Energy Archives - Page 74 of 88

CLEXIT: Science Wins! Trump stomps on climate religion

June 2, 2017/in Energy, Environment, Featured, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Marc 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.’ 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.

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

Lomborg: “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’

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

June 2, 2017/in Energy, Environment, Featured, Labor & Unions, Policy, Politics, Science, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

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

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

May 24, 2017/in Energy, Policy, Politics/by Alex Epstein

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

May 18, 2017/in Culture War, Energy, Policy, Politics, Science/by Alex Epstein

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.

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.

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

May 12, 2017/in Culture War, Energy, Policy, Politics, Video/by Alex Epstein

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:

One 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).

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.

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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

May 4, 2017/in Energy, Policy, Politics, Science/by John Droz, Jr.

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

May 1, 2017/in Energy, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

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:

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

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
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.
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.
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.
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.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Shutterstock.

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

May 1, 2017/in Culture War, Energy, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Science/by Sean Hackbarth

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.

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

April 24, 2017/in Energy, Environment, Policy, Politics, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

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

VIDEO: 1st Anniversary of My Debate with Senator Barbara Boxer on the use of Fossil Fuels

April 14, 2017/in Energy, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Alex Epstein

“I’ll never forget this hearing.” — Senator Barbara Boxer

One year ago today, I testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

My five minute presentation was called “the best five minutes of defense of fossil fuels I have ever seen” by prominent meteorologist, Joe Bastardi.

But the most memorable part of the day was my interaction with Senator Barbara Boxer.

Senator Boxer is a notorious bully of guests she disagrees with. However, she has never tried to bully anyone who a) knows the moral case for fossil fuels and b) has a robust framework for one-on-one communication. (A reminder to get our free Constructive Communication tool at the end of this email.)

Here’s the video of my appearance. If you want to get to my interaction with Boxer, go right to the 7:20 minute mark.

And if you agree with me that the message of this video is still relevant today, please share this video on Facebook, Twitter, or just forward this column!

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. 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.

3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this article and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

PS: I got this feedback in response to a workshop the other week: “It is very encouraging to receive useful tools to help us deal with all-too-common situations we find ourselves in that make us feel very uncomfortable and that we know are just not right…the Constructive Conversation Formula…is fantastic. Doing the role playing and providing examples was absolutely essential”.

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

April 10, 2017/in Energy, Policy, Politics, Science/by John Droz, Jr.

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

I give an enthusiastic endorsement to Alex Epstein’s efforts to assist us ALL in improving our communication on the issues we’re involved with. Please see his excellent document: Constructive Conversation Scorecard.

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

Witnessing wind industry’s influence on the Legislature

The Mafia Is Moving Into Green Energy

The flawed thinking at the heart of the renewable energy swindle

A Requiem for the 2015 Clean Power Plan: It had more flaws than a cheap dirigible

Energy Policy Will Be About Cutting Costs, Not Emissions (!)

Health Canada’s Flawed and Fraudulent Wind Turbine Health Study

Wind Turbines: Unsafe at any distance

ISO acknowledges motion sickness from low-frequency oscillatory motion

Independent Infrasonic Investigations: Golden West Wind Facility, Colorado

Tracking Government subsidies stymied by inconsistent transparency

Comments Against the Proposed Increase of Incidental Take for Hawaii’s Nene and Hoary Bats

Worthwhile website: Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

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

Confessions of a Climate Change “Denier”

Congressional Testimony: Science is a Process

By the Numbers: Ending the Social Cost of Carbon

There is no such thing as a Conservative CO2 Tax Plan

Take-aways from the Heartland Climate Conference

Video of President Trump’s Inspiring NASA Talk

Agenda 21 Course

Sun’s impact on climate change quantified for first time

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.

Pipeline Opponents Push Do-It-Yourself Ecoterrorism Manual

April 7, 2017/in Energy, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Sean Hackbarth

Don’t expect the Pipeline Wars to simmer down, because some radical opponents will go to any lengths to stop them.

Inside Sources reports one group of pipeline protesters is selling an ecoterrorism manual to instruct others on how to fight energy infrastructure projects:

They call it DAM. That’s short for Direct Action Manual. Groups connected to the protest camp for the Mariner East 2 pipeline in Pennsylvania are selling copies for $25. Published by Earth First! — an openly radical environmentalist (sic) group and journal — the manual lays out protest techniques for use by environmentalists. Some of these approaches were even used at the pipeline protests in North Dakota last year. Earth First! supports violent actions against energy infrastructure development and the manual itself is essentially an ecoterrorist’s handbook, laying out techniques and approaches to stop various forms of energy infrastructure development. Now on its third edition, its publishers are supporters of the protest against the Mariner 2 pipeline in Pennsylvania and worked to stop the Keystone XL pipeline in the past.

