“Financing the IPCC’s conclusions via carbon taxes would bankrupt even the wealthiest countries; even at the low end of the IPCC estimates…. Alas, we have to destroy the global economy to save it.”

The 48th session of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change convened from 1-5 October 2018, in Incheon, Republic of Korea. On Oct. 6, 2018 the UN’s IPCC modified downward the Paris Agreement goal of a maximum 1.5 deg. C rise requiring net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The following day, the IPCC released its voluminous “special report” shown by the following screenshot:

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

The report went to great lengths estimating the environmental costs of climate change and the benefits (including economic benefits) from implementing their “findings,” but never analyzed the economic costs. In fact, Chapter 1 of the IPCC special report said this about economic cost/benefit analyses (p.…

“EERE’s mission for a ‘transition to a global clean energy economy’ is simply a restatement of the UN’s global ‘deep decarbonization’ strategy via ‘beneficial electrification’.”

“‘Clean energy’ should be part of an all-the-above energy policy (when it fairly competes with all other viable alternatives). However, ‘clean energy’ advocates (including electric utilities) don’t want all-the-above: Instead, they want an all-electric energy monoculture and are willing to wager our futures that it won’t ruin the economy.”

Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion include: Every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This article examines that force within the “swamp” of climate change policies in DOE.

Despite President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would withdraw for the Paris Agreement, the basis of that agreement–“deep decarbonization” through “beneficial electrification”–is proceeding virtually unabated.…

“In DOE’s ostensible energy efficiency zealousness, it assumes ‘command and control’ of a portion of the economy. Such political markets inevitably displace free markets, as vested interests organize and mobilize resources to protect and enlarge their abilities, against less powerful stakeholders, to determine regulatory outcomes.”

In 1999, “Is DOE Leading Us Astray?” was published in a business trade journal. That journal no longer exists, but my article’s message can be revisited to assess how the current situation.

The original is indented and in red, followed by my responses: [1]

When you do the math, properly ac­counting for the delivered efficiency of the two energy forms, one sees that elec­tricity is delivered at an overall efficiency of 27% and natural gas is delivered at an overall efficiency of 91% (using the above illustrative EFs).

“Their ‘all of the above’ debate wasn’t all of the above…. It was a propaganda stage for a ‘clean energy’ pact between EEI and NRDC for announcing their joint indoctrination campaign aimed at increasing market share of electricity at the expense of natural gas.”

“What this ‘powerful’ cabal intends to do is to monopolize energy by electricity under the guise of environmental necessity.

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the national trade association representing state public service commissioners who regulate investor-owned utilities, was recently the site of a political war against natural gas. [1] On the last day of NARUC’s annual Winter Policy Summit (February 14), E&E News reported (Nation’s regulators get down to business at winter meeting): [2]

The final NARUC session on Wednesday will feature a debate of sorts between Phil Moeller, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, and Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, on an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy.