The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Millennial Problem — and How to Solve It

Today I am releasing a new whitepaper on the challenges the fossil fuel industry faces with its millennial workers.
Here’s a summary.

  • Millennial workers are the future of the fossil fuel industry, and they are extremely concerned with the moral meaning of their work.
  • Unfortunately for the industry, these millennials have been exposed to hundreds of hours of claims that their work is immoral because it is destroying the planet.
  • While many companies are ignoring this challenge and others regard it as insurmountable, in my experience it is possible to overcome the “moral case against fossil fuels” and turn non-supporters into supporters.
  • The key to turning non-supporters into supporters is to reframe moral conversations about the industry in pro-human, whole-picture terms.
  • Companies that give employees a thorough pro-human, whole-picture education about their impact on human flourishing will see tremendous increases in motivation and desire to become “ambassadors” who champion the industry and its freedom.
  • Companies that also give employees an education in reframing energy conversations will see a tremendous increase in the effectiveness of their ambassadors.
  • Given that these forms of education are now freely available, every company should seriously consider offering them to their employees—especially to the millennial leaders of the future.

I hope you’ll read the article.

If you are interested in using my curriculum (including a freely available version of it) to empower your team, you can contact me at alex@alexepstein.com or go to the website energyambassador.net for more information.

Discussing fossil fuels with The Disgruntled Millennial

I recently appeared on “The Disgruntled Millennial,” a podcast aimed at conservative millennials, for a really interesting, in-depth discussion of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. The hour-long interview covers a lot of territory and includes a number of points I haven’t made elsewhere. You can listen to it here.

COMING NEXT WEEK: My response to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

3. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate.

Coal got knocked out in California, now natural gas is on the ropes…

Donald Trump’s election sent shock waves through the American liberal, progressive (code for European Socialists), and global Elite fraternities. Within days of Mr. Trump’s election a concerted, well organized and funded assault began to render Mr. Trump and his administration ineffective, and even impotent to change the Socialist Agenda seductively introduced since Bush, Sr. took the reins from Ronald Reagan. The percolating socialist/Marxist minions of the Democrat Party have boiled over into a spectacle of considerable venomous hatred since the national elections this past November. No longer even maintaining an appearance of civility, the progressives across America are in full speed ahead mode implementing their agenda; which agenda, is not remotely similar to the beliefs and values of the America many of us have known and loved. The State of California is such an example.

Over the past five months, I have been involved with multiple and complicated dimensions intrinsic to the energy industry; not on the technical side, but bringing together elected and appointed officials, as well as First Nation leaders – all with a common purpose: Save the economies, employment, community fabric, and energy production across the western states. The bullseye is the Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona. The environmental cabal targeted the largest coal-fired energy producing plant west of the Mississippi for a total shutdown. Upon closure…five additional plants in Arizona, and then across seven western states are targeted for quick shuttering. The mantra is the same from east coast to west; “coal is bad…coal is a severe pollutant…coal is criminal.”

The answer according to whacked-out environmental ideologues is natural gas, and throw in some solar for good measure. Do NOT concern yourself with the falsehoods of such reason and language just do it, and do it now! This is part of the movement to collapse America’s economy and relocate Americans. These well-funded and rabid environmentalists seek elected officials of the same mind-set to process their agenda through legislation and the governmental system. Do NOT confuse me with the facts of true science and double blind studies, simply listen to my rage and see my tears, and then do it!! Shut down the mines, the coal fired energy producing plants, and all other facets of conventional energy production. These same near out-of-control ideologues shout, “We want gas…we want natural gas…throw in some solar and wind power, and enjoy what we have created!”

Well…look at what now has emerged in California. This is not a laughing matter; although, some of the protesters are quite a site. California elected officials are following a socialist/Marxist script in so very many ways running that once magnificent state into the abyss. Shutting down energy production is one more example of the out-of-control, ideologue only focus, and lack of reasoning people who have gotten their hands on the levers of power.

Pray President Trump is successful returning America to her foundational beliefs and principles. Pray he is able to ride the political storms and withstand the character assassination diatribes, and help make America Great Again! The alternative is way too unimaginable, and we were well on our way to the abyss as a nation, as a people.

Coal got knocked out in Calif. Now, gas is on the ropes

Debra Kahn, E&E News reporter

Energywire: Wednesday, July 12, 2017

A wave of regulatory reconsiderations of natural gas-fired power plants in California has renewables advocates cheering.

The state’s grid operator is expected to release a study next month on whether the Puente Power Project, a gas-fired plant planned for the Southern California coast 60 miles west of Los Angeles, might be supplanted by solar panels, energy storage or demand response.

The California Public Utilities Commission approved Southern California Edison’s contract with NRG Energy Inc. to build the 262-megawatt plant in June 2016 as a replacement for a larger plant on the same site. The Puente plant fit into the state’s goal to boost renewables to 50 percent; as a fast-ramping facility, it could smooth out intermittent wind and solar power, which has a tendency to produce choppy resources.

Now, as politicians are considering moving to 100 percent “zero-carbon” resources by 2045 — as a bill being considered this week in the state Legislature would do — regulators are tapping the brakes on Puente and a number of other gas-fired plants planned for the Southern California region.

Since the state has no coal-fired plants and is already planning on shutting down its remaining nuclear plant, natural gas is the next resource in line to be phased out in favor of renewables.

“In general, it’s going to be renewables in, gas out, so you’ve got that sort of long, slow good-night of lots of gas,” said Jim Caldwell, a senior technical consultant with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a Sacramento think tank that has been advocating for regulators to reconsider their grid policies to better account for renewables and climate change. “We think Puente is right at the tip of that spear. … The gas industry and the gas generation industry is facing a big problem, and they know it.”

Read more.

