Too clever for his own good? That might be the case for Energy Minister George Smitherman, who aims to turn Ontario into a renewable-energy superpower and create thousands of green-collar jobs. Both are great ideas. But a deal being made on the sidelines could undo much of what Smitherman and the Liberal government are trying to accomplish.

But if US wind turbine manufacturers want another foreign renewables contingent to worry about, there's always the Europeans. A study by non-profit group the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 84 per cent of the $1.05bn handed out by the US government since September 1 has gone to foreign companies - mostly European. It's not an overwhelmingly surprising finding given that the US subsidiary of Spain's Iberdrola Renovables - the biggest wind farm operator in the world - was also the biggest recipient of the funds. And big European turbine manufacturers such as Vestas have been quite clear that they see the US as their big growth market.

In AWEA's blog post, they describe a national Renewable Electricity Standard as "a free-market" program. That is not accurate. In free markets, people are free to choose. A Renewable Electricity Standard forces people to buy wind, solar, and other government-approved energy sources. It is a mandate. Forcing someone to buy your product is not a free-market program by any definition. Contrary to AWEA's assertion that a Renewable Electricity Standard would lower energy prices, common sense and real-world evidence suggest otherwise.

Short-term thinking on energy is going to cause some long-term problems Ask Paul Edmonds, vice president of National Semiconductor in South Portland. In August, he wrote in the Portland Press Herald, "An inefficient regulatory system and lack of long-term energy strategy are conspiring against Maine citizens and businesses." I was intrigued. So I called him. He told me, "High electricity costs are a threat to manufacturing competitiveness in Maine."

Wind power costs a lot to build and nothing to operate. Could it hammer the profits of power utilities that currently charge a premium to light your home by burning the decayed remains of ancient organisms? Investors shouldn't be too worried, according to Lasan Johong, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. Johong says that increasing our reliance on wind power could actually raise power prices significantly.

Environmentalists who oppose everything except renewable energy are condemning billions to poverty. ...Such opposition demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of where our electricity comes from, how much it costs, who pays for it and what the future global energy landscape looks like.

Miliband’s citing of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech in support of his policy of subsidising the construction of many thousands of otherwise uneconomic wind turbines might appear grotesque, even comical; but not if you genuinely believe that Britain’s switching from coal to wind power for its electricity generation will save the lives of countless Africans. I have no idea whether Miliband truly believes that it will - but if he does, he is deluded.

Of course, politicians are not alone. It's not unusual to find an economist who succumbs to the dark side of politics, letting political preferences override sound economic reasoning. A glaring example of politics overriding economics came June 26 when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. ...In effect, politicians are willing to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy for the sake of green politics.

Last week the Irish Academy of Engineering (IAE) called for a halt on a proposed €30bn spend on the national energy infrastructure so that a proper assessment of future energy needs as well as the economic benefit of the massive investment in renewable power could be addressed. ...Plans are now afoot to deliver up to 7,800 MW of wind power on the island of Ireland, with a mixture of onshore and offshore projects in the pipeline. It may well help reduce our carbon emissions, but at what cost?

Renewable energy faces many hurdles before it is "ready for prime-time", not the least of which is the ability for the industry to sustain itself long-term without government subsidies. Simply put, green energy has to provide sufficient profit for companies to invest in the infrastructure needed to produce it. Without government subsidies, that is not currently possible.

I received a press release on Thursday about a new Emerging Energy Research [EER] study on wind power installations in the US for 2009 and beyond. EER argues that US installations could be down as much as 24% in 2009 from a record 8.55 GW in 2008. While utility-led projects remain mostly on track, smaller IPPs and developers that rely on project finance or other forms of external financing are finding the current market environment challenging.

Europe is several years ahead of the US in implementing policies intended to mitigate global warming. All of the European Union's member countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and adopted a wide range of policies to lower their emissions and meet their Kyoto targets. These policies include a cap-and-trade initiative known as the emissions trading scheme, steep fuel taxes, and ambitious programs to build windmills and other renewable energy projects. These policies were undertaken at a time when the EU economy was doing well and - one hopes - with full knowledge that they would have significant costs.

It is important to understand why the Danish government, which appears to have commissioned Mr. Pedersen's comments, is sensitive to critiques of the Danish experience with wind power. Denmark is home to Vestas, the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, with 20,000 employees and a market share of between 20% and 25%. As the market for its turbines in Denmark and other European countries becomes saturated, it seeks to export the Danish experience worldwide. To this end, it recently ran a multi-million dollar global ad campaign with the slogan, "Believe in the wind," claiming that Denmark has solved the problem of dirty electricity through wind power.

President Barack Obama has praised Spain as a global leader in renewable electricity generation and has lauded its success at creating so-called "green jobs." However, a recent Spanish university study concluded that Spain's mad rush to meet overly aggressive renewable standards has destroyed jobs and driven up the real cost of electricity, without cutting carbon emissions.

The bill would require doubling in three years of the share of electric utility output that comes from renewable sources-wind, solar, geothermal, biomass-from three percent now to six percent in 2012. In a further leap of central-planning arrogance, the bill would raise that standard in stages to 25 percent in 2025. Sounds good? Maybe, but the technology to do it doesn't exist.

In signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this week in Denver, President Barack Obama claimed that the law -- which among other things will ramp up funding for renewable energy development -- is "laying the groundwork for new green energy economies that can create countless well-paying jobs." ...If the green-jobs claim sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has run afoul of two fallacies which plague governments with his new "Green Energy Act." The Act, which does not have a defined price-tag, would supposedly create 50,000 new jobs, putting people to work building windmills, solar power plants ...But there are some hard realities that suggest Premier McGuinty's plan isn't the smartest way to do it. Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green" doesn't change the basic dynamics.

In the 20 years I have lived in Colorado, I have seen the transition from a growing, functional economy into an economy that increasingly relies on obscure, "politically correct" subsidies such as solar- and wind-power generation that are touted as solutions to our economic woes. ...these partisan policies are undermining Colorado's economy.

Clean energy stocks crashed by two thirds. The chart of the WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation index resembles the Nasdaq Technology index in 2000. ...International Energy Agency analyst Ralph Sims, who attended Poznan, said everything depended on US President-elect Barack Obama rebuilding momentum. He would deliver comfort, but an effective response to climate change would need him to push the political, business and fiscal agenda in favour of a green new deal. This is a tall order when his priority is to rebuild the US economy.