More than a decade ago, I penned a 175-page overview/primer for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), titled Climate Alarmism Reconsidered. This work was the result of a decade of studying, writing, and debating about climate and energy policy at Enron Corp where I was a full-time employee (1985–2001).
As director of public policy analysis, I was the Enron’s representative to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (a Clinton/Gore task force). I also was involved with the World Energy Council drafting of Living in One World: Sustainability from an Economic Perspective, published in 2001. My comments, however, were rejected by the rest of the task force with distain; how could I not be alarmed at rising CO2 emissions, they stated. One member actually threatened to resign if my comments were incorporated in the draft.
The above experiences, as well as much tutelage from noted climatologist Gerald North of Texas A&M (an experience I describe here), as well as my own research in the free-market literature, resulted in my IEA effort post-Enron.…
“The PTC was intended to be a temporary subsidy for a fledgling industry, but has morphed into a massive handout for large corporations, many of which are foreign owned—all at the expense of the American taxpayers. It’s a textbook case of corporate welfare…. It’s past time for the wind industry to sink or swim on its own merits.”
– Thomas Pyle (American Energy Alliance), “PTC Elimination Act Protects American Families,” April 22, 2015.
This week, Representatives Kenny Marchant and Mike Pompeo introduced H.R. 1901 to eliminate the Production Tax Credit (PTC), a subsidy for qualifying renewable energy (mainly wind power) that has been extended time and again since its enactment in 1992. The bill would tighten eligibility requirements for new wind projects, terminate the inflation adjustment provision saving taxpayers about 35 percent, and repeal the underlying statute to end all credits for existing projects by 2025.…
“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.”
– Judith Curry, Congressional testimony of April 15, 2015 (see below)
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008.
A major development in the history of the physical climate-change debate occurred when respected mainstream climatologist Judith Curry parted ways with an increasingly conflicted, even corrupted, mainstream of neo-Malthusian, Left-of-Center, rent-seeking (crony) scientists. No, the debate is not about global warming (agreed) or a human influence on climate (agreed); it is the predestined conclusion of ‘consensus’ science that any human influence on global climate is bad-to-catastrophic, not benign or positive.…