President Trump Proposes Solar Panels on Top of Border Wall — Greenpeace and Sierra Club outraged!

President Donald Trump tells supporters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa that he is considering mounting photovoltaic panels atop his proposed Mexican border wall would allow the project to pay for itself.

President Trump stated, “We’re thinking of something that’s unique, we’re talking about the southern border, lots of sun, lots of heat. We’re thinking about building the wall as a solar wall, so it creates energy and pays for itself. And this way, Mexico will have to pay much less money.”

If approved this would be the largest alternative energy project in the world. But wait…

You would think that organizations who favor alternative power sources such as solar panels and wind power would be pleased with this unique and innovative idea. You would think that they would encourage companies to bid on the Department of Homeland Security contract to build the wall and give those living along both sides of the wall access to renewable energy. Well you would be wrong.

Proposed section of green border wall with solar panels submitted by Thomas Gleason, a Las Vegas construction materials supplier.

In The Daily Signal article titled How Environmental Groups Are Responding to Trump’s ‘Solar Wall’ Pitch Fred Lucas reports:

President Donald Trump’s idea of putting solar panels on his long-promised border wall hasn’t gained a lot of support among top environmental lobbying groups—even though the organizations have long backed solar power as a key renewable energy.

“The problem with talking about solar panels on Trump’s border wall is that it’s science fiction,” Travis Nichols, a spokesman for Greenpeace, a liberal environmentalist group, told The Daily Signal. “Just like clean coal does not exist and will never exist, Trump’s wall with solar panels won’t exist, so it’s irrelevant to discuss climate issues.”

A spokesman with the Sierra Club referred to a tweet storm by the Sierra Club executive director, Michael Brune, reacting to Trump’s proposal for solar panels on the border wall.

Read more.

If solar panels on the border wall is “science fiction” then isn’t the same true for all uses of solar panels?

Here’s a discussion on President Trump’s new green border wall with solar panels designed by Thomas Gleason. He is a construction materials supplier up in North Las Vegas. He says he has submitted a bid for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico.:

President Trump is a builder and entrepreneur. He also keeps his promises. Building the wall is one of those promises. Time for environmentalists and Democrats to jump at this chance to build some big and bold. As President Trump has said, “If your going to think might as well think big.”

It appears those opposing this unique opportunity are small thinkers, or maybe politically motivated?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Lawmakers Cite Evidence Russia ‘Colluded’ With U.S. Green Groups to Block Fracking

Homeland Security Will Start Building Border Wall Prototypes This Summer

GOP Senator Proposes Transferring Sanctuary Cities’ Federal Funds to Border Wall Budget

Pittsburgh Not Paris: And That’s The Way We Like It

President Donald Trump withdrew from Obama’s anti-American Paris Climate Agreement saying, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” 

The Paris Accord was one of many anti-American agreements made by the most lawless anti-American president ever to hold office.

Obama is a Globalist whose “hope and change” for America was/is the destruction of American democracy and sovereignty in favor of socialism and internationalism.

Oama’s anti-American Paris agreement was another attempt to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. Obama joined the Paris Agreement in 2016 without Senate approval, pledging to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) explains,

“The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. . .It empowers one administration to make  legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections.” 

Of course it does. That was Obama’s purpose and was his intention for his globalist legacy Hillary Clinton. The unexpected defeat of Hillary Clinton threw Obama’s eight year Globalist march into disarray. No matter. True to his radical Leftist training, Obama followed mentor Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and reconstituted himself as the leader of the “resistance” movement to overthrow our Constitutionally elected President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump is an unapologetic America-first nationalist and the single greatest obstacle to one-world government in the world today. In spite of intense lobbying efforts from globalist corporations, globalist green lobbyists, globalist U.N. bureaucrats, infamous globalists like Al Gore, and even some family members, Trump recognized the Paris Accord as a very bad deal for American sovereignty and jobs and he kept his campaign promise to withdraw.

Staying in a bad deal for “diplomatic” reasons is absurd. Donald Trump was elected precisely because he does not play diplomatic political games. Trump is an anomaly in politics because he actually means and does what he says.

Surrendering control of the Internet to the United Nations was another one of Obama’s anti-American effort to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. 

The Obama administration surrendered American control of the internet to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) without getting Congress approval, another example of Obama executive overreach. Assigned names and numbers refers to the Domain Name System (DNS) on the Internet which is how a specific web address, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), connects to the correct server and opens a specific website. All of the information including names, numbers, and any other data that DNS needs to do get to the specific website is stored in one central file known an the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

Before the surrender ICANN’s function was to oversee how web addresses on the Internet were passed out and to regulate the IANA. Now, ICANN formally owns the IANA. It is not difficult to see how internationalizing the operation of the Internet could be used to help the globalist elites impose one-world government by manipulating information or access to information worldwide.

Obama surrendered United States technical management of the Internet to ICANN which is a global organization of governments around the world. ICANN includes a Government Advisory, which has representation from 111 states around the world, including 108 UN members and the Holy See, the Cook Islands and Taiwan. Many of these governments are anti-American and pro-globalism.

In the sixties Americans openly criticized Communist countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. In the 21st century after 9/11 Americans openly criticized Islamic countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. Obama’s surrender of Internet control to ICANN makes it possible for the United States to lose our freedom of speech on the Internet – Obama sacrificed American interests to the international community he supports.

Ted Cruz has argued that online freedom is now in jeopardy and that authoritarian governments who are members of ICANN can inhibit freedom of speech on the Internet. Cruz observes, “foreign governments and global corporations will have an increased voice within ICANN moving forward,” which can allow them to censor speech.

It is no surprise that the giant globalized technology companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Cloudflare and Yahoo all support a more globally controlled Internet – of course they do. These giant corporations are run by Globalists whose businesses are global and whose self-interest is in internationalizing the world for greater profits and marketshare. They are using a business profit prism not a human rights prism for policy decisions even though their owners talk of humanitarianism, altruism, social justice, and income equality.

