“[I]n recent years the IEA has been undermining energy security by discouraging sufficient investment in energy supplies… Moreover, its energy modeling no longer provides policymakers with balanced assessments of energy and climate proposals. Instead, it has become an ‘energy transition’ cheerleader.”
An important letter asking for explanation has been sent to Dr. Fatih Birol, director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), by U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY: ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources) and U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA: chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce). The U.S. is a major funder of IEA, an agenda that has turned its back on its original charter and begun to promote/mislead on the deep-ecology cause of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation.
The U.S., in fact, should immediately cease funding to this agency as one of many budget cutting items.…
“It is entirely possible that the total costs to build, maintain and replace units every 20+ years (at end of service) would be prohibitive compared to other sources of energy. Beyond these cost considerations, sources indicate that the turbine blades cannot be recycled and are piling up in landfills. Fossil fuels will also still be needed to maintain the lubrication of these units, and what about potential for spillage?” (Jeff Wyles, below)
The old joke comes to mind: Q: When is an environmentalist not an environmentalist? A: When it comes to wind power.
Make that double for offshore wind, and wild-eyed California politicians are having trouble hiding the problems. Consider a recent op-ed, Rethink Floating Wind Turbine Power Off Our California Coastline?,” an environmental feature of California newspaper MendoFever (February 12, 2024).…
The editorial pages of the Houston Chronicle, as well as news reports, did what they could to hype the “energy transition” before, during, and after CERAWeek. Chronicle business editorialist, the conflicted Chris Tomlinson, was particularly egregious in this regard. But just a bit of balance was achieved in the letters section, where an op-ed by Randall Morton, “Houston is making a losing bet on fossil fuels (Opinion),” (March 18), previously examined at MasterResource, received three rebuttals.
The letters follow:
Jim Lloyd, Lakewood, Colo.: Randall Morton painted a very grim picture for the future economics of Houston because of a lower demand for fossil fuels. Morton failed to account for several issues related to the principles of supply and demand. He simply needs to drive in the congested traffic of every large city.…