Green Infrastructure: Pass It and Then We'll See What's in It | National Review

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

58% : This would be an effort massively to retire conventional (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) power-generation capacity prematurely in favor of ever-more wind and solar power.
46% : That is why the environmental left and the wind and solar lobbies argue simultaneously that wind and solar power are cost competitive and that the subsidies for wind and solar power should never end.
45% : Such deceptive cost calculations ignore the subsidies, guaranteed market shares, and the myriad other subventions bestowed upon wind and solar power, the cost of the backup capacity and generation without which a renewable system cannot work, the doubled or tripled costs of far larger transmission systems, the cost of land, the costs of the environmental damage caused by renewables, and on and on.
42% : The description of such a substitution as "clean" is classic disinformation, as it ignores the huge problems of toxic metal pollution, wildlife destruction, noise and flicker effects, massive and unsightly land use, toxic leakage in landfills, the unavoidable heavy-metal pollution from the production and disposal of large (and expensive) battery systems, and the surprisingly sizeable emissions of conventional pollutants and GHG from coal- and natural-gas backup generation needed to overcome the unreliability of wind and solar power caused by the intermittency of wind and sunlight.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.