“For proponents of fuel-neutral, consumer friendly, pro-taxpayer energy policy, the new administration has done an excellent job of staying focused and not trying to compromise in a game where compromise is really not possible…. The Trump Administration can only help itself by staying on message, not compromising, and playing offense in the climate science debate.”
“Compared to Rio Treaty George H. W. Bush, as well as “America is addicted to oil” George W. Bush, this Republican is following a free market energy course not seen in modern times.”
The climate-alarmist media can only report on the opposition’s effective strategy and messaging. “The nominees for the Department of Energy’s undersecretary positions are singing the same tune with their views on climate change,” reported a recent feature in ClimateWire, a news publication of Energy and Environment News.…
Continue Reading“To actually accomplish replacing all light vehicles in the UK with battery-powered vehicles, while also meeting the requirements of the UK’s Climate Change Act, would require building 39,000 new 2 MW wind turbines, which is nearly 6 times the number of wind turbines built over the last 15 years. The cost would be approximately $165 billion or £131 billion. (More, if offshore wind or solar is built.) This is 90% of the UK budget for its entire health care program, or nearly three times larger than the UK’s defense budget.”
The media went gaga over France’s and the UK’s proposal to eliminate the use of internal combustion engines in automobiles by replacing them with battery-powered vehicles (BEVs).
As it now stands, the global BEV count of two million represents a 0.2 percent market share.…
Continue Reading“Make no mistake. The intellectual polarization in the Age of Trump is widening. Progressives are all in, and intellectual norms and fair dealing are out. Whether it is Michael Mann in climate science or Nancy MacLean in social science or Justin Gillis in the media, the ends justify the means.”
I subscribe to the New York Times because I want to understand opposing views as well as my own in the area of political economy. I like to think that I can argue my opponent’s position better than he or she can argue mine. That’s what you have to do with a politically incorrect conclusion that you are convinced is intellectually correct. (I take my craft seriously ….)
Two articles in yesterday’s Times were particularly disappointing. One was a book review of Nancy MacLean’s very dishonest Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.…
Continue Reading