Free-Market Energy Is Voter Popular

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 7, 2018 2 Comments

“Interestingly, (otherwise greenwashing) BP led the fight against the Washington State carbon-tax initiative, donating $9.5 million. It would be far more honest and effective for Big Oil (including Exxon Mobil) to come out against any and all carbon tax schemes in the name of consumer sovereignty.”

“Overall, free-market energy policy had a good day yesterday. The fossil-fuel boom in the marketplace has a political corollary. Call it a victory for blue-collar energy. And may it be another wake-up call that climate alarmism/forced energy transformation is a siren song, a futile crusade, of all cost and no benefit.”

Overall, yesterday was a good election for consumer-first, taxpayer-neutral, market-order energy policy. According to the American Energy Alliance, “the 2018 midterms were mostly positive for the cause of affordable, abundant energy through freer markets.”…

What the Midterm Elections Mean for Energy

By Tom Pyle -- November 6, 2018 No Comments

“Affordable energy is a hallmark of economic progress, enabling all other areas of the economy to thrive. Yet, the Democratic platform promises to increase energy prices by pushing for a carbon tax, increases in the archaic Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandate, increased subsidization of renewables and electric vehicles, and support for costly regulations like the so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP).”

The 2016 election ushered in a new era of energy optimism. For eight years the Obama Administration strangled America’s natural gas, coal, and oil producers with unnecessary red tape, but the Trump Administration has swiftly worked to reduce barriers to the production, use, and exportation of our abundant natural resources. The results speak for themselves. America is on a path to becoming a net energy exporter for the first time since 1953 and ultimately a global energy superpower.…

Economist Demotes Economics in CO2 Tax Debate

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 1, 2018 3 Comments

“‘Whether to do something or nothing’ is quite a retreat from the basic economic principle of realistically comparing costs and benefits. Washington States’ carbon tax proposal is all cost and no benefit. New administrative programs and higher across-the-board energy prices cannot be balanced by virtue signalling.”

“One can only hope that economists would put their game face on and do real analysis–and tell their funders that the right answer is better than the politically correct wrong answer.”

A recent letter-to-the-editor in the Wall Street Journal, “Debating Washington Carbon Tax Initiative,” made a number of points that invite further consideration. The subtitle of the piece was: “The real question in front of Washington voters is whether to do something, or nothing, about the risks of climate change.”

The letter by PhD economist Noah Kaufman of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy is parsed in red; my comments are indented.

Robert Francis O’Rourke on Energy (Eco-Beto is keep-it-in-the-ground)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- October 26, 2018 2 Comments

“Beto knows that climate change is the defining existential threat of our time.”

– O’Rourke Campaign Website

“All campaigns are to some degree an act of public manipulation,” Charles Blow stated recently in his New York Times column, “hopefully to the good, but often to the ill.” The Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke run for US Senate in Texas (against incumbent Republican Ted Cruz) has been a case study in public manipulation, elevating image over substance in a Red state.

The manipulation centers around the Spanish nickname “Beto” by a fourth-generation Irish American, followed by the pitch: fourth generation Texan … family man … civic minded … grass roots campaigner … consensus builder … No money from PACs.

His website evokes a politician for all parties and seasons: