“A major new variable to estimate the social cost of carbon [SCC] is the positive side of CO₂ emissions and atmospheric concentrations, which promote plant growth and economic activity…. A negative value for the SCC creates a new, better term: SBC, or social benefit of carbon.”

“Will RFF hold an open debate with critics of Obama’s SCC in the months ahead? Or will RFF continue to circle the wagons? Scholarly integrity demands the former, while persuading its funders to be realistic toward the tiring Malthusianism of catastrophic climate change.”

Resources for the Future (RFF) has launched a project to (re)estimate, post-Obama, the social cost of carbon (SCC), defined as “an economic tool used to quantify the societal benefits of reducing —or conversely the damages of emitting—one ton of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere.”…

“Climate change is a major focus of many large foundations. Just about any approach to climate change you can think of is getting funding, and organizations at all levels — local, regional, national, global — are receiving support.”

– “Climate Change – Funders.” Inside Philanthropy. (Website Visit: October 13, 2017)

Right after the election of Donald Trump last November, I posted a provocative piece, 1) Eliminate Obamacare 2) Challenge Private Foundations to Divert all Global Warming Spending to Health Insurance for the Vulnerable. With a climate reset coming, and the imperative to repeal or shrink Obamacare, I saw an opportunity to couple the issue for a win-win.

My short post read:

The headline above is a public policy idea for the Trump Administration and for the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.

“When they try to express concerns [about wind turbines], farmers often face an accusation from those living far away: that they are climate change deniers….. [Q]uestioning wind energy means that ‘people will associate you with Republicans or with the Trump campaign, anti-environment, [but] nothing could be further from the truth.'”

– Leah McBride Mensching, “Wind Energy Isn’t a Breeze.” Slate, August 24, 2017.

“If this Slate article is followed by more such pieces, there will be no way to contain the civil war within the environmental movement between the grass roots and Washington, DC. One can only hope that what should have happened years ago can happen now.” (post below)

Many in the free-market movement, as well as at the environmental grassroots, have been all but amazed at the ability of Washington’s, “green” establishment to smooth over the problems of an energy source that is very land-intensive, remote, and hard-material heavy compared to the energy dense alternatives—from natural gas to nuclear power.…

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.

Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Superior: New EU proposals would kill solar and wind

Study: Turbine Effects on Bats Likely Worse Than Thought

Study: Solar Energy’s Dirty Little Secret

Study: Large Solar Performance Reduction Due to Dust

Study: Evaluation of a proposal for grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar

Study: A Looming Disaster in Energy Security

Wind Turbines Are NOT Clean or Green, and Provide Zero Global Energy

Storage Burden Should Fall on Wind and Solar Projects, not the Grid

Wind Power’s Future in U.S.…