“If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous. In addition, a carbon emissions trading system will be developed.”

– John Palmisano, from Kyoto, Japan (1997)

A Hall of Shame crony memo just turned 18 years old. Dated December 12, 1997, it was written from Kyoto, Japan, in the afterglow of the Kyoto Protocol agreement by Enron lobbyist John Palmisano.

Global green planners such as Palmisano were euphoric that, somehow, someway, the world had embarked on an irreversible course of climate control (and thus industrial and land-use control). His memo reflects the train-just-left-the-station mentality, as well as the specific benefits for first-mover ‘green’ Enron.…

“The stories in Eichenwald’s book [on Enron] about [Andy] Fastow’s rage reminded me of [Michael] Mann’s rage – often exemplified in public, but now placed further into context by the Climategate letters.”

“The comparison with Enron may also be helpful in placing Climategate into context.”

– Steve McIntyre, February 2010

Back in 2010, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit wrote a post, Rob Bradley: Climategate from an Enron Perspective. Bradley and McIntyre focus on the intellectual specter of bad science driving out good. As revealed by Climategate, mainstream climate scientists, driven by an agenda of alarmism in the service of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), chose to defend each other (with some exceptions) rather than let the hammer of the scientific method fall where it might.

Jerry North at Texas A&M, featured below, particularly culpable in the wake of Climategate, has largely withdrawn from the debate after a period of activism with his colleague Andy Dessler (who is no doubt having second thought about his I-am-certain high-sensitivity warming position of years past).…

“Robert Bradley, of the petro-funded and misleadingly named Institute for Energy Research (Ministry for Fossil Fuel Propaganda, perhaps, would be more precise), continues his lengthy crusade against clean energy with a tirade against subsidies in yesterday’s Washington Times.

Given that Mr. Bradley was director of public policy analysis for seven years at Enron, the natural gas giant that collapsed some years ago in a cloud of falsehoods and lawsuits, one might reasonably question whether his energy policy wisdom should guide the nation.”

– Tom Gray, American Wind Energy Association, “Bradley, IER Continue Long Crusade Against Clean Energy,’ Into the Wind: AWEA Blog, July 29, 2011.

How does one respond to such a statement as this? Mr. Gray may think he is an environmentalist and that windpower is an environmental blessing, but that does not make it so.…

“America deserves an international trade policy that is based on free-market mechanisms, not paying foreign companies to buy exports from large corporations with political connections. We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to oppose reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.”

– Christine Harbin Hanson (Americans for Prosperity), “Growing Coalition To Congress: End The Export-Import Bank,”  April 21, 2015.

“Enron was a political colossus with a unique range of rent-seeking and subsidy-receiving operations. Ken Lay’s announced visions for the company—to become the world’s first natural-gas major, then the world’s leading energy company, and, finally, the world’s leading company—relied on more than free-market entrepreneurship. They were premised on employing political means to catch up with, and outdistance, far larger and more-established corporations.

– Robert Bradley, “Enron: The Perils of Interventionism,” EconLib, September 3, 2012.