Review: Michael Moore exposes wind and solar energy in new documentary

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
So how do you define capitalism, and how does that differ from Moore? How does the left's understanding differ from the right's?
the key components are: private ownership and voluntary transactions, freedom of trade, freedom of contract, etc.
the left defines capitalism as anything that businesses do, often times claiming that capitalism demands growth or profits.
government control of business is no longer capitalism. Government's role in capitalism is only to defend rights: i.e. settle disputes over property rights. No interference in private voluntary transactions.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,220
Reaction score
514
Points
113
Well, hey. If our ultimate goal is to sustain our current "way of life", which is based on rampant consumerism feeding constant economic growth...

...then here is the cold truth:

Petroleum-based energy, produced within a certain price range, is the only known energy source capable of filling that bill. Electric cars will never change the world in any measurable way, at any meaningful level, because the electric cars themselves, the roads and freeways and bridges and cloverleafs they drive on, the fueling stations and batteries they depend upon, the tires they roll upon, cannot be built and produced and maintained by using renewable energy sources exclusively. Not on any large scale.

Fossil fuels are used in gasoline, of course; they are also essential for the production of asphalt. And of plastics. And the building and production and fueling of heavy equipment used in large-scale construction. The list of items essential to our 'current lifestyle' that depend on the supply of (relatively) cheap fossil fuels goes on and on and on.

If our ultimate goal is indeed to maintain (or grow) our current lifestyle, well... Here it is. Ya gots ta have yer fossil fuels, mate. No way around it.

A more pertinent question might be: is the supply of reasonably-priced fossil fuels infinite? Will it in fact become harder and harder, over time (and therefore more expensive), to produce those essential fuels?

The answer is, uhhhh... yeah. It just might get more expensive, if the deposits become harder to find, and if they are found in more remote, harder to harvest locations. If that happens, then... look out. Trouble ahead. We will be attempting to sustain that which is unsustainable.

Tar sands, for example, are more expensive and difficult and time-consuming to process and convert to usable fuel than is sweet crude drilled from a convenient location. Soy fuel works on an economic level only when it is subsidized by governments, and it doesn't scale very well. Croplands dedicated to producing fuel are lost to food production. We're slightly dependent on food, too... at least, last time I checked.

But, hey... I'm 63 years old. I'll be long dead before this situation really "hits the fan". Carry on!
 

fan of Ray Williams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
6,134
Reaction score
72
Points
48
One of my quirks is that I don't like throwing things away that still work. I'd be trashing dozens of perfectly good incandescent bulbs! Gives me the willies just thinking about it.
Maybe 10 years ago or so this buddy of mine was saying the use of more efficient lighting would eliminate some power houses around the country (he brought it up because we were working on one). Thought maybe it helps some, but wasn't nearly as convinced as he was. He was more prophetic than I had thought.

Widespread use of LED lighting has the greatest potential impact on energy savings in the United States. By 2027, widespread use of LEDs could save about 348 TWh (compared to no LED use) of electricity: This is the equivalent annual electrical output of 44 large electric power plants (1000 megawatts each), and a total savings of more than $30 billion at today's electricity prices.

 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
177
Points
63
the key components are: private ownership and voluntary transactions, freedom of trade, freedom of contract, etc.
the left defines capitalism as anything that businesses do, often times claiming that capitalism demands growth or profits.
government control of business is no longer capitalism. Government's role in capitalism is only to defend rights: i.e. settle disputes over property rights. No interference in private voluntary transactions.
I imagine Moore and the left are talking practically, beyond the Merriam-Webster definition. Our culture most certainly demands growth and profits. That creates imbalance in every transaction. Wealthy people buying up all the leverageable assets limits the virtues of capitalism you list. Buffet & Reid buying up all those energy assets in NV disincentivized people from installing their own solar. Now they're at the mercy of Reid & Buffet.

I imagine Moore and the left would also argue the market is too slow or unable to adequately respond to the climate crisis, so further intervention is required in the form of government regulation. Furthermore, Moore is saying renewable energy tolkenism isn't enough or even counter-productive.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
Well, hey. If our ultimate goal is to sustain our current "way of life", which is based on rampant consumerism feeding constant economic growth...

...then here is the cold truth:

Petroleum-based energy, produced within a certain price range, is the only known energy source capable of filling that bill. Electric cars will never change the world in any measurable way, at any meaningful level, because the electric cars themselves, the roads and freeways and bridges and cloverleafs they drive on, the fueling stations and batteries they depend upon, the tires they roll upon, cannot be built and produced and maintained by using renewable energy sources exclusively. Not on any large scale.