There must be no confusion between global trade and Globalism. Global trade is simply the sale of goods around the world between nations. Global trade can be fair or unfair among nations. If the New World Order of one-world government is imposed then global trade will be a meaningless concept because there will be only one nation, one marketplace, and one government.

Globalism and the New World Order has been romanticized and dishonestly marketed as the international system that will provide the world with income equality and social justice. Songs have been written about Globalism. John Lennon’s “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. Consider its lyrics:

Imagine

John Lennon

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Lennon’s lyrics clearly describe a Utopian New World Order of peace and harmony. So far so good. The problem with Lennon’s dreamscape as the anthem for Globalism  is that it has no relationship to objective reality. The essential quality of dreams is that they are not encumbered by time, space, gravity, people, or any other consideration in objective reality. Dreams are the epitome of subjective reality.

In objective reality all groups large and small have some organizing principle. Families, communities, states, countries – the larger the group the more important the organizing principle becomes.

Lennon’s dreamscape is not encumbered by an organizing principle even though the world is the largest conceivable group. The New World Order most definitely has an organizing principle even if John Lennon does not sing about it. The left-wing liberals singing John Lennon’s song are imagining their own personal dreams of one internationalized world at peace in harmony with all people of the world equal in every way. The problem is their imagined universe has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of one-world government imagined and described in unapologetic chilling detail by elitist aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

Russell’s one-world government is a binary socio-political system of the ruling few and the enslaved population whop serve them. The left-wing liberals, progressives, and anarchists lobbying for Globalism are the useful idiots unwittingly advocating for the regressive return to a master/slave society of tyranny.

Globalism is a very old song being sung anew by the naive Left and the laughing globalist elite who have successfully duped them.

Americans who wish to preserve their national sovereignty and individual freedoms understand Pittsburgh is the priority not Paris – and that’s the way we like it!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Withdraws U.S. from Paris Climate Accord

Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

The Global Warming-Climate Change Scam: One of the Great Soviet/Russian Deceptions

EDITORS NOTE: Here is KC & The Sunshine Band singing their 1975 hit single That’s The Way (I Like It):

Energy & Environmental News – 6/12/17

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

Despite all the news you’ve heard over the last few weeks, you’re probably unaware of one of the most significant national developments. Last week Texas (the most wind friendly state in the US) signed into law a bill that effectively prohibits wind projects from being closer than 30± miles to a military facility. (See this and this.) This law should give encouragement to similar federal legislation, as well as military-protective measures in NY and NC.

You’ve also heard a lot about the US bowing out of the Paris Agreement — most of which is rather irrational. The Newsletter has a special section on worthwhile articles (like here) on this important international topic.

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

“Climate Change” used to Create Totalitarian State

Anatomy of a Deep State

Renounce Climate Alarmism

Can we discuss the climate without the hysteria?

Lindzen: In the future, people will marvel how hysterical mankind has been

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

CO2 Facts vs Alternative Facts

58 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Modern Global Warming

mgh, Not Greenhouse Gases, Provides a Warm Earth

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

The Princess and the Pea

Human Health, Rights and Wind Turbine Deployment

A startling case of two schools in proximity to wind turbines

Wind company dealt blow by Indiana Supreme Court

Why There’s No Such Thing As a Free Market for Electricity

Offshore Wind Turbines Blamed For Killing Family Of Whales

The Private Benefit of Carbon and its Social Cost

Scientific Peer-Review is a Deeply Tainted System

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues. As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

The Amazing Arrogance of the Paris Climate Agreement by Jeffrey A. Tucker

It was December 12, 2015, when headlines in the world’s leading newspapers, in implausibly bold type, celebrated the “historic” agreement in Paris between all nations of the world to curb carbon emissions and thereby stop climate change: or so they said, as if elites get to say what is and is not historic.

The spin, like the agreement itself, was crammed down our throats.

I read the stories that day, and the next and the next, and the continuing coverage for weeks that nearly every reader – apart from a few dedicated activists and permanent regime bureaucrats – ignored. The stories appeared on the international pages and didn’t touch the business pages. Energy stocks weren’t affected in the slightest.The stories had all the signs of dutiful public service announcements – “fake news,” as they say today – and they contained not a single quote from a single dissenting voice, because, of course, no respectable news outlet would give voice to “climate deniers.”

Deniers?

Let me pause to protest this “denial” language. It attempts to appropriate the widely shared disgust toward “Holocaust denial,” a bizarre and bedraggled movement that belittles or even dismisses the actual history of one of the 20th century’s most egregious mass crimes against human rights and dignity. Using that language to silence questions about an attempt to centrally plan the energy sector is a moral low that debases the language of denial.

This rhetorical trick reveals all you need to know about the desperate manipulation the climate planners are willing to engage in to realize their plot regardless of popular and justified skepticism concerning their regulatory and redistributionist policies.

And what are the specifics of that agenda? The Paris Agreement is a “voluntary” agreement because its architects knew it would never pass the US Senate as a treaty. Why? Because the idea of the agreement is that the US government’s regulatory agencies would impose extreme mandates on its energy sector: how it should work, what kinds of emissions it should produce, the best ways to power our lives (read: not fossil fuels), and hand over to developing world regimes billions and even trillions of dollars in aid, a direct and ongoing forcible transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to regimes all over the world, at the expense of American freedom and prosperity.

And you wonder why many people have doubts about it.

The Trumpist Reaction

Consider what else was going on December 12, 2015. Donald Trump was in the midst of a big battle for the Republican nomination. He started with 16 challengers to beat. He was widely considered to be a clownish candidate, a guy in it just to get press attention to build his business brand. Surely the American system of electoral politics, largely but imperfectly managed by responsible elites, would resist such demagogues. Besides, the media that trumpeted the Paris Agreement would be on hand to shame anyone who supported him. He couldn’t win.

