Solar panels (photo: Bernd Sieker)
USA Today (10/17/12) ran a story about a battery manufacturer filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. But the story might as well have been a press release from the Mitt Romney campaign.
"Another Blow for Green Energy" read the headline. Wendy Koch's piece led off with this:
An electric vehicle battery maker that was awarded $249 million in federal stimulus funds filed for Chapter 11 reorganization on Tuesday, giving GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney potential ammunition to attack President Obama's green-energy subsidies.
It's a short article, but it's hard to avoid the central theme: This is good news for the Romney campaign. Koch writes:
Its Chapter 11 filing will likely spur further GOP criticism, which escalated once solar panel manufacturer Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 protection in September 2011 after receiving more than $500 million in federal loan guarantees.
In the first presidential debate October 3, Romney called four aid recipients "losers," including Solyndra, Fisker, EV car maker Tesla Motors and auto battery manufacturer Ener1.
"You don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers," Romney told Obama in a sharp exchange.
On Tuesday, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul called A123's bankruptcy "yet another failure for the president's disastrous strategy of gambling away billions of taxpayer dollars on a strategy of government-led growth that simply does not work."
If it's important to note the campaign ramifications of this story, then perhaps readers should know that Romney claimed that about half of the companies receiving green energy loan guarantees have gone out of business. That is, as you might expect, completely false.
And the failure rate overall is rather low. Time reporter Michael Grunwald "estimates that less than 1 percent of green firms have gone bad in terms of dollar value," writes Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress.
Stories like this are a reminder of the surplus visibility of green energy "failures." Republican critics of the White House promote these anecdotes, and the media too often play along–which is why we know so much about the Solyndra flops and relatively little about the success stories. That's not the main point that David Brooks is making in his column today, but he does make that point:
The federal agencies invested in many winners, but they also invested in some spectacular losers, from Solyndra to the battery maker A123 Systems, which just filed for bankruptcy protection. Private investors can shake off bad investments. But when a political entity like the federal government makes a bad investment, the nasty publicity tarnishes the whole program.
The media, of course, are the ones who choose to write the articles that account for the "nasty publicity."
About Peter Hart
What's the flip side of greenwashing?
Greentarring?
Gotta be a better term than that.
Suggestions?
Isn't there a rule of thumb for venture capitalists and the like that if the percentage of failures you've backed is too low, then you've been too cautious?
I guess some folks think the government should only back companies that can't fail … like oil companies, for instance.
"But the story might as well have been a press release from the Mitt Romney campaign."
With Obama supporting off-shore drilling, fracking, "clean" coal, and nuclear energy, this report could have been a press release for Obama as well. Peter Hart, stop shilling for the Democratic Party. Obama has had four years and a huge mandate to provide government jobs by greening the US, thus shooting two birds with one stone (sorry vegetarians)!
At least the Republicans are honest about their monstrosity!
I think the corporate media is playing a much longer game when they emphasize the negative in green-technology stories than simply playing favorites in a contest between two presidential candidates who probably don't really differ too much in this respect.
@Bearpaw, or banks, eh.. and @FreeSpirit, "Republicans" and "honest" seem awkward appearing in the same sentence together, but so do "politician" and "honest" to be sure. From my perspective, it would be nice to see more success stories with regards to green energy without the political leanings.
I guess Mr. Romney didn't know that ( surprise?) Solyndra was started by G.W.
Remember too that President Lincoln ( and he was a republican) said it was not wise to change horses in midstream. Besides, Mr. Romney seems to want to roll back every GREEN and environmental accomplishment in the last 100 years!
HOWEVER, in Berkley, CA, artists are using the Solyndra green glass tubes to create beautiful art! RECYCLE and isn't that the point of going Green? I think that our local sun, SOL INVICTUS, who is willing to work for free is a wonderful concept. There's no way to outsource Helios! He works for everyone! : ) NO SUNBEAM LEFT BEHIND!
The “media too often play along.”
With all due respect to FAIR, whom we look to in keeping us informed about corrupt media, it’s not the media “play[ing] along” with them (democrats or republicans). Instead, and more directly, it’s the MSM “play[ing]” us “along” – as they blatantly control virtually all narratives (from concept through whatever goal) – in absolute concert with political, corporate, or military interests/desires.
