Hillary Clinton released her “sweeping” solar plan to the public on July 26, 2015. In it she declared that she would increase installed solar capacity by 700% by 2020.
.
.
What she didn’t tell you is that her 700% projection was not from 2015 or even 2014 levels.
It was from 2012 levels (note: the clinton campaign graphic was mislabeled)
.
.
.
.
The “sweeping” solar energy plan that she proposes is basically a continuation of the Solar Investment Tax Credit and allowing normal market forces to continue to decrease the cost of installed solar while the costs of electricity from utilities continues to increase (making solar even MORE affordable under current market projections)
U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good — LA Times
Experts in the state's energy markets project the price could jump an additional 47% over the next 15 years.
.
In other words, Hillary Clinton’s “sweeping” solar plan isn’t. It is business as usual with a continuation of basic investment tax credits.
.
It isn’t a push to shift our economy away from fossil fuels, from fracked natural gas to clean renewables. It is a classic continuation of incrementalism at a time when the growing realization of our climate’s unraveling demands much, much more.
But this is what I would expect from someone who receives millions of dollars in campaign donations from those who profit from natural gas and fracking all over the world.
.
.
HRC: Oh, Do I take money from fossil fuel interests??? I dunno, tell you what, “I’ll look into it. . .”
Monday, Feb 22, 2016 · 6:22:00 PM +00:00 · New Minas
UPDATE: h/t to rbraby in the comments section who showed that the original Clinton Campaign graphic had mislabed the amount of installed capacity in 2015 by about 100%. The installed capacity in Jan of 2015 was indeed about 20GW and the projections of 140 GW is indeed a 700% increase.
However, it should be noted here that we are expecting to add an additional 16 GW of solar capacity by the end of 2016 from 2014 levels, an 80% increase in only 2 calendar years.
Here is the trend of previous installations and shows quite clearly why Clinton’s 700% is nothing more than incrementalism with regard to climate change.
Monday, Feb 22, 2016 · 6:38:23 PM +00:00
·
New Minas
it was noted that the “millions of dollars” in donations from those who profit from Fracking seemed deceptive. I want to clarify. This statement includes donations from investment banks who are heavily invested in U.S. and Global fracking companies. From the NY TImes (circa 2012)
After the Boom in Natural Gas
Like the recent credit bubble, the boom and bust in gas were driven in large part by tens of billions of dollars in creative financing engineered by investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Barclays and Jefferies & Company.
After the financial crisis, the natural gas rush was one of the few major profit centers for Wall Street deal makers, who found willing takers among energy companies and foreign financial investors.