“We cannot allow oil executives to blackmail us,” concludes Houston Chronicle business editorialist Chris Tomlinson. “They are not prophets; they are business people looking for profits.” And you, sir, are an elitist telling motorists and travelers of all ages and income levels to go eat cake.

He just keep doubling down against consumers who naturally choose the best energies–the plentiful, cheaper, more dependable ones. And so Chris Tomlinson closes out his repugnance week at Houston’s World Petroleum Congress with a peculiar rant:

Yes, Big Oil’s leaders promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as long as they can make money. But failure to provide the industry with $11.8 trillion in capital between now and 2045 will trigger an energy crisis that they insist will make the public forget all about the climate crisis.

“City leaders should stop pretending Houston will, or should, transition away from oil and gas anytime soon…. Houston should embrace its role in sustaining and improving the lives of literally billions of people globally each day. It’s a legacy worth standing up for… and even celebrating.” (Doug Sheridan, below)

Hyperbole and government subsidies (bribes, to critics) is the lifeline for inferior energies (think dilute, intermittent, resource-intensive wind and solar). Such as been the case since the 1990s in Houston, Texas when Ken Lay of Enron Corp. empowered executive Robert Kelly to create a new renewables business, a story told here.

And shame-on-shame that some Houston business leaders that should know better have embraced low-density, political energies. I am thinking of Bobby Tutor, chair of the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, and Steve Kean of the Greater Houston Partnership.…

“Get off your high horse, all of us are ‘pro climate’, you just have a different view on how to achieve that. Mr. Bradley interacts with anyone who challenges his statements. As far as your charge that he, “declare a position”? He does so every day. Catch up….” Mark Rohrbacher to Thomas Ortman (below)

Social media exchanges between free market and government energy/climate proponents are an excellent way to understand the arguments, politics, and motivations of all involved. Cancel culture not, may the best ideas win. Here is a LinkedIn exchange of note, where I (and others) rebut a familiar ad hominem. In this case, one Thomas Ortman just … disappeared.

The exchange occurred with a post by Gavin Mooney, self-described “energy transition optimist.”. “Batteries have taken a huge leap forward in California this spring, soaking up solar during the day and discharging it when it’s needed in the evening” he wrote.…

The editorial pages of the Houston Chronicle, as well as news reports, did what they could to hype the “energy transition” before, during, and after CERAWeek. Chronicle business editorialist, the conflicted Chris Tomlinson, was particularly egregious in this regard. But just a bit of balance was achieved in the letters section, where an op-ed by Randall Morton, “Houston is making a losing bet on fossil fuels (Opinion),” (March 18), previously examined at MasterResource, received three rebuttals.

The letters follow:

Jim Lloyd, Lakewood, Colo.: Randall Morton painted a very grim picture for the future economics of Houston because of a lower demand for fossil fuels. Morton failed to account for several issues related to the principles of supply and demand. He simply needs to drive in the congested traffic of every large city.…