Sunday, February 05, 2012
The fine points of aristocracy
Another of those delightful Commieshit vs Commieshit stories.
A subsidy-developer in the Philadelphia area is trying to get permission to build a huge solar-collector project on a wooded hillside. He's running into opposition from local residents AND from the local Biodiversity commieshits, both of whom disapprove of clear-cutting a steep hill and leaving it barren. In fact their concern is entirely valid. When you clearcut a hill and then you get rain, the hill falls mainly on the plain, burying any houses that happen to be there.
I found myself noticing the even-handed tone of the article. Because commieshits are on both sides of the dispute, the reporter had to be fair.
If the Biodiversity commieshits hadn't joined in ... if it had been purely the solar subsidy-thief against local residents ... the reporter would have known instantly that the solar subsidy-thief was Pure and Holy and Sacred, and the local residents who didn't want to be crushed were Nazi Fascist Halliburton Homophobes.
Or the opposite hypothetical: If a subsidy-thief had been seeking to clearcut the same hillside for a tax-advantaged steel mill instead of a tax-advantaged solar boondoggle, the reporter would have known instantly that the locals who didn't want to be buried were good folks, whose cause is worth defending. In that case the hillside steel mill project would have been described accurately as a subsidy-seeking tax dodge.
Of course it's still a tax dodge, but making it solar gives it aristocratic privilege.
A subsidy-developer in the Philadelphia area is trying to get permission to build a huge solar-collector project on a wooded hillside. He's running into opposition from local residents AND from the local Biodiversity commieshits, both of whom disapprove of clear-cutting a steep hill and leaving it barren. In fact their concern is entirely valid. When you clearcut a hill and then you get rain, the hill falls mainly on the plain, burying any houses that happen to be there.
I found myself noticing the even-handed tone of the article. Because commieshits are on both sides of the dispute, the reporter had to be fair.
If the Biodiversity commieshits hadn't joined in ... if it had been purely the solar subsidy-thief against local residents ... the reporter would have known instantly that the solar subsidy-thief was Pure and Holy and Sacred, and the local residents who didn't want to be crushed were Nazi Fascist Halliburton Homophobes.
Or the opposite hypothetical: If a subsidy-thief had been seeking to clearcut the same hillside for a tax-advantaged steel mill instead of a tax-advantaged solar boondoggle, the reporter would have known instantly that the locals who didn't want to be buried were good folks, whose cause is worth defending. In that case the hillside steel mill project would have been described accurately as a subsidy-seeking tax dodge.
Of course it's still a tax dodge, but making it solar gives it aristocratic privilege.
Labels: Carbon Cult
¶ 6:25 PM
