Previous posts at MasterResource have documented the lack of open intellectual inquiry at Resources for the Future (RFF) regarding the physical science of climate change and the case for government-led transformation of energy sources.
A third post yesterday documented RFF’s buy-in to resource pessimism and gapism (more government intervention in place of price and allocation decontrol) in the pivotal 1970s.
Trends can change. They should change. RFF as a scholarly organization should:
… Continue Reading1. Recognize the physical science of climate change as highly unsettled and thus open to contrary public policy positions.
Implication: Consider ‘global lukewarming” as a base case for economic analysis.
2. Recognize the benefits, the positive externalities, associated with the anthropogenic influence on climate.
Implication: Open a research program on the benefits of carbon dioxide emissions/concentrations, not only costs, as has been the case with RFF’s analytics to date.
“A review of energy developments in 1976, published in RFF’s Resources magazine (Jan–March 1977, p. 3) reached a Hotelling-like conclusion: ‘Nonrenewable and exhaustible fuels supply most of our needs now,’ the staff article stated, ‘but they will be increasingly expensive to obtain and use, until, around some distant corner, they will be replaced’.”
In its first half century, RFF’s central message has gone from energy optimism to energy pessimism, complete with an embrace of major government intervention in energy markets. The transformation began in the 1970s with a fixity/depletion view of mineral resources, which spawned conservationism (less energy usage for its own sake, with a government role).
And when the energy-short 1970s turned into the energy surplus of the 1980s, RFF’s angst shifted to issues surrounding a human influence on global climate, primarily from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.…
Continue ReadingThe 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 interesting articles in this issue are:
Five Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Subsidize Wind or Solar
Study: 3.8 Million US Jobs will be Lost in the Transition to Renewables
Turbine Noise Calculations for 1238 Homes
New Research on Turbines Killing Bats
Broken Wing: Birds, Blades and Broken Promises
No Matter Where It’s Sited, Industrial Wind Energy is a NET loser
MIT PhD writes op-ed on some Wind Limitations
Community once in favor of wind energy, now overwhelmingly opposed
Climate Alarmists now Attacking Satellite Data
Climate Change Science & the Climate Change Scare
Paris Agreement: Recycled Socialism
Conservatives, Climate Change, and the Carbon Tax
1400 CEOs – Climate Change Not a Major Worry
1001 Reasons why Global Warming is so Over in 2016
New Scientific Study: “A New View on Climate Change”
The Corrosion of Conformity on Campus
—————————————
Greed Energy Economics:
Five Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Subsidize Wind or Solar
Study: 3.8 Million US Jobs will be Lost in the Transition to Renewables
Pope Francis and the Climate for Giving
60 Minutes: China is behind The Great Brain Robbery
Insurers: Global Warming Makes Natural Disasters Less Expensive
The Gov’t Has Spent a Lot on Electric Cars — Is it Worth it?…
Continue Reading