#ncsen: Solar goons bet BIG on Burr

burrNot quite sure how this one slipped past us, but here it is from early last month:

The Charlotte-based ClearPath Action Fund is putting at least $400,000 into Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr’s re-election campaign.

ClearPath, a super-PAC headed by Charlottean Jay Faison, supports clean-energy Republicans. In addition to Burr, it backs GOP Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Faison has also been dumping money on North Carolina legislators who vote to keep subsidies for solar energy alive and well in the state.  Clearly, his organization has its eye on keeping the federal dollars rolling into the industry, as well.  MORE: 

“Sen. Burr is an important conservative voice in a politically and energy-diverse state,” Faison said in a statement. “He deserves another six years to continue an increasingly central role in helping shape the road map for clean energy in North Carolina and elsewhere.”big money

In addition to the money for digital ads and micro-targeting, ClearPath also created a web site called RichardForCleanEnergy.com.

Faison, who has given the PAC $1.5 million, said that as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Burr will be in a position to help more than 5,000 solar jobs as well as clean energy investments in the state.

You know, it IS perfectly acceptable to leave the line on your ballot for US Senate blank. (Of course, some federal judge may come along and make that illegal.) 

10 thoughts on “#ncsen: Solar goons bet BIG on Burr

  1. Of course, our hard core environmental movement has bought Burr. That was one of the dividends of our movement spending big money a while back to buy his consultant, Paul Shumaker. We also bought the other main establishment Republican consultant in the state, Dee Stewart, at the same time. That gives us access to their candidates.

    They may view our green movement a little differently than we do. They are mainly interested in the green they get by selling us their souls. But it doesn’t really matter, since the Polar Bears friends now have the Democrats and we have bought enough Republicans that the Polar Bears will be saved. Who cares if all of this causes electric bills of consumers ”to necessarily skyrocket” as President Obama openly predicted. Redneck peons should not be allowed to afford air conditioning anyway. With Polar Bear heros like Faison and Burr, they will not be allowed to.

    1. Which will come first, skyrocketing energy costs from green energy or skyrocketing energy costs from coal ash removal?

        1. Nobody denies that producing solar panels or wind turbines has environmental costs. Producing ANYTHING does.
          You have a tough job though equating the production of panels or turbines which then, largely produce energy with little impact (if properly sited) AGAINST coal plants which pollute while they are being built, pollute while the coal is mined and processed, pollute while the coal is hauled to the plant, pollute when the coal is burned, and pollute for decades while the ash seeps or spills into our water supply.

          1. Wind generated electricity costs twice as much to produce as conventional energy, and solar three times as much. That does not count the extra cost of backup capacity that has to be maintained due to the fact that wind and solar are intermittent sources. No wonder Germany’s residential electric bills have tripled since they went hog wild with solar and wind.

            A tornado ripping through a solar farm or wind turbines on fire can spew a lot of toxic substances over neighboring properties.

          2. Seriously?
            The power resource acquisition, “transport” to the energy producing site, and conversion to electric power have zero to near zero environmental costs. That is the Big benefit of renewables as these are the long term needs to produce energy for any source. Fossil fuels have huge environmental costs for these three-long term phases.

        2. Heck, just turn it into cement and help build the much needed infrastructure our state and nation need.

          The good thing is that coal plants have become very very clean when you consider the what the mix of electricity generation should be. Heck, if you are not going to put nuclear back on the table ever (thanks enviroweenies!…one more stop on the stupidity train that is environmentalism) then the current clean coal and natural gas are mix are looking pretty good compared to solar/wind that is supported by crony politicians, dirty, and not available to generate much of the time.

          1. Heck, only a shrinking portion of environmentalists are dead set against nuclear anymore. Still, all should recognize that it too has environmental costs.

          2. Yes. all have enviro costs and the scales on every source of energy pretty much equal out when considering environmental factors (meaning each source is pretty much as “dirty” as any other) so the only item that differentiates is the economic factor.

  2. This is just one more reason that makes it impossible to hold ones nose enough to vote for Tricky Dick Burr. Faison is a radical Tom Steyer wannabee, and any candidate he backs is pure poison.

    Burr’s conservative rating with Heritage Action, the most respected rating group among conservatives is 42%, which makes him left of center. Burr is not alot different than Terry Sanford.

Comments are closed.