“The National Academy of Science reports are supposed to guide the thinking of policymakers …. One constant in both reports is the unwavering faith of energy experts in the efficacy of government-subsidized energy research and development, and government intervention in energy production markets. Looking back we can see that the Energy in Transition report from 1980 was largely a failure as an exercise in technical and economic prognostication.”

– Ronald Bailey, ‘How Green Is Your Crystal Ball?‘  (August 4, 2009).

The argument from authority (aka appeal to authority) is a favorite of climate alarmists/activists who are certain of a  problem and its solution. But consensus-worshipping (intellectual bullying?) has been long employed by the Malthusian mainstream against those who do not see a massive market failure in the self-interested actions of humankind striving to be fruitful and consume in a free and prosperous commonwealth.…

“This house believes that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

– ECONOMIST magazine, Online debate, November 8–18, 2011

[Ed. Note: Six years ago, the prestigious Economist magazine held an on-line debate on the future of energy policy. Despite a loaded affirmative motion (above), an upset victory was achieved with 8,916 votes opposed and 8,346 in favor of the proposition. The third most votes of 92 such debates, 70,000 visits produced 448 comments. Jon Boone’s writeup of the debate is reproduced below.]

Last month, The Economist magazine conducted a two-week Oxford style online debate over the proposition “that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

“Renewable” in this case is really politically correct renewables: basically wind power, with some solar and a bit of of biofuel/geothermal thrown in.…

[Editor Note: Advertising for the premier energy conference CERAWeek 2018 is in full swing. Two years ago, Daniel Yergin was urged to invite Alex Epstein to present the moral case for fossil fuels. Today, with fossil fuels on the ascent, it is surely time to feature the world’s hottest energy philosopher. Thus, this February 22, 2016, post is reprinted verbatim.

“If good and evil are measured by the standard of human well-being and human progress, we must conclude that the fossil fuel industry is not a necessary evil to be restricted but a superior good to be liberated.”

“We don’t need green energy–we need humanitarian energy.”

– Alex Epstein, “At CERAWeek Fossil Fuel Leaders Should Make A Moral Case For Their Industry,” Forbes.com., February 18, 2016.

For many years, make that decades, I have noted Daniel Yergin’s political bias at the annual CERA conference here in Houston.…

“”Lumbering transit buses and railcars not only do not relieve congestion, they often use more road space than the number of automobiles they take off the road.”

“Ride-hailing services … using driverless cars … makes it likely that outside of a few very dense areas, such as New York City, mass transit will be extinct by the year 2030, leaving behind a huge burden of debt and unfunded obligations to former transit employees.”

“Mass transit agencies should begin to prepare for an orderly phase-out of publicly funded transit services as affordable, shared driverless cars become available in the next decade. The industry should stop building new rail lines; replace most existing rail lines with buses as they wear out; pay down debts and unfunded obligations; and target any further subsidies to low-income people rather than continue a futile crusade to attract higher-income people out of their cars.”