The report goes into some of the tactics mentioned in the book:

“The possibilities are really endless, and you should let your imagination run wild,” the Direct Action Manual advises. “Do they only value money and property? Some slashed tires, paint stripper, and sand in the gas tank can certainly make them think twice about if their choices are worth it…Channel your inner younger sibling energy and you’ll be sure to make someone’s life hell.”

This is followed by a section detailing how to turn off lights and water at someone’s home or business and recipes for DIY stink bombs and “critter bombs,” involving a dead animal.

Many of those violent tactics were used in the protests surrounding the recently-completed Dakota Access Pipeline: Arson; rioting; vandalism; tires slashed and hoses cut on heavy machinery; construction and security workers attacked; Molotov cocktails launched at police.

What’s more, during the protests, pipeline opponents calling themselves, “Climate Direct Action,” attacked four other pipelines. One expert warned their actions could’ve created a “catastrophic” pipeline disaster.

Now with an energy-friendly president in the White House, it should be easier to get oil and natural gas pipeline projects through the federal permitting process. In response, “Keep it in the ground” folks may resort to more violence to stop them.

Energy infrastructure developers and law enforcement must be vigilant. Also, anyone (or groups) tempted to join these pipeline protests—like celebrities—should think twice about the types of people they may be associating with.

Spirited debate is an American tradition, but it crosses the line when it becomes violent.

MORE ARTICLES ON: ENERGY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s Why We Need to Build More Pipelines

A Historic Moment for U.S. Energy

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Dakota Access Pipeline protesters pinning a security guard against a truck. Photo source: Morton County (N.D.) Sheriff’s Department.

Free ‘Fossil Fuel Energy Stakeholder Strategy Tool’ I Encourage Everyone to Try

March 18, 2017/in Culture War, Energy, Policy, Politics, Science/by Alex Epstein

For the last several years we have worked on creating the most effective messaging strategies, content, and training to:

Neutralize attackers
Turn non-supporters into supporters
Turn supporters into champions.

After working with dozens of companies and other organizations and studying many more, and testing/refining our approach in every medium imaginable with the general public, I am confident that we have developed a system that, if widely adopted in the industry, would transform it from a national thought follower to a national thought leader in the energy debate.

After spending just a few weeks meeting with top executives in Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that I have not done nearly enough to share our system and how well it works.

Thus, I have decided to do two things.

First I am explaining our system to a degree I have never done publicly.

Second, I am making a standalone version our system available, for free, to every organization—so that they can use it to create better communications strategies, persuasive messages, employee training, and executive advocacy.

Today, I want to share our methodology for communications strategy.

Fundamentals of Communications Strategy

At CIP, we are known for our pro-human, big-picture messaging, which we believe is unmatched in neutralizing attackers, turning non-supporters into supporters, and supporters into champions. But for that message or any message to be used effectively, it must be part of a broader strategy—a results-based communications strategy based on clear metrics and proven methods of persuasion.

Too often, organizations use hope-based communications strategies with little/no ROI-related measurement using traditional, ineffectual messages and methods of persuasion. For example, it is common practice to delegate the task of persuasive energy messaging to agencies who are not even themselves convinced of fossil fuels’ goodness. It is also common practice to default to television ads instead of looking at far more cost-effective options.

I have found that every strategy must carefully consider a set of questions I call “the 10 Ms.”

I ask these questions in our Stakeholder Strategy Sessions to elicit all the relevant goals and facts needed to make a results-based communications strategy.

Now I want to encourage teams throughout the industry to use these questions themselves on any project at any time with what I call the Stakeholder Strategizer tool.

You can download it here in Word format so that it’s easy to fill in.

If you’re not in energy communications you still might find it interesting. And if you know anyone in energy communications, please forward it to them.

If you fill one in and want my feedback, just email me.

To get the tool immediately, just click here.

The Return of the Shale Boom

March 15, 2017/in Energy, Labor & Unions, Policy, Politics/by Sean Hackbarth

The shale boom is back.

After a decrease in shale oil production in 2016 we’re seeing an upswing in 2017:

The Energy Information Administration on Monday said it expects an increase in domestic shale-oil production to nearly 5 million barrels a day for April, which would be the highest monthly level in roughly a year.

The EIA offered forecasts for a climb from seven major U.S. shale producers by 109,000 barrels a day to 4.962 million barrels a day in April from March, according to the agencies monthly Drilling Productivity Report.

Source: Energy Information Administration.

Improved Efficiency

During the two-year span of falling oil prices, companies retooled. By employing new technology and rethinking the fracking process, they became more efficient and lowered their “brake-even price,” the lowest oil can be for a producer to recoup its costs.