The press mostly pretended that he wasn’t happening. The Huffington Post put coverage of his campaign in the humor section.

And so President Obama came home from the Paris meetings to the acclaim of all the right people. He alone had made the responsible choice on behalf of the entire country: every business, every worker, every consumer, every single person living within these borders who uses some measure of this thing we call energy. He would be our master and commander, ruling on our behalf, fresh off cocktail parties in Paris where the best and brightest – armed with briefcases full of government-funded science – decided to give the Industrial Revolution its final comeuppance.The exuberant spokespeople talked about how “the United States” had “agreed” to “curb its emissions” and “fund” the building of fossil-free sectors all over the world. It was strange because the “United States” had not in fact agreed to anything: not a single voter, worker, owner, or citizen. Not even the House or Senate were involved. This was entirely an elite undertaking to manage property they did not own and lives that were not theirs to control.

The Backlash

And then Trump spoke. He said that this Paris bit was a bad deal for Americans. We are already in a slow-growth economy. Now these global elites, without a vote from Congress, are presuming to mandate massive controls over the economy, hampering its productive sector which benefits everyone and transferring countless billions of dollars out of the country, with the acquiescence of the party in power.

He spoke about this in a way that bested all his opponents. The entire scenario fed his America First worldview, that the global elites were operating as parasites on American prosperity and sovereignty. His answer was to put up the wall: to immigrants, to trade, to global managerial elites, and reclaim American sovereignty from people who were selling it out. It was another flavor of statism (globalism and nativism are two sides of the same coin), but it tapped into that populist vein of the voting public that looks for a patriotic strongman to save them from a distant ruling class.Everything about the Paris Agreement seemed structured to play into Trump’s narrative of how the world had gone mad. And then he won the nomination. Then he won the presidency. None of this was supposed to happen. It wasn’t part of the plan. History took a different course from what the power elite demanded and expected to happen. Not for the first time.

How Dare Anyone Dispute Our Plans?

But the “globalists” of the type that tried to make Paris work have a stunning lack of self-awareness. They pretend to be oblivious to the populist resentment they breed. They act as if there is not a single legitimate doubt about the problem, their analysis of cause and effect, the discernment of their selected experts, or their proposed coercive solution. And there certainly isn’t a doubt that their mighty combination of power, resources, and intelligence can cause all the forces in the universe to adapt to their will, including even the climate that King Canute himself said could not be controlled by kings and princes.

As with countless other statist plans over the last hundred years, they figured that it was enough to gather all the right people in one room, agree to a wish list, sign a few documents, and then watch the course of history conform to their wishes.The Paris Agreement is no different in its epistemological conceit than Obamacare, the war on drugs, nation-building, universal schooling, or socialism itself. They are all attempts to subvert the capacity of society to manage itself on behalf of the deluded dreams of a few people with power and their lust for controlling social and economic outcomes.

Rejecting Elite Politics

How far are the Democrats from recognizing what they have done? Very, very far. John C. Williams, writing in the New York Times, has decried the “The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension”:

“As a progressive, I am committed to social equality – not just for some groups, but for all groups… Everyone should have access to good housing and good jobs. That’s the point… Too often in otherwise polite society, elites (progressives emphatically included) unselfconsciously belittle working-class whites. Democrats should stop insulting people.”

That would be a good start. But it is not only about rhetoric. Policy preferences have to change. A global agreement that somehow binds entire countries to centrally plan and regulate the whole of a crucial sector of economic life that supports all economic advances of our time – at the very time when the energy sector is innovating its own solutions to carbon emissions in the cheapest possible way –  is certainly going to breed resentment, and for good reason. It is a bad and unworkable idea.

Continued reliance on undemocratic, uneconomic, imposed strategies such as the Paris Agreement will only further feed the populist revolt that could end in the worst possible policy combinations of strong-man nationalism, nativism, protectionism, closed borders, and backwards thinking in general. No good can come from this. The backlash against globalism can be as dangerous as globalism itself.You might think that the election of Trump would offer some lessons. But that is not the way the arrogant minds behind the climate agreement work. They respond by merely doubling down on disdain, intensifying their commitments to each other, heaping more loathing on the workers and peasants who have their doubts about these deals.

Trump and his ilk abroad, backed by voting masses with pitchforks and torches – and not a managed transition from fossil fuels to clean energy – are their creation.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Pull Out from Paris Accords Puts America First and Multinational Banks and Corporations Last

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

CLEXIT: Science Wins! Trump stomps on climate religion

‘This is very close to a religious issue. This is a theological issue. People take climate change that seriously.’ ‘We are proud of a president who is staring at the UN and saying we don’t want to give up our sovereignty so that UN bureaucrats can redistribute our wealth and do nothing for the climate. This is a great day for science.’

‘The UN has admitted they will redistribute wealth by climate policy. This is all politics, it is not about saving the planet and Trump is calling them on it.’ We been called a rogue nation along with Syria and Nicaragua. The U.S was founded as a rogue nation. Trump is showing true leadership. Standing up to the world and say we are not buying belief in superstition that a UN agreement that even if you believe in UN assumptions would have no measurable impact on temps in 100 years or has anything to do with saving the planet or climate. Donald Trump should win a medal of scientific courage and political courage for pulling out of this.’