For crucial instance, as a response to (CNN and) Eric Kingson's "Debate Disinformation on Social Security and Medicare": Martha Raddatz had a targeted goal – to "reinforce" a guided corporate narrative. "Her assumptions were" a facade – as a means to further the "myth." "[She chose] to frame the Social Security discussion in [that] manner" as a premeditated "opportunity."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/12-10#comment-680250086
Whether it’s Green Energy, Tar Sands, Deficits (or setting up predetermined commissions on), Taxes, Social Security (which has nothing to do with the Deficit), Austerity (in the face of a worldwide Depression brought on by Enronesque rampancy), Shared Sacrifices (as an Orwellian PR scam), Invasions (based on purposely forged documents), Terror Alerts (as a means to herd), Bailouts (only for the 1%), Robo-Signing (as nationwide business model fraud, without repercussions), Occupy (shutting down through old Soviet measures/”Seriously”), or Torture (“enhanced interrogation”), the heart of MSM is control – of all messages and presentations. They only “play along” so far as it enhances (scripted) missions.
Dear Doug Latimer;
That's a tough one; the opposite of greenwashing….. Maybe Green Fluff and Fold, so corporate America, like the laundry, does the work for the nation and no one has to do a thing…like think?
Maybe Green Permanent Press, so corporate America and the media iron out all the horrifying wrinkles?
I am constantly frustrated by any conversations involving "subsidies" for green technology as if green technology's paltry subsidies are some harbinger of socialism. The oil industry has been benefiting from subsidies since the early 1900s and right through today on drilling rights below market prices, tax breaks such as accelerated depreciation rates, and, in the last 50 years, the defense department's protection of persian gulf shipping lanes, etc. $10s of billions every year for decades. And of course, the externalities of carbon emissions which are not taxed. Even if the Oil industry's subsidies stopped tomorrow, they will still enjoy economies of scale in production and distribution which, partly enabled by subsidies, give it a huge advantage over other, emerging green energy technologies.
I saw on Bill Mahar a few weeks ago a couple conservatives (R Kingston Georgia) and Avik Roy were spouting off about green subsidies, then Kingston, in a show of "bipartisanship", said, "But I approve of all of the above! Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar…" What a crock of sh*t. The guy doesn't believe in Global Warming (or evolution for that matter) and thinks the Oil industry is handicapped by the "highly subsidized" green industry. Mahar didn't challenge Kingston's framing of the issues, so he came of sounding like a relatively open-minded guy instead of the impossibly narrow-minding jack-ass he is.
Gloriana
Maybe "greengashing" … ?
At least there's some alliteraton extant. -g-
Black tarring seems appropriate considering tar is a product of petroleum a sort of mid way between oil and coal. Considering that the coal and oil companies have been making huge profits at our losss for over half a century so they don't need subsidies. Though solar power has bee nwith us since the late 1800's it was never enough when the oil gushers came pushing it to the fringe where it still remains to this day. The subsidies are for new companies not well established ones. Yet they are treated as if subsidies should only go to well established companies who don't need it. Rather like how it with individual wealth. The more you have the more you should have and if you are poor you should get nothing and die. Such is the perverse psychology that still lives on in our perverted economy and mind set.
Subsidies….. money invested by the government, FOR the governments benefit.When it fails it is a bad investment.It is not only for new emerging companies.For instance if government wanted to invest in new -clean fracking technology that would be wonderful.And would probably pay them off a thousand/million times over.This government invests our money because of an ideological belief in global warming.Bad business.And It is outside market sensibilities.And yes it is true most of Obamas investments into green tech have gone belly up due to that rush to make a political statement(thank you AL Gore for painting the president into that box).Green tech will succeed because when done right , it is CHEAPER.The fact that it is cleaner is icing on the cake.For instance the wave of the future will be cars powered by hydrogen.Made as a throw off at our nuclear power plants.Made as you sleep for pennies.My guess is we are 25 years away from this technology.Private companies are working like worker ants to develop this and patent it.The PROFIT motive(there is that dirty word again)is massive.It will happen.I hope it happens for you, and that you make more money than Bill Gates.Till then we have an ocean of energy all around us.We are blessed.No need to starve like a vegan on the island of goats.
nightgaunt49: I like "blacktarring," as that's a great visual!
Doug Latimer, "greengashing" is great too. Yes it needs the G sound, so I thought about greengrinching, although that would be unfair to Dr. Seuss.
Greengutting?
Gloriana, "greengutting" seems more applicable to the evisceration of environmental regulations and enforcement.
I'll have to remember it for the next time I respond to a piece on the subject.
Which will be all too soon, I fear.
I suggest Green Dying. Green washing is trying to cover it over, this is making sure green is injected so deep so it can't be washed out….
Why doesn't president Obama and his campaign publicise the success metrics on our investment in green energy? It may be early for the investments to be bearing much fruit, but surely there is some measurable progress that can counter the criticism for the failures. To what extent has government support for green energy been successful?
[...] 2012/10/19: FAIR: Every Green Energy Failure Is News [...]
What do we expect from a "news" outlet beholden to their BigOil masters?
And Wendy Koch? Any relation?
What would happen if a Democratic campaign were cheering the failure of a critical future economic sector?