Fossil fuels are used in gasoline, of course; they are also essential for the production of asphalt. And of plastics. And the building and production and fueling of heavy equipment used in large-scale construction. The list of items essential to our 'current lifestyle' that depend on the supply of (relatively) cheap fossil fuels goes on and on and on.

If our ultimate goal is indeed to maintain (or grow) our current lifestyle, well... Here it is. Ya gots ta have yer fossil fuels, mate. No way around it.

A more pertinent question might be: is the supply of reasonably-priced fossil fuels infinite? Will it in fact become harder and harder, over time (and therefore more expensive), to produce those essential fuels?

The answer is, uhhhh... yeah. It just might get more expensive, if the deposits become harder to find, and if they are found in more remote, harder to harvest locations. If that happens, then... look out. Trouble ahead. We will be attempting to sustain that which is unsustainable.

Tar sands, for example, are more expensive and difficult and time-consuming to process and convert to usable fuel than is sweet crude drilled from a convenient location. Soy fuel works on an economic level only when it is subsidized by governments, and it doesn't scale very well. Croplands dedicated to producing fuel are lost to food production. We're slightly dependent on food, too... at least, last time I checked.

But, hey... I'm 63 years old. I'll be long dead before this situation really "hits the fan". Carry on!
I have literally zero concerns about running out of fossil fuel. We have hundreds of years of supply that we know of. Given the rate of innovation, some new source will come along.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
I imagine Moore and the left are talking practically, beyond the Merriam-Webster definition. Our culture most certainly demands growth and profits. That creates imbalance in every transaction. Wealthy people buying up all the leverageable assets limits the virtues of capitalism you list. Buffet & Reid buying up all those energy assets in NV disincentivized people from installing their own solar. Now they're at the mercy of Reid & Buffet.

I imagine Moore and the left would also argue the market is too slow or unable to adequately respond to the climate crisis, so further intervention is required in the form of government regulation. Furthermore, Moore is saying renewable energy tolkenism isn't enough or even counter-productive.
What does it mean that our culture demands it? Imbalance how? Buying up ALL the leveragable assets? There is no leveragable asset that you yourself cannot invest in nokomis. I’m not familiar with the LV story.
people don’t want solar. That’s what the market is, people’s wants. Moore and the left think they know better.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
177
Points
63
What does it mean that our culture demands it? Imbalance how? Buying up ALL the leveragable assets? There is no leveragable asset that you yourself cannot invest in nokomis. I’m not familiar with the LV story.
people don’t want solar. That’s what the market is, people’s wants. Moore and the left think they know better.
Yes, our culture demands growth & profit, or at least investors do.

I only know about the NV story from what Ogee posted. But from that, it does sound like people wanted solar, but Buffet's & Reid's investment killed it. If you're saying people only want the cheapest energy, than yeah I agree. But it sounds like Buffet & Reid killed something that was both affordable and renewable. Before Buffet, it sounds like there were lots of producers, now there's one. I don't want to use the M-word, but you know where I going. Capitalism works best when there are lots of players, not when one or two guys buy up the solar market in southern NV.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
.
Well, hey. If our ultimate goal is to sustain our current "way of life", which is based on rampant consumerism feeding constant economic growth...

...then here is the cold truth:

Petroleum-based energy, produced within a certain price range, is the only known energy source capable of filling that bill. Electric cars will never change the world in any measurable way, at any meaningful level, because the electric cars themselves, the roads and freeways and bridges and cloverleafs they drive on, the fueling stations and batteries they depend upon, the tires they roll upon, cannot be built and produced and maintained by using renewable energy sources exclusively. Not on any large scale.

Fossil fuels are used in gasoline, of course; they are also essential for the production of asphalt. And of plastics. And the building and production and fueling of heavy equipment used in large-scale construction. The list of items essential to our 'current lifestyle' that depend on the supply of (relatively) cheap fossil fuels goes on and on and on.

If our ultimate goal is indeed to maintain (or grow) our current lifestyle, well... Here it is. Ya gots ta have yer fossil fuels, mate. No way around it.

A more pertinent question might be: is the supply of reasonably-priced fossil fuels infinite? Will it in fact become harder and harder, over time (and therefore more expensive), to produce those essential fuels?

The answer is, uhhhh... yeah. It just might get more expensive, if the deposits become harder to find, and if they are found in more remote, harder to harvest locations. If that happens, then... look out. Trouble ahead. We will be attempting to sustain that which is unsustainable.

Tar sands, for example, are more expensive and difficult and time-consuming to process and convert to usable fuel than is sweet crude drilled from a convenient location. Soy fuel works on an economic level only when it is subsidized by governments, and it doesn't scale very well. Croplands dedicated to producing fuel are lost to food production. We're slightly dependent on food, too... at least, last time I checked.