Climate Depot Round Up

It’s Official! The U.S. has done a Clexit! CNN: Trump on Paris accord: ‘We’re getting out’ & BBC: Trump announces US will withdraw from UN Paris Climate deal

Statistician LOMBORG: TRUMP IS RIGHT TO REJECT PARIS CLIMATE DEAL: IT’S LIKELY TO BE A COSTLY FAILURE – Dr. Bjorn Lomborg: The Paris Treaty will be the most expensive global agreement in world history. It is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris – not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change. – After hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, we only get, according to the International Energy Agency, 0.5 per cent of the world’s energy needs from wind, and 0.1 per cent from solar PV.
CNN: Trump on Paris accord: ‘We’re getting out’
Media Clips: 

Watch: Morano in Sky News TV debate with Greenpeace: ‘It’s the greatest thing for the U.S. to leave Paris pact’ – Broadcast June 1, 2017 -Sky News -Marc Morano vs. Sky News Anchor Kay Burley and a Kaisa Kosonen, a spokesperson from Greenpeace International.

Morano: ‘This treaty has no basis not only in science, but in actual cost benefit analysis. Even if you use all the UN assumptions and believe everything they claim about the science, you would not be able to measure the temperature difference in a 100 years assuming all the countries did what thy planned to do…If we did face a climate apocalypse, you don’t need the UN to sit there and decide what energy mix countries should have. UN bureaucrats don’t have to be in charge. You don’t need central planning to determine that.

Sky News Anchor Kay Burley: Trump is really setting himself against almost every other country. is that what we want the leader of the free world to do?

Morano: Absolutely. We been called a rogue nation along with Syria and Nicaragua. The U.S was founded as a rogue nation. Trump wants to be a leader. Trump is showing true leadership. Standing up to the world and say we are not buying belief in superstition that a UN agreement that even if you believe in UN assumptions would have no measurable impact on temps in 100 years or has anything to do with saving the planet or climate. Donald Trump should win a medal of scientific courage and political courage for pulling out of this.

Listen: BBC radio features Morano in two separate shows: ‘We don’t want to give up our sovereignty so that UN bureaucrats do nothing for the climate’ -Climate Depot’s Morano on two BBC radio programs on Trump’s Clexit from UN Paris Treaty. Full audio from both programs below.

Morano: ‘This is very close to a religious issue. This is a theological issue. People take climate change that seriously.’ ‘We are proud of a president who is staring at the UN and saying ‘we don’t want to give up our sovereignty so that UN bureaucrats can redistribute our wealth and do nothing for the climate. This is a great day for science.’ ‘The UN has admitted they will redistribute wealth by climate policy. This is all politics, it is not about saving the planet and Trump is calling them on it.’

Morano on Blaze TV: ‘We are going to have a Clexit! A climate exit!’

Watch: Morano on Newsmax TV: UN Paris Accord Is About Wealth Redistribution, Not Climate – Morano on Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg show: “The UN has actually admitted the real reason for the treaty. They said this is not even environmental policy anymore, we will redistribute wealth by climate policy. That’s what they want, a $100 billion a year slush fund going to governments that are best able to keep your people locked in poverty. “This is all about social engineering, central planning, redistribution of wealth, and empowering UN bureaucrats.”

Watch Morano on TV: Trump touched on ‘religious belief’ – It’s a ‘theological debate’ on climate -Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler on OAN (One America News Network) Morano: ‘What Trump did today was a blow to superstition. No longer in Washington DC do we have to pretend that a UN climate treaty can save the planet or actually control temperature or impact storminess. This truly is a day that science has won out in DC and that is a rare day when it comes to climate change.’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement:

“A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) is a victory for science. President Trump today, in one swoop, made perhaps the most consequential decision of his presidency both in domestic and international policy by announcing a Clexit of the U.S. from the UN Paris agreement. One of Trump’s core political principles has been an America first policy and knowing the art of a deal. Trump realized that the UN Paris climate pact would not serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy or domestic energy policy. The near total dismantling of former President Obama’s “climate legacy” is now almost complete. Bravo!  President Trump understands that the UN has no interest in climate. The UN’s real goal is “global governance” and “wealth redistribution.” Flashback: UN IPCC Official Edenhofer: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’

Climate Depot’s Morano predicted Trump’s actions today back in November 2016 while attending the UN climate summit in Morocco. Morano was ejected from the summit for shredding the UN Paris agreement. See: UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-out – November 16, 2016

A UN climate agreement is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Marc Morano adds: In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition. Today, America rejects superstition and the belief that government regulations and UN agreements can control the climate. 

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is also not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note – “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100Lomborg: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” “But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ – Bjorn Lomborg: The debate about the UN Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.”
Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

RELATED LINKS: 

‘Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable’

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over US

Trump: ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris’

Democrat Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer: Trump’s Paris exit a ‘traitorous act of war’

Hulk Actor Mark Ruffalo: ‘Trump will have the death of whole nations on his hands’

Remaining Paris signatories plan to save planet by building 2,440 NEW coal plants. http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/CAT_Coal_Gap_Briefing_COP21.pdf …

We’re Outta There! President Pulling Out Of Paris Climate Accord

THE 10 DUMBEST REACTIONS TO TRUMP QUITTING THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD

1. Apparently of the opinion that Kathy Griffin pretending to behead Trump wasn’t quite distasteful enough, an editorial cartoonist for the Australian Financial Review, David Rowe, likened Trump leaving the Paris agreement to … beheading the entire planet.

9. John Kerry, one of the deal’s leading negotiators, said Trump is not helping the “forgotten Americans” he pledged to elevate, but instead will give their kids asthma (perhaps as soon as this summer!).

