SN,
How do redistribute wealth, if there is no wealth...I paraphrase the French socialist Hollande? Europe is dying...literally; therefore, cannot sustain the current level of subsidies.
Your argument sounds like the Krugman's stupid argument, if FDR just tripled the size of the government rather just double it in the 4 years, we would not have had the depression of 1937. Not taking into account what is politically feasible. The trend in Europe is reversing and demographics will not allow it to return to current levels. The 70 year old party is ending...someone has to pay for not having enough children.
Just because subsidize renewables, it does not make them any less expensive. You still have expensive power...and economics dictate, businesses will search out the lowest cost provider, be it in China or India. When you transfer these businesses to China or India, you transfer them to places that do not have the same stringent pollution controls we and the Europeans have. This is one of the basic arguments for building Keystone Pipeline, that and the elimination of less safe rail and sea transport.
I like the denial rhetoric. It's, it's so Holocaustal. Which kills your argument as far as I'm concerned. You ask an irrelevant question. Did Germany get 95% its power in December from fossil fuels? It did because Germany is not suited for solar, in the winter particularly. Sorry, if you don't know your history about the weather in northwest Europe, it is readily available...Any book on the 8th Air Force or Bomber Command; or the Battle of the Bulge will do.
Again, I have no problems with renewables. I just want the proponents to spend there money on it. Not the money of those who can least afford it.
BTW, I am still waiting for my lesson on supply and demand.
