“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.…
Continue ReadingLast week, I recognized twelve individuals associated with free-market, classical-liberal energy analysis and advocacy. Here is a second “tribute” to those who have labored against the mainstream of Malthusianism and energy statism–and now find themselves with new opportunities to formulate, summarize, and promote pro-consumer, taxpayer-neutral energy policy.
This list is in alphabetical order. It is subjective and hardly exhaustive. Other candidates (such as the present writer) could also be included–and could be in a future iteration.
ROBERT BRYCE is a force for energy realism. His highly readable, well researched books (three on energy, two on energy-related cronyism) are joined by highly effective opinion-page editorials in leading publications, such as the Wall Street Journal. A convert to the free-market beginning with his third book (from a politically correct all-of-the-above energy view), Bryce has reached progressive audiences with a message that renewable energies are quite imperfect substitutes for dense mineral energies.…
Continue Reading[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.…
Continue Reading