But, hey... I'm 63 years old. I'll be long dead before this situation really "hits the fan". Carry on!
To counter this, one could greatly reduce petroleum-based energy by expanding base power with nuclear, wind, and solar, and going to hybrid or battery-powered automobiles. Those two actions alone would dramatically cut petroleum and other fossil fuel usage. That said, if you throw politics in the mix, the argument becomes a matter of short-term monetary cost only, and if that is the basis upon which the vast majority of the world's energy decisions are made, then petroleum-based energy will not be replaced anytime soon, to the detriment of mankind's long-term outlook.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
Maybe 10 years ago or so this buddy of mine was saying the use of more efficient lighting would eliminate some power houses around the country (he brought it up because we were working on one). Thought maybe it helps some, but wasn't nearly as convinced as he was. He was more prophetic than I had thought.

Widespread use of LED lighting has the greatest potential impact on energy savings in the United States. By 2027, widespread use of LEDs could save about 348 TWh (compared to no LED use) of electricity: This is the equivalent annual electrical output of 44 large electric power plants (1000 megawatts each), and a total savings of more than $30 billion at today's electricity prices.

It's true, efficient lighting is greatly reducing the energy consumption from those sources. Same thing with televisions (i.e., LED vs. plasma). Between reducing energy consumption and expansion of non-carbon sources of energy, I personally see no reason other than stubbornness of the population and the massive political power of the fossil fuel industry as to why the world could not transition to a nearly fossil fuel-free world over the next 50 years. If the world really tried hard to minimize use of fossil fuels, it could be done within 20 years. It's all about the will to do so, and the will of the world's people to change their bad habits is weak.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
3,675
Reaction score
298
Points
83
Michael Moore is fake news. Solar and wind with storage is enough. My house is 100% solar plus storage. It's wonderful.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,025
Reaction score
1,279
Points
113
It's true, efficient lighting is greatly reducing the energy consumption from those sources. Same thing with televisions (i.e., LED vs. plasma). Between reducing energy consumption and expansion of non-carbon sources of energy, I personally see no reason other than stubbornness of the population and the massive political power of the fossil fuel industry as to why the world could not transition to a nearly fossil fuel-free world over the next 50 years. If the world really tried hard to minimize use of fossil fuels, it could be done within 20 years. It's all about the will to do so, and the will of the world's people to change their bad habits is weak.
So much of the populist advocacy for fossil fuels seems to be a nostalgia on steroids. "I breathed chunks of coal as a kid, and I turned out fine." I figure those messages come from the fossil fuel industries and are weaponized as political talking points powered by a false nostalgia.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
Michael Moore is fake news. Solar and wind with storage is enough. My house is 100% solar plus storage. It's wonderful.
Can I ask the make/model of your solar system, how long it took to install, and how much space is required (and where you have it) for your power storage system? Also, did you get any problems from your power company about putting electricity back to the grid - do you get paid for it?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out if this makes practical/financial sense for my own home, and I'm asking for details and advice from those who have these systems.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
Yes, our culture demands growth & profit, or at least investors do.

I only know about the NV story from what Ogee posted. But from that, it does sound like people wanted solar, but Buffet's & Reid's investment killed it. If you're saying people only want the cheapest energy, than yeah I agree. But it sounds like Buffet & Reid killed something that was both affordable and renewable. Before Buffet, it sounds like there were lots of producers, now there's one. I don't want to use the M-word, but you know where I going. Capitalism works best when there are lots of players, not when one or two guys buy up the solar market in southern NV.
investors do, absolutely. but not all. There are tons of unprofitable businesses running in the US at all times, and tons of businesses that don't grow.

Think of it this way: growing, profitable businesses are producing things that people want. It's not so much a cultural demand, as it is a reflection of consumer preferences. and the market guides investments to areas where it is most needed. Large profits mean demand is way above supply. Investment builds out capacity to increase supply to match demand. Profits are simply an information mechanism.

I'm not familiar with the story, but I imagine there's a huge amount of government at the heart of it. If it was affordable and renewable and people wanted it, I don't understand how it could not be profitable. So either the facts or wrong, or government is the reason.

