WSJ Shows its Bias Against Renewables Again

Even by its own, basement-floor standard on hypocrisy and selective omission, the recent Wall Street Journal editorial tisk-tisking Senator Harry Reid for raising money from renewable energy companies is laughable. The WSJ can’t say enough bad things about smart pro-renewable policies, but completely omits the hundreds of billions of dollars given to highly profitable, mature dirty energy companies – by politicians who raise money from those industries.

The WSJ hasn’t lately called out all politicians for their energy company ties, such as the $1.4 million dollars Big Oil and Big Gas companies have given to Representative Joe Barton? Or the $2.6 million they have funneled to Senator John McCain? (Unfortunately for the American citizen, that list of relationships goes on and on….)

Perhaps they (read Rubert Murdoch) have their own relationship with Big Oil and Big Gas?

If we’re going to sing the free markets mantra, then can’t we muster the outrage at giving ExxonMobil our tax money? The Wall Street Journal editorial page’s ideological soul mate, the Cato Institute, can’t seem to do that in its online book on government waste. We just got done reading it and despite railing against pro-renewable policies, there’s not a word about kicking oil and coal companies off welfare.

Why? Maybe it’s because, well, the Cato Institute is a front group used by dirty energy companies for propaganda help. It makes sense then that the same PR firms doing work for the dirty energy lobbyists would coax the Wall Street Journal into the same line that somehow government support is an indication of maturity.

If that’s the case, then when (as we’ve asked before) do oil and coal grow up, and lose the teenage acne? They’ve only been around for over a hundred years.

SHARE WITH FRIENDS:  
        
          
Top
TEST Menu