Can government-subsidized solar and wind projects, which make no engineering or economic sense and cannot produce reliable power on demand, really be called "clean"? Or even "energy"?
Is a massive expansion of unconstitutional, federal central planning over grid siting, transmission lines, and private data centers really "cutting red tape"?
This bill represents a disaster for energy reliability and the economy, but the media coverage surrounding it is even more disconnected from reality. Calling the unconstitutional expansion of federal central planning "permitting reform" relies on a total corruption of language.
Real reform strips the state of its power to meddle in energy production, rather than consolidating that power into a federal cartel.
Your first and last paragraphs nail it. These clean energy projects and sources are pure garbage and only "work" economically when they're competing against fossil fuels using massive public subsidies.
There is a particular propagandist here in Colorado named Allen Best who is an especially nefarious character in confusing truly competitive fuel sources and these make-believe sources and making it appear like the economics of renewables pencil out.
I don't know how the Democrats ever lost their way so completely that all they can ever do is impose more cost and more burdens on everyday people while telling themselves the most insane lies about the most obvious untruths; congratulating themselves on "permitting reform" while fucking us with more imposed costs.
This is a massive, sprawling bill and one (or two) articles that greatly generalize it cannot adequately even summarize its main points. The author states that there isn't a better deal out there. Undoubtedly true as of October, 2026. True after the midterm elections? Unlikely if the Dems regain the house and senate. So on that point alone, there should be a great deal of concern. Yes, this bill would cut a lot of "red tape" in permitting. Historically, the permitting processes that are contemplated were methodically instituted in order to ensure that large polluting industrial projects that used fossil fuels (remember, green energy is a relatively new concept) were properly vetted. This included providing a voice to the people who lived around those projects. If you have had any experience in permitting from the environmental side, you would be very wary of any effort that rebubs agreed to that included that goal, and here's why: in short, this streamlining effort cuts both ways. Both green energy projects and fossil fuel projects are affected. So do we really want to have fossil fuel projects streamlined? And regarding the authors' projection for lower emissions, see my comment on their previous article (https://www.wordsinsearchlight.org/p/pass-permitting-reform-usher-in-clean/comments). So the basic question the authors don't address remains: why the rush to pass this bill just before the md-term elections? No, wait until after the mid-terms, revise the bill and make it stronger to ensure better environmental protections.
What I don't totally understand about this argument is how the passage of this bill doesn't put us in better rather than worse conditions for addressing some of those concerns. Part of a bill's 'strength' is its capacity to be signed into law. If what we want is a bill targeting fossil fuel builds, that sounds easier rather than harder to get enacted in a Democratic Congress.
Can government-subsidized solar and wind projects, which make no engineering or economic sense and cannot produce reliable power on demand, really be called "clean"? Or even "energy"?
Is a massive expansion of unconstitutional, federal central planning over grid siting, transmission lines, and private data centers really "cutting red tape"?
This bill represents a disaster for energy reliability and the economy, but the media coverage surrounding it is even more disconnected from reality. Calling the unconstitutional expansion of federal central planning "permitting reform" relies on a total corruption of language.
Real reform strips the state of its power to meddle in energy production, rather than consolidating that power into a federal cartel.
Your first and last paragraphs nail it. These clean energy projects and sources are pure garbage and only "work" economically when they're competing against fossil fuels using massive public subsidies.
There is a particular propagandist here in Colorado named Allen Best who is an especially nefarious character in confusing truly competitive fuel sources and these make-believe sources and making it appear like the economics of renewables pencil out.
I don't know how the Democrats ever lost their way so completely that all they can ever do is impose more cost and more burdens on everyday people while telling themselves the most insane lies about the most obvious untruths; congratulating themselves on "permitting reform" while fucking us with more imposed costs.
This is a massive, sprawling bill and one (or two) articles that greatly generalize it cannot adequately even summarize its main points. The author states that there isn't a better deal out there. Undoubtedly true as of October, 2026. True after the midterm elections? Unlikely if the Dems regain the house and senate. So on that point alone, there should be a great deal of concern. Yes, this bill would cut a lot of "red tape" in permitting. Historically, the permitting processes that are contemplated were methodically instituted in order to ensure that large polluting industrial projects that used fossil fuels (remember, green energy is a relatively new concept) were properly vetted. This included providing a voice to the people who lived around those projects. If you have had any experience in permitting from the environmental side, you would be very wary of any effort that rebubs agreed to that included that goal, and here's why: in short, this streamlining effort cuts both ways. Both green energy projects and fossil fuel projects are affected. So do we really want to have fossil fuel projects streamlined? And regarding the authors' projection for lower emissions, see my comment on their previous article (https://www.wordsinsearchlight.org/p/pass-permitting-reform-usher-in-clean/comments). So the basic question the authors don't address remains: why the rush to pass this bill just before the md-term elections? No, wait until after the mid-terms, revise the bill and make it stronger to ensure better environmental protections.
Did you even read the article?
What I don't totally understand about this argument is how the passage of this bill doesn't put us in better rather than worse conditions for addressing some of those concerns. Part of a bill's 'strength' is its capacity to be signed into law. If what we want is a bill targeting fossil fuel builds, that sounds easier rather than harder to get enacted in a Democratic Congress.