Weather Channel Website Goes Apocalyptic After Trump’s Paris Accord Repeal

De Blasio Declares NYC Will Defy Trump, Commit To Global Warming Agreement

Democrats Plot ‘Revolution’ To Circumvent Trump’s Paris Decision

Top Congressional Republicans Applaud Trump’s Decision To Pull Out Of Paris Climate Agreement

Environmentalists Call Trump’s Trashing Of Global Warming Deal A ‘Suicide Note For Earth’

Existing a Paris is racist?! ACLU: U.S. Exiting Paris Climate Accord Is ‘An Assault on Communities of Color’

As his climate legacy is erased, Obama slams Trump for leaving Paris agreement

Dem Senate Min. Leader Schumer: Trump tells Earth to ‘drop dead’

‘Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable’

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over US

Trump: ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris’

Democrat Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer: Trump’s Paris exit a ‘traitorous act of war’

CNN: Trump on Paris accord: ‘We’re getting out’

BBC: Trump announces US will withdraw from UN Paris Climate deal

Hulk Actor Mark Ruffalo: ‘Trump will have the death of whole nations on his hands’

Watch Live: Trump’s announcement of UN Paris Climate Pact

It’s Over! White House Confirms Trump Will Announce U.S. Withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord

DiCaprio to Trump on UN Paris Pact: ‘I hope you’ll make the moral decision’

Fmr. CBS Newsman Dan Rather: ‘History will judge mercilessly Trump’s reported decision to withdraw from Paris’ pact

Update: CNN: Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement – Will Announce at 3pmThursday

Hillary on Trump Paris pullout: ‘Really stupid… totally incomprehensible… incredibly foolish’

VIDEO: President Trump withdraws from the Paris Accord — Let the Hysteria Begin!

President Trump has kept another campaign promise. On June 1st, 2017 he formally announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement stating, “I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris!”

In their column 4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement Nicolas Loris  and Katie Tubb write:

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Read more…

PowerLine’s  Steven Hayward reporting on the President’s decision wrote:

I know what you’re thinking. How can the climatistas be any more hysterical than they already are? Is it even possible to turn it up past 11? In any case, here are a few early returns, which I’ll update as the day unfolds. (That was a great speech, by the way: “I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris.”) Hear, hear! For now, this first one is the winner (although the ACLU tweet is a close rival):

Read more…

Watch the full remarks of Vice President Pence, President Trump and the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency Pruitt’s comments on withdrawing from the Paris Accord:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

DELINGPOLE: That Paris Speech Just Made Trump Great Again

NYT Peddles More Global Warming Science Without Numbers

Limbaugh explains why he believes American voters saved the country in 2016

Spying on You, Spying on Me, Spying on the President

RELATED VIDEO: Watch Rand Paul bulldoze through each global warming talking point – TheBlaze

My response to a Harvard professor on the ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’

The latest Energy Law Journal features my response to Harvard Law Professor (and ConocoPhillips Board member) Jody Freeman, the first high-stature intellectual to attempt a rigorous criticism of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

I think it’s worth reading in part because in the beginning I give maybe my best quick summary to date of the moral case for fossil fuels.

Synopsis: This article provides a reply to Harvard law professor Jody Freeman’s contribution to this journal, “A Critical Look at The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” a critique of my 2014 book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (MCFF). MCFF argues that the way we have been taught to think about and discuss energy issues is wrong, and that if we follow a better method of thinking, we will conclude that the proper energy policy for the foreseeable future requires increasing our use of fossil fuels—not dramatically and coercively restricting our fossil fuel use. Unfortunately, instead of engaging the book’s method and attempting to refute its evaluations, Freeman’s article ignores the book’s method and significantly misrepresents its major arguments. This response gives a proof that Freeman’s portrayal of MCFF’s method and content is a straw man, and summarizes the actual arguments of the book. It does so primarily through repeated, side-by-side comparisons of unaltered passages by Freeman purporting to describe MCFF’s viewpoint and unaltered passages from MCFF clearly stating its actual viewpoint. In doing this, this article elucidates some of the book’s actual points that readers might benefit from and perhaps be convinced to explore in more detail—and encourages us to increase the level of intellectual precision in our debate so that we can have a constructive conversation about today’s vital energy and environmental issues.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2007, as a philosopher analyzing popular thinking on numerous cultural, industrial, and political issues, I concluded that popular thinking and discussion about energy and its associated environmental issues was severely flawed. For example, logic dictates that when analyzing any course of action we carefully consider both the positives and negatives of all our alternatives. Yet in popular discussion only the negatives of fossil fuels were considered, while the negatives of “green” sources of energy were all but ignored.

For example, there was a widespread focus on the dangers of coal mining but almost none on the far greater dangers of rare-earth mining required to produce vital components of wind turbines. There was a widespread focus on the alleged wonders of solar and wind but almost none on the unique positives of hydrocarbon (fossil) fuels, such as the unique energy density of liquid hydrocarbon (oil) fuels.

Just as problematically, the consideration of positives and negatives was not careful. Vague, equivocal claims, such as “climate change is real,” obscured the vital issue of magnitude; whether temperature is increasing geometrically or logarithmically, whether sea levels can be expected to rise twenty feet in several decades (Al Gore’s claim) or two feet in a century makes all the difference in our moral calculations.1

Without far clearer, more precise thinking, our energy choices were destined to be severely wrong. To make the wrong choices about energy, the technology that powers every other technology, is to make every area of life worse. I decided to undertake a study of our energy choices using critical thinking methods that were not being deployed in the existing discussions. My approach method led me to conclude that the proper energy policy for the foreseeable future requires increasing our use of fossil fuels—not dramatically and coercively restricting our fossil fuel use.

I presented my findings in my book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (MCFF), both to offer new, and I believe far more accurate, assessments of the benefits and costs of using rather than restricting fossil fuels, as well as to encourage a far greater degree of precision in the broader debate, turning acrimony into constructive conversation. Thus, even if I was wrong about the magnitudes of the benefits and costs, or those magnitudes changed, we would have a method for decision-making.

That has never been more necessary than at this political moment, when a new administration has promised to dramatically reshape energy policy and many new proposals will be on the table for discussion.

