied by officials from Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico and Sweden, a joint effort to curb the short-lived emissions of pollutants including soot (also called black carbon), methane and hydrofluorocarbons that account for 30% to 40% of global warming.  The United States plans to contribute $12 million and Canada $3 million over two years to begin the project, which will be run by the United Nations Environment Program….’One of the benefits of focusing on pollutants that are short-lived is, if we can reduce them significantly, we will have a noticeable effect on our climate in relatively short order,’ Clinton said at the State Department announcement. Scientists estimate that cutting these emissions can help prevent millions of deaths from pollution and lower global temperatures 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050.”  Sounds like a comparatively cheap price to pay.  I would place my bet on subsidizing.

There are many views out there on whether or not the United States should pump money into the renewable energy sector.  The best case for subsidies that I found was contained in this U.S. News & World Report article, where Eric Pooley argues, “The benefits of our investments in clean energy couldn’t be clearer. The U.S. was a significant net exporter of solar energy products with total net exports of $1.9 billion in 2010. Solar jobs have doubled in the U.S. to 100,000 since 2009, and last year alone U.S. solar energy installations created a combined $6.0 billion in direct value, of which $4.4 billion accrued to the U.S….If our goal as a nation is to flourish in the next energy boom, if we want to claim our share of the $2.3 trillion clean energy market, we can’t walk away from clean energy subsidies—so long as conventional fuels enjoy an artificial competitive advantage. It’s time to put Solyndra behind us, heed its lessons, and get back to the business of growing American business, cleaning up our power sector, and securing our energy supply.”