“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.…

Many readers of MasterResource are undoubtedly aware of the ‘Featured Analysis‘ blogs at the Institute for Energy Research (IER). I blog at IER (my employer) in addition to my MasterResource work.

Below, my posts at the IER website are linked. In addition, my ‘Political Energy‘ posts at Forbes.com are listed as a reference guide. Here are the links to my 2017 work for those interested.

IER Posts

“Kathleen Hartnett White: A Scholar for CEQ” (October 18)

“Scary Sea Level Rise? Check Your Science” (September 8, 2017)

“Al Gore’s Energy Problems” (August 25, 2017)

“Climate Optimism, Energy Realism for the Next Generation” (August 11, 2017)

“Milton Friedman on Energy” (July 31, 2017)

‘Deep Decarbonization’ vs. Direct-Use Natural Gas (July 14, 2017)

“James Hansen’s Failed Ultimatums: A Free Market, Anyone?”…

“We in the petroleum industry are not dismissing the global climate change issue. But I don’t believe anyone should have the moral authority to deny people the opportunity to improve their way in life by arbitrarily depriving them of the means…. I hope that the governments of this region will work with us to resist policies that could strangle economic growth.”

– Lee Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil (2010) [1]

Think Progress (the successor to the Joe Romm-founded Climate Progress at the Center for American Progress) published a recent piece by Mark Hand, “Industry Opposition Leads ALEC to Withdraw Anti-Climate Resolution,” subtitled “Right-wing lobbying group fails to pass resolution targeting EPA finding.”

Some excerpts from Hand’s piece follow:

A secretive right-wing lobbying group failed to pass a resolution this week that called upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are endangering the planet.

“Today’s reserve and resource estimates should be considered a minimum, not a maximum. By the end of the forecast period, reserves could be the same or higher depending on technological developments, capital availability, public policies, and commodity price levels.”

“The implication for business decision-making and public-policy analysis is that ‘depletable’ is not an operative concept for the world oil market, as it might be for an individual well, field, or geographical section…. [T]he concept of a nonrenewable resource is a heuristic, pedagogical device—an ideal type—not a principle that entrepreneurs can turn into profits and government officials can parlay into enlightened intervention.”

This essay, published by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in the November 1999 issue of The Freeman, was subtitled, “Today’s Reserve and Resource Estimates Should Be Considered a Minimum.”…