“First wind and solar–and now batteries. How can a business editorialist not talk about cost and opportunity cost? Does $65 billion and counting ring a bell? I guess when you are a climate alarmist, economics does not matter.”

“‘Demand response’ is more government intervention to rescue prior. ‘Virtual power plants’ are the ultimate government takeover of the grid. Wound the supply side, load it up with costs, and force demand down.”

In “Natural Gas, Coal and Nuclear Power are Failing the Texas Grid, New Tech is the Future,” Houston Chronicle business editorialist Chris Tomlinson carries the water for Green New Deal/Net Zero interests, including his wife’s business of wind/solar origination. His 750-word piece is a tissue of half-truths and misdirection that only church-going climate alarmists can like.

CHRIS TOMLINSON COMMENTARY

The Texas electric grid’s biggest failures so far this summer are coming from the supposedly most reliable generators: fossil fuels.…

“The idea that the ‘man of system’ would be so enamored of his own system that he would impose it on others without much regard for their preferences or, to use the phrase of one of the participants, for their moral autonomy, continues to be a power criticism of interventionist approaches to government. To put it in my girl-next-door vernacular, how arrogant are you to think that you should impose your system on me?” – Lynne Kiesling on Adam Smith (and herself?)

Oh how the author of the above quotation needs to look in the mirror with an impartial observer at hand. Oh how this person has fallen into the collectivist/planner trap so well recognized by Adam Smith. Stage one was her embrace of mandatory open access for electricity … Stage two was remaining quiet on climate alarmism/forced energy transformation … Stage three was silence on the wind/solar takeover in Texas … Stage four was blaming natural gas for the Texas debacle … Stage 5 is pushing for a ‘virtual powerplant’ approach of more wind, more solar, more batteries, and demand-side control. …

“People who pride themselves on their ‘complexity’ and deride others for being ‘simplistic’ should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth. – Thomas Sowell

Imagine a self-described classical liberal that cannot define classical liberalism (a real free market) in their area of specialty. Imagine a self-described “directionalist” who cannot define the end-state. And imagine this person telling me, as her critic, “I will not dance to your tune.”

Political Economy 101 deals with the difference between a free market and governmental intervention. For months, I have begged this person to get to the essence of electricity policy, only to be rebuffed as ignorant and out of step. Meanwhile, this person traffics in hidden assumptions, deep jargon, rhetorical flourishes, and technicalities intended to obscure the fundamental questions.…

“If local government stops destructive intervention emanating from above, so be it. Free-market advocates have noted the advantages of local, decentralized government to this end.”

“Are you just interested in private property rights to help Energy Leviathan? Does your standard also oppose mandatory open access, gas-appliance bans, and other violations of liberty in the name of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation?”

Should neighbors and local government work to nix government-enabled projects on private land, particularly a project that harms the locals as taxpayers and ratepayers; and harms the neighbors with lower property values and nuisances. Giberson says: No matter; private property rights shield all. I say: citizens and neighbors and local government have every right to try to stop Energy Leviathan.

———————–

———————–

Michael Giberson and I have debated the issue in Round One.…