You can use the M word, it's a feature of government intervention, not capitalism.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
So much of the populist advocacy for fossil fuels seems to be a nostalgia on steroids. "I breathed chunks of coal as a kid, and I turned out fine." I figure those messages come from the fossil fuel industries and are weaponized as political talking points powered by a false nostalgia.
Maybe. It's more of an economic argument. If I can deregulate and subsidize everything fossil fuels and allow fossil fuels to successfully lobby heavily against all competing forms of energy and enforce regulations on those other industries such that fossil fuel energy's direct-costs-to-consumers stay x% below those of competing energies, AND if I can put enough doubt in the minds of consumers regarding the negative long-term effects and ramifications (e.g., global security, war, global warming) surrounding fossil fuels, then I can keep fossil fuels as the energy source of consumer choice.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
investors do, absolutely. but not all. There are tons of unprofitable businesses running in the US at all times, and tons of businesses that don't grow.

Think of it this way: growing, profitable businesses are producing things that people want. It's not so much a cultural demand, as it is a reflection of consumer preferences. and the market guides investments to areas where it is most needed. Large profits mean demand is way above supply. Investment builds out capacity to increase supply to match demand. Profits are simply an information mechanism.

I'm not familiar with the story, but I imagine there's a huge amount of government at the heart of it. If it was affordable and renewable and people wanted it, I don't understand how it could not be profitable. So either the facts or wrong, or government is the reason.

You can use the M word, it's a feature of government intervention, not capitalism.
Good boy, twist anything anyone says about economics into a fantasy anarcho-capitalist setting that no one was talking about and doesn’t exist in the world.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,220
Reaction score
514
Points
113
We won't run out of fossil fuels.

We will — eventually — run out of easy-to-access fossil fuels, and be forced to turn to more difficult (and therefore expensive) sources. Tar sands, for example, are much more expensive to turn into useable fuel than easy-to-find sweet crude is.

Drilling deep under the ocean is more difficult and therefore more expensive than drilling in Texas or Pennsylvania.

We've harvested the easy stuff. It will get harder and more expensive to keep up the supply.

We won't run out, but we'll pay more. Not in my lifetime, but sooner than many realize.
 

Just Gopher It!!

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
629
Reaction score
279
Points
63
Maybe. It's more of an economic argument. If I can deregulate and subsidize everything fossil fuels and allow fossil fuels to successfully lobby heavily against all competing forms of energy and enforce regulations on those other industries such that fossil fuel energy's direct-costs-to-consumers stay x% below those of competing energies, AND if I can put enough doubt in the minds of consumers regarding the negative long-term effects and ramifications (e.g., global security, war, global warming) surrounding fossil fuels, then I can keep fossil fuels as the energy source of consumer choice.
They are on the way out due to the economics; in the article I posted form the Times, Duke energy is even looking to get out of the coal game and I once saw their CEO interviewed, IIRC it was for an Inconvenient Truth, and he basically said coal usuage will never change for them. From the article -

Large power companies, including Duke Energy in the Southeast and Xcel Energy in the Midwest, are currently planning to retire at least four dozen large coal plants by 2025, and no utility is currently planning to build a new coal facility.

Coal is in the 4rh quarter of its existence IMO, as is Moor IMO, its all been downhill since Bowling for Columbine, he now makes my stomach churn if I happen to hear him
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
They are on the way out due to the economics; in the article I posted form the Times, Duke energy is even looking to get out of the coal game and I once saw their CEO interviewed, IIRC it was for an Inconvenient Truth, and he basically said coal usuage will never change for them. From the article -

Large power companies, including Duke Energy in the Southeast and Xcel Energy in the Midwest, are currently planning to retire at least four dozen large coal plants by 2025, and no utility is currently planning to build a new coal facility.

Coal is in the 4rh quarter of its existence IMO, as is Moor IMO, its all been downhill since Bowling for Columbine, he now makes my stomach churn if I happen to hear him
You are correct in that coal is on the last of its long legs, at least in this country. However, while parts of coal-based energy are being replaced by wind and solar renewals, the main replacement for the coal plants are natural gas plants. And, of course, natural gas is also a fossil fuel, and while it burns "cleaner" than coal, it still comes with its share of local pollution, and still contributes greatly to global warming (and possible more than all we think if methane isn't being properly capped). Meanwhile, a variety of nuclear plants are being shut down, with only a couple in the current works in the US, which doesn't help anything. So we're mainly just converting coal power to natural gas power, and in my opinion that's not much of a "win" for our economic or environmental future.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,324
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
You are correct in that coal is on the last of its long legs, at least in this country. However, while parts of coal-based energy are being replaced by wind and solar renewals, the main replacement for the coal plants are natural gas plants. And, of course, natural gas is also a fossil fuel, and while it burns "cleaner" than coal, it still comes with its share of local pollution, and still contributes greatly to global warming (and possible more than all we think if methane isn't being properly capped). Meanwhile, a variety of nuclear plants are being shut down, with only a couple in the current works in the US, which doesn't help anything. So we're mainly just converting coal power to natural gas power, and in my opinion that's not much of a "win" for our economic or environmental future.
Clearly better than coal, so I’ll take that win.

