The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.

Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Study: Wind turbines increase the dependence on fossil fuel plants

Current government renewable energy policies actually benefit fossil fuels

Visualizing the U.S. Clean Air Success Story

NYS’s Green Energy Roulette

Following passage of good wind law, wind developer loses interest in NY town

Renewable Energy Use In Europe Didn’t Stop CO2 Levels From Rising

From Russia With Love

Military review requirement added to Oklahoma wind development process

Is 100% Renewable Energy Possible?…

“The spat in Bonn highlights what many opponents of the Paris Agreement believed: the global climate crusade is really about redistributing global wealth.”

“Expect European governments to announce revised carbon reduction targets, as their inability to reach their 2020 targets becomes clear. Kicking the ball down the road and focusing on the new goals makes it easier to avoid explaining why earlier targets were missed. Next year will likely usher in an era of environmental mea culpas from Europe.”

Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union, reported that the organization’s members’ carbon emissions increased last year by 1.8% compared to 2016.

The performance of the individual countries was mixed. Among the five countries accounting for 10% or more of total EU emissions, three were up significantly, one was essentially flat, and one was down materially.…

“The term ‘buyer beware’ might provide an appropriate warning; but that term implies the buyer has a choice.  Therefore, we will just leave it ‘beware’.”

The purpose of this document is to provide a rough estimate for some of the economic costs of moving American consumers away from the direct use of fossil fuels per the objective of “deep decarbonization” and show the math involved. First, we need to define what “deep decarbonization” and “electrification” are.  “Deep Decarbonization” is the term-of-art for climate stabilization through the decarbonization of the World’s energy systems. Replacing consumers direct consumption of natural gas and gasoline, along with other forms of fossil fuels, and on to renewable-dominated electricity, is the means of achieving this global objective.

The concept officially started with a June 2015 G-7 goal “to end their dependence on fossil fuels.”…

“No jurisdiction in Canada has implemented the academically-ideal carbon tax that is revenue neutral, replaces regulations, is based on a properly deflated social cost of carbon, or eschews governmental dictates in energy markets.”

“The belief that governments will not adapt the ‘textbook’ carbon tax (which is revenue neutral, offsets regulations, and does not intervene in energy markets or technology selection) is not skepticism or cynicism—it’s historic fact.”

The Internet is abuzz over a report by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) that shines some light on the potential impact of the federal carbon tax plan on Canada’s economy.

Specifically, the report shows that the carbon price the federal government is mandating all provinces to impose on businesses and residents in the years ahead could create substantial headwinds for the Canadian economy.

For example, under one set of assumptions in the PBO analysis, where the provincial governments simply rebate all carbon price revenue, provincial cooperation with the federal floor would reduce the size of the Canadian economy to the tune of 0.5 percent in 2020.…