The book has been covered extensively by well-known conservative and libertarian thinkers, who tend to be skeptical of the establishment position that fossil fuels are a self-destructive addiction that we need to rapidly restrict.2

Those commentators have both praised the book and offered interesting challenges of particular assessments or policy prescriptions.

Continue reading my full response here.

Why my opponents won’t debate me

Last week I was interviewed by Steven Crowder on his show “Louder Than Crowder.” It was a fun discussion that covered a lot of interesting topics, including why it is that fossil fuel opponents refuse to debate me–or back out after agreeing to debate me.

Watch/listen here.


hearts and minds alex epstein

Dilbert Exposes Climate “Science”

A recent Dilbert comic hilariously captured a point I regularly make when debating fossil fuel opponents: that claims of catastrophic climate change are not based on demonstrated science but speculative climate models–models that are overwhelmingly biased to show catastrophic warming.

I have a lot of respect for Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, who has shown both clear thinking and immense courage in taking on this issue. Earlier this year he wrote a must-read blog post on this issue, “How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change Is a Problem.”

The post is filled with sharp observations. Here’s one that that I haven’t heard anyone make before:

“If skeptics make you retreat to Pascal’s Wager as your main argument for aggressively responding to climate change, please understand that you lost the debate. The world is full of risks that might happen. We don’t treat all of them as real. And we can’t rank any of these risks to know how to allocate our capital to the best path. Should we put a trillion dollars into climate remediation or use that money for a missile defense system to better protect us from North Korea?”

Be sure to read the entire post.

We constantly get messages from readers and viewers commenting on how our pro-human, full-context approach to thinking about issues has changed their way of thinking–and communicating.

Here’s a recent one, from a company that used our brand new Lunch-and-Learn program–a free training course that will help motivate and educate employees about the value of fossil fuels–and teach them to communicate that value to others.

“We [held our Lunch-and-Learn] just yesterday and the team thoroughly enjoyed the experience! Besides the opportunity to learn more about the topic and process; the concept of ‘lunch and learn’ was very well received. If you are considering using this format on a more regular basis, we believe it would add great value. For now we are a small 4 person team here in South Africa, and to have content and clarity such as this truly streamlines the learning process.

“Thank you for making great material available to the industry in this way.” – Gary

You can gain immediate access to this empowering tool here.

We’ve also received some great comments on Twitter, including a lot of people encouraging fossil fuel critics to debate me. Here are a few recent mentions.

image

image

image

image

image

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gloria Steinem: Too few abortions caused climate change

Professor Debunked Obama Administration Charge that Global Warming led to War

The Moral Case for High-impact Industries

Yesterday, I got the opportunity to speak at the annual conference of The Association of Union Constructors. I was particularly excited to speak at this conference because the attendees’ unions represented a combined 3 million employees from groups such as iron workers, boilermakers, electricians, etc.

RELATED VIDEO: The moral case for fossil fuels:

imageOne hour before the speech, everyone has a book waiting for them.

The moral case for fossil fuels is crucial to these industries for two reasons.

First, they rely on cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels–and when that energy is restricted their industries suffer terribly.

Second, because they mostly work in high-impact industries–industries that create value by visibly transforming our environment–they especially benefit from reframing the debates over their industries in pro-human terms.

I got to meet many bright, thoughtful, passionate people at the book signing after my speech.

I already have several plans to talk to attendees about educating their many members.

Thanks so much to TAUC for inviting me.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

Click here for a PDF copy of the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

It’s hard to believe, but we now are in MAY! The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

I recommend studying this excellent website about Lobbying and how to do it.

Some of the more interesting energy articles in this issue are:

US Tax Subsidies For Renewables Now Far Outpaces Fossil Fuels

Wind Industry Titan Soaks Up Billions in Tax Subsidies

Oklahoma ends wind power subsidy

Solar Power: An Environmental Disaster

The Real Threat is ‘Big Environment’

53 year old coal plant generates more electricity that all wind facilities combined

DOE study on electric grid to be done by “renewable skeptic”

We must protect Texas’ military installations from encroaching wind turbines

Failed Economics Of Renewable Energy: The Facts

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

End of Global Warming Debate — It’s As Easy As 1-2-3

Every green initiative imposed on us by politicians has ended in disaster

Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement

Peer-Reviewed: Paris climate promises will reduce temps in 2100 by 0.05°C

Please: Sign Petition Against Paris Agreement

Real science must guide policy

Major U.S. university publishes ‘Communism for Kids’

PS: As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Florida must become energy independent by 2020

What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing — realizing the full potential of life? How do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years? Answer: cheap and reliable power.

Organic Fossil Fuels are the Lifeblood of Civilization!

Florida’s Governor, Congressional delegation and state legislature must make it their number 1 priority to make the Sunshine State Energy Independent by 2020 or sooner!

Florida:

  1. Imports all of its natural gas and 99.9 % of its oil.
  2. Imports all of its refined petroleum based products (e.g. gasoline).
  3. Is the second largest user of natural gas, Texas being the largest.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Even as human populations have grown dramatically and increased their use of fossil fuels, the world has become a much better place.

As CO2 emissions have risen so too have the GDP per person, life expectancy and the population.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Off shore drilling naysayers use the example of the Deepwater Horizon spill to strike fear into the hearts of Floridians. But as FDR said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  An example of using the fear factor (precautionary principle) is what happened in Japan following the meltdown of a nuclear power plan in Fukushima. The facts are that no one has died from radiation, nor has cancer increased however, 1,600 did die of stress due to the unnecessary evacuation of people from the area.

Fear kills.

What off shore naysayers, fear mongers, don’t tell you is that mother nature is the greatest polluter in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA over 2,500 barrels of oil naturally seeps daily from fissures in the Gulf. This seeping has been going on for tens of thousands of years, yet the Gulf is doing just fine. Would it not be better to capture this oil, and natural gas, than have it continue to seep into the Gulf?

