The 100^th birthday of President Ronald earlier this year brought forth a flood of nostalgia. Americans rightfully love their great man. But enviro-revisionism from some slammed Reagan for his reversal of President Jimmy Carter’s energy program. As Joe Romm puts it, Reagan “almost single-handedly ruined America’s leadership in clean energy.”

Such criticism reflects a extremely selective memory and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nation’s energy challenges.

Carter Was Pro-Coal, Nuclear Too

In recent years, true, some of Carter’s energy policies have been rehabilitated in the name of “energy independence” and addressing the alleged human influence on global climate. The implication—not always stated explicitly—is that Carter’s energy plan was primarily about renewable energies. The solar thermal panels he had installed on the White House roof, indeed, epitomized the differences between him and Reagan—who had the panels removed.…

[Editor note: Mike Riley, editor of Fabricating & Metalworking magazine (bio at end), took a neutral look at a new major manufacturing project and offers his opinions here.]

The total government subsidy given to industrial windpower rivals the price of natural gas paid by power generators– yet wind still cannot compete without mandates. With our nation being challenged to reduce its debt and shrink the federal budget, realistic business economics is confounding the hype about this once darling of renewable energy.

New Wind Plant for Port of Muskogee?

Muskogee is an economic center in eastern Oklahoma that country singer Merle Haggard commemorated in the old country song “Okie from Muskogee,” a hit back in 1969. Now the city is better known for operating the Port of Muskogee that is located at the edge of North America’s wind corridor.…

“The [conflicts between wind turbines and residents] are more than just NIMBYISM; they are a justified reaction to intrusive technologies that would not even be polluting the landscape except for involuntary taxpayer/ratepayer subsidies enacted and enforced by government edict. Capitalists and environmentalists unite!”

Mark Twain said “a lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on”. The falsehoods about industrial wind turbines have been marching the globe for 20+ years, but the truth is now in its shoes and making its way into the court of public opinion and into the court of law. Has the tide turned against government created industrial wind?

It’s been a fervent time since the offshore announcement in Ontario recently (see my previous post, Ontario’s Wind Moratorium: Public Discontent Sends a Global Message to Government-Dependent Energy (and energy sprawl).…

[Editor note: The original title of the post of Dr. Brätland (bio at end) was “Institutions and Policies that Impede Capital Maintenance for Extractive Firms.” Resourceship is a term used by the late economist Stephen McDonald (1924–2006) to describe entrepreneurship applied to mineral resources.

Dr. Brätland’s post below complements a series of entries at MasterResource under the terms resourceship, peak oil (fixity-depletion), and ultimate resource, as well as subsoil privatization.]

Although capital maintenance by extractive firms refutes the exhaustion myth of minerals, this refutation hinges on access to lands, entrepreneurial latitude in managing resources, and secure private-property rights.

In particular, certain institutions of governmental control and jurisprudence hinder entrepreneurial actions of extractive firms striving to maintain capital (defined as the asset value of to-be-extracted minerals).

These hindrances include:

(a) Foreclosure of land access by government ownership of mineral lands;

(b) Foreclosure of entrepreneurial latitude by court imposed covenants enforcing obligations to surface owners; and

(c) In the case of petroleum, the extractive firm’s inability to acquire full control and ownership of reservoirs it has discovered.