“If I wanted to kill [tax subsidies], the thing to do is for Exxon Mobil to go and invest heavily in [wind and solar] and then Congress would immediately cancel the tax subsidy. Actually what they would do is they would just cancel it for us…. So we are not going to go into investments that are dependent on a government providing a tax system to make them viable.”

– Rex Tillerson, Quoted in Russell Gold, “Exxon Mobil: We Like Renewable Energy Subsidies. Wink, Wink.” Wall Street Journal (March 6, 2009).

Last week at MasterResource, I posted on current US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s 2013 views on climate science in light of consumer energy needs. He referenced the pause in increasing global temperatures in light of rising concentrations of greenhouse gas concentrations.…

“On the climate issue, RFF has become the intellectual arm of the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), just as RFF board member David Hawkins (of NRDC) desires.”

Resources for the Future (RFF) was once a much more scholarly think tank than it is today. It did not assume but evaluated and debated energy economics and related environmental issues.

On climate change, in particular, RFF has gone into the tank of alarmism–and is now a full-fledged foe of the free-market-oriented energy policies underway in the Trump Administration. In fact, RFF has become the intellectual arm of the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), just as RFF board member David Hawkins (of NRDC) desires.

Sad, sad. From its glorious beginning in the 1950s and 1960s–publishing treatises and shorter studies on resource availability–RFF went Malthusian in the 1970s, a story recounted by the late mineral economist Richard Gordon and myself elsewhere.…

“I think [Julian Simon] probably should have been considered for a Nobel Prize.  He took a very independent position with little backing, dug deep and provided very good evidence for his predictions and expectations.”

“I do not believe there is a natural resource economics.  I believe there is good economics and bad economics.”

• Milton Friedman (below)

Editor note: Milton Friedman would be 105 this day. Born July 31, 1912, in New York City, he died on November 16, 2006, in San Francisco, age 94.

Reprinted below is an exchange between Robert Bradley Jr. and the Milton Friedman when the Nobel Laureate was 91 years old–a testament to the patience, scholarship, and longevity of one of the greatest social thinkers of modern time.

“Markets are not perfect, inspiring some to devise and champion government intervention. But political solutions must contend with analytic failure, implementation problems, and public-sector (taxpayer) costs. Imperfect markets, in other words, may well be better than “perfect” regulation in the real world. The burden of proof, therefore, should be on government intervention, rather than on voluntary transactions premised on private property and governed by the rule of law.”

[Editor’s Note: Ad Hominem attacks on free-market organizations espousing industry positions are a regular occurrence, even though the same organizations oppose the same companies when they seek special government favors. Part I yesterday, reposted from April 2012, explains the philosophy behind the Institute for Energy Research.]

“In the U.S. energy sector, market reliance has produced economic coordination, fostered economic growth, and democratized wealth.…