Nuclear (fission) is just too expensive and take too long to get approval.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
Clearly better than coal, so I’ll take that win.

Nuclear (fission) is just too expensive and take too long to get approval.
Note: nuclear is more expensive in large part because of massive regulation, including the banning of reprocessing by....our federal government. (I'm looking for a pat on the back by S2, here!)
 

Just Gopher It!!

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
629
Reaction score
279
Points
63
You are correct in that coal is on the last of its long legs, at least in this country. However, while parts of coal-based energy are being replaced by wind and solar renewals, the main replacement for the coal plants are natural gas plants. And, of course, natural gas is also a fossil fuel, and while it burns "cleaner" than coal, it still comes with its share of local pollution, and still contributes greatly to global warming (and possible more than all we think if methane isn't being properly capped). Meanwhile, a variety of nuclear plants are being shut down, with only a couple in the current works in the US, which doesn't help anything. So we're mainly just converting coal power to natural gas power, and in my opinion that's not much of a "win" for our economic or environmental future.
Thanks for you post and information.

Baby steps, maybe? I'm still optimistic about renewables for the future, as I think it makes too much sense. I live in NYC and in NJ where my buddy lives, they have solar panels on all light poles and hope one day, we'll be able to marshal all of these resources and others to be discovered or mature (like algae, IIRC). I'm a half full kind of glass guy.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
Thanks for you post and information.

Baby steps, maybe? I'm still optimistic about renewables for the future, as I think it makes too much sense. I live in NYC and in NJ where my buddy lives, they have solar panels on all light poles and hope one day, we'll be able to marshal all of these resources and others to be discovered or mature (like algae, IIRC). I'm a half full kind of glass guy.
I think you have great reason for optimism in terms of technological advancements, but maybe taper it with a bit of political realism that is the extremely heavy connections of fossil fuel with the Republican Party, which makes it quite the immovable object. I think we have more opportunities to actually move localize power sources, as you mention above - where we can harness mid-sized stationary equipment and homes with individual solar powered systems. Combined with hybrid and electric vehicles, we might be powering a substantial portion of our lives through the sun in a couple decades' time.

There is also still the chance that renewables will fall far enough in price - or we finally base costs on more comprehensive, total life cycle costs, where the safety of renewable energy sources (and nuclear) is vastly superior to fossil fuels. And in those cases, there is still hope for even the Rs to finally start listening.
 
Last edited:

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
564
Points
113
I think you have great reason for optimism in terms of technological advancements, but maybe taper it with a bit of political realism that is the extremely heavy connections of fossil fuel with the Republican Party, which makes it quite the immovable object. I think we have more opportunities to actually move localize power sources, as you mention above - where we can harness mid-sized sta
Impossible to have a meaningful honest discussion with someone who sees this, or pretty much anything else, as a one-sided issue. With any digging at all, honest digging and not briefly finding something that confirms your biases, would tell you that virtually all major sectors of the economy fund both political parties heavily. At least make an effort to not sound the way you do
 

Goldteam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,058
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Can I ask a question? Do they still teach that fossil fuels came from the remains of dinosaurs? LMAO
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,717
Reaction score
67
Points
48
That's why I asked whether it made any sense, duh. But I've compared bills for the same months a year apart and kWh are down consistently with cost savings ranging from $25 to $50. Those were big, hot lights, and they're a bank we have on often.
LOL. And you're an engineer?
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,717
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Michael Moore is fake news. Solar and wind with storage is enough. My house is 100% solar plus storage. It's wonderful.
We just bought a new much larger farm. Going heavily solar with generator back up. We have a really good electric coop. We will keep them for the yard lights. BTW using intensive rotational grazing with silvopasture our cattle are significantly carbon negative.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
574
Points
113
Impossible to have a meaningful honest discussion with someone who sees this, or pretty much anything else, as a one-sided issue. With any digging at all, honest digging and not briefly finding something that confirms your biases, would tell you that virtually all major sectors of the economy fund both political parties heavily. At least make an effort to not sound the way you do
Are you denying the demonstrably provable very close ties between the Republican Party and the fossil fuel industry? If so, with what data and why? The strong ties have been documented and demonstrated for at least a couple of decades. These ties have played strongly into Republican Party policy (or lack thereof) toward global warming, as well as policy toward "green energy".

Next you'll tell me that "green energy" ties are just as close between Republican operatives as Democrat operatives.
 
Top Bottom