“A key problem with the ‘All of the Above’ policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part. Why? Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.”

The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real Science and political science.

Lobbyists are paid to represent their clients’ economic interests or political agendas. The public consists of citizens, businesses, and the military.

Lobbyists are professionals who spend most of their time soliciting legislators on their client’s behalf. (See the The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government). The obvious question is: Who is balancing out this one-sided influence by competently and aggressively representing the public’s interests on energy policies (and other important issues)? …

Ed. Note: This post excerpts energy and climate material from the Media Balance Newsletter, a free fortnightly published by physicist John Droz Jr., founder of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. The complete Newsletter for this post can be found here.

Greed Energy Economics:
*** Why ‘Cheap’ Wind & Solar Power Claims Never Stack Up
*** Wind Subsidies are Rising, but wind power production isn’t rising with them

Unreliables (General):
*** Two New Studies Shed Light On Biden’s Green Energy Money Pit
*** The Green Energy Wall Can’t Arrive Quickly Enough

Wind Energy — Offshore:
*** Study: How Offshore Wind Drives Up Global Carbon Emissions
Offshore wind cumulative impact issue analysis
Short video: Save the Whales, Stop Turbines
Save the Whales: Kill Offshore Wind

Wind Energy — Other:
*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

Solar Energy:
*** UK Government warns against solar projects on farmland

Nuclear Energy:
*** New York policymakers thaw on nuclear energy
*** Nuclear power takes off: meeting the growth in global electricity demand (Part 1)
*** Nuclear power takes off: the ongoing evolution of reactors (Part 2)
Nuclear power takes off: Back to Euratom?…

“A free market in electricity is based on private property rights and voluntary exchange.”

– Michael Giberson, May 19, 2024

It’s a start. It took me a few dozen tries, but the definition has come from a (not-so) free market electricity advocate, Mike Giberson. Maybe Lynne Kiesling, woman of system and “The Queen of Electricity Markets,” will be next.

Fake free marketeers at the Niskanen Center and at R Street Institute are a plague on sound public policy analysis regarding electricity and other climate/energy issues. The sad case of Jerry Taylor of Cato and Niskanen is recounted here and here. But the problem also is with the energy specialists at R Street, including senior fellow Giberson. (See yesterday’s post on Devin Hartman, Giberson’s boss.)

————-

Mike Giberson knows his energy stuff and was/is free market in many areas, except for electricity.…

Update: Devin Hartman of R Street has blocked some of the links below. The debate is intellectual to me and PR/political to him. If he cannot define what a free market is in electricity, then he is not being honest with himself or the community.

“The core of [FERC] Order 1920 – economic planning – is sound policy.” (Devin Hartman, R Street Institute)

“You describe yourself as ‘pro-market,’ and R Street promotes itself as free market. What gives with central electricity planning and the ‘whole-of-government’ current federal approach? (R. Bradley, below)

R Street Institute advertises itself as “Free Markets. Real Solutions.” Devin Hartman, Policy Director, Energy and Environmental Policy; Resident Senior Fellow at R Street, advertises himself as “pro-market and environmental policy scholar and advocate” and

An established thought leader in energy and environmental policy with over a decade of experience, including nearly six years of experience at three regulatory bodies.