Some argue that even if natural gas is discovered in Florida’s waters that building an on shore natural gas processing plant is not economically feasible or politically doable. There is an answer to this negative with a positive via new technology. Israel is faced with the same concerns about onshore natural gas processing plants. To solve the problem Nobel Energy and Shell Oil have come up with a solution. Process the natural gas using floating plants. According to Robert Sullivan of the New York Times:

It’s called Prelude, and it’s bigger than big. More than 530 yards long and 80 yards wide, it was constructed with 260,000 metric tons of steel, more than was used in the entire original World Trade Center complex, and it’s expected to displace 600,000 metric tons of water, or as much as six aircraft carriers. Even the paint job is huge: Most big vessels dry-dock every five years for a new coat, but Prelude’s paint is supposed to last 25 years. It will produce more natural gas than Hong Kong needs in a year. And it’s so big that you can’t really photograph it, at least not all at once.

[ … ]

What makes this giant liquefied-natural-gas enterprise feasible, paradoxically enough, is the miniaturization its construction represents. It’s much smaller than landlocked equivalents — imagine shrinking your local refinery until it fits on a barge. Shell Oil, which has the biggest stake in the project, describes Prelude as more environmentally friendly than an onshore site. There are no estuaries under threat, no shorelines to run pipe across and reduced risks to population centers, given the explosiveness of natural gas. And it is designed to ride out extreme weather, thanks to three giant 6,700-horsepower thrusters that can turn it into the wind and waves. “These are the things that the naval architects had to worry through,” says Robert Bea, co-founder of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, at the University of California, Berkeley. “It works like a big-ass weather vane.”

Read more.

Environmentalists use the fear factor when talking about drilling for natural gas and oil off of Florida’s shores. The same is true for some of Florida’s Congressional delegation, such as Rep. Vern Buchanan. Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now it the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If Governor Rick Scott and Republicans are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy. That is good public policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: President Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Needed

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Shutterstock.

President Trump Does a 180 on Obama’s Offshore Energy Policy

Here’s what a real “All-of-the-above” energy strategy looks like, and all it took was a stroke of a pen.

Unlike his predecessor, President Donald Trump is embracing American energy abundance. His latest action is an executive order reviewing President Barack Obama’s lock-down on offshore energy:

“Today we’re unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high paying American energy jobs,” said Trump, flanked by Republican lawmakers from energy-producing states during a White House signing ceremony.

“Our country is blessed with incredible natural resources including abundant offshore oil and natural gas resources, but the federal government has kept 94% of these offshore areas closed for exploration and production,” he said. “This deprives our country of potentially thousands and thousands of jobs and billions in wealth.”

The directive, known as the America First Offshore Energy Strategy, directs Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review the current five-year development plan on the Outer Continental Shelf for offshore oil and gas exploration as well as review the regulations and permitting process for development and seismic research.

The E.O. reviews every offshore area and could lead to future opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, and off Alaska’s coast. In other words, there will be a comprehensive, strategic look at how we can safely develop all our offshore energy resources–oil, natural, gas, and wind.

Map of U.S. offshore oil and natural gas resources

Source: American Petroleum Institute.

Specifically about the Arctic, the E.O. reverses President Obama’s attempt to permanently block future energy development in the Arctic Ocean. This could open the door to accessing the 34 billion barrels of oil and the 60 billion barrels (equivalent) of natural gas below the Arctic coast of the U.S.

National Petroleum Council chart on Arctic energy resources.

Source: National Petroleum Council.

What’s more, not only does the E.O. re-evaluate what areas would be open to offshore energy development, but it also reviews nearly a dozen Interior Department rules issued by the Obama administration.

All in all it’s a benefit for energy security. “President Trump has made it clear that developing and producing more American energy is a win for the economy and for American families,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. “We whole heartedly agree.”

MORE ARTICLES ON:ENERGY

RELATED ARTICLES: 

California again leads list with 6 of the top 10 most polluted U.S. cities

The State of American Energy is Strong

This Experiment Could Mean Big Things for Oil in Alaska

Ecosexuals Believe Having Sex with the Earth Could Save It

The title of this article is not a joke, neither is it fake news nor political satire. It is the title of an article by Neil McArthur from Vice.com.

McArthur reports:

From skinny dippers to people who have actual intercourse with nature, ecosexuality is a growing movement taking a new approach to combatting climate change.

If you happen to find yourself in Sydney this week, you have the unique opportunity to have sex with the earth. You just need to stop by the “ecosexual bathhouse,” which is currently part of the Syndey LiveWorks Festival of experimental art. The bathhouse is an interactive installation created by artists Loren Kronemyer and Ian Sinclair of Pony Express, who described the work to me as a “no-holds-barred extravaganza meant to dissolve the barriers between species as we descend into oblivion” as the result of our global environmental crisis. But they also see their piece as a part of a much larger ecosexual movement, which they say is gathering momentum around the world.

And they may be right. Jennifer Reed, a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is writing a dissertation on ecosexuality, and says that the number of people who identify as ecosexuals has increased markedly in the past two years. And Google search data confirms that interest in the term has spiked dramatically over the past year. We may look back on 2016 as the year ecosexuality hit the mainstream.

Ecosexuality is a term with wide-ranging definitions, which vary depending on who you ask.

Read more…

According to Wikipedia, “Earth religion is a term used mostly in the context of neopaganism.”

I wish after reading McArthur’s column I could find a way to justify this renewal of barbarism, this neopaganism. But I can’t.

If this isn’t worshiping a false idol I don’t know what is.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of participants at the Ecosexual Bathhouse by the art group Pony Express. Photo by Matt Sav