When oil prices rebounded, companies took advantage and ramped up production.

Big Oil Finds in Texas and Alaska

In addition, as technology and techniques to find and get shale oil continue to advance, more areas become commercially available for production.

For instance, late last year, a massive oil and natural gas field was found in Texas:

Geologists say a new survey shows an oilfield in west Texas dwarfs others found so far in the United States, according to the US Geological Survey.

The Midland Basin of the Wolfcamp Shale area in the Permian Basin is now estimated to have 20 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas, according to a new assessment by the USGS.

That makes it three times larger than the assessment of the oil in the mammoth Bakken formation in North Dakota.

The estimate would make the oilfield, which encompasses the cities of Lubbock and Midland — 118 miles apart — the largest “continuous oil” discovery in the United States, according to the USGS.

And Alaska could be the next fracking frontier:

A pioneer of the U.S. shale revolution wants to take fracking to America’s final frontier. Success could help revive Alaska’s flagging oil fortunes.

Paul Basinski, the geologist who helped discover the Eagle Ford basin in Texas, is part of a fledgling effort on Alaska’s North Slope to emulate the shale boom that reinvigorated production in the rest of the U.S. His venture, Project Icewine, has gained rights to 700,000 acres inside the Arctic Circle and says they could hold 3.6 billion barrels of oil, rivaling the legendary Eagle Ford.

[ … ]

The companies’ first well, Icewine 1, confirmed the presence of petroleum in the shale and found a geology that should be conducive to fracking, Basinski said. Their second well, due to be drilled in the first half of 2017, will fracture a small section of that range and see how readily the oil flows.

“We don’t know what we have yet,” said Michael McFarlane, Burgundy’s president. “We know that the shale has sourced a tremendous amount of oil, but is it commercial? That’s a question that we haven’t answered yet.”

If companies can figure out how to safely get and transport shale oil at a cost that makes business sense, we’ll see it come to market.

Great for U.S. Companies and Workers

Rising domestic energy production is great news for U.S. companies and workers.

Even with the fall in oil prices in the last few years, since President Barack Obama lifted the oil export ban in 2015, exports have surged. As production increases, there will be more opportunity for American workers to satisfy overseas energy appetites.

Abundant shale energy is also good for manufacturing. ExxonMobil recently announced $20 billion in manufacturing investments that will create 45,000 jobs.

After some dark times, it’s looking brighter for American shale energy.

UPDATE: Check out this fascinating 360-degree video from a drilling rig in Texas’ Permian Basin.

MORE ARTICLES ON: ENERGY

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Evidence that the Energy Revolution has Sparked a Manufacturing Renaissance in the U.S. by Karen Alderman Harbert

How to Think About NAFTA as the U.S.-Mexico Energy Landscape Changes by Sean Hackbarth

EDITORS NOTE: An oil rig worker in the Permian basin outside of Midland, Texas. Photo credit: Brittany Sowacke/Bloomberg

President Trump’s First 50 Days of Action: Achieving Results for the American People

March 12, 2017/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Economy, Energy, Environment, Featured, Healthcare, National Security, Policy, Regulation, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

JUMPSTARTING JOB CREATION: President Donald J. Trump is looking out for the American workers who Washington has left behind.

President Trump has worked with the private sector to deliver tens of thousands of new jobs for Americans.
President Trump ordered the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and negotiations.
President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete its construction.
President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to help ensure that new pipeline construction and repair work use materials and equipment from the United States.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT RED TAPE: President Trump has quickly taken steps to get the Government out of the way of job creation.

President Trump directed each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to identify costly and unnecessary regulations in need of modification or repeal.
President Trump has required that for every new Federal regulation, two existing regulations be eliminated.
President Trump directed the Department of Commerce to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturers.
President Trump signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 38, to prevent the burdensome “Stream Protection Rule” from causing further harm to the coal industry.
President Trump ordered the review of the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” known as the WOTUS rule, to evaluate whether it is stifling economic growth or job creation.

REFORMING WASHINGTON: President Trump has taken actions to reform the old Washington way of doing business and to ensure that his entire Administration are working for the American people.

President Trump put in place a hiring freeze for Federal civilian employees to stop the further expansion of an already bloated government.
President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees, putting in place a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments, so that appointees serve the American people instead of their own interests.

PUTTING PATIENT HEALTHCARE FIRST: After years of false promises, rising costs, and shrinking accessibility, President Trump is championing reforms to put patients first.

President Trump has supported efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal the worst parts of Obamacare and replace them with the American Health Care Act.
President Trump acted on his first day in office to instruct Federal agencies to minimize the burden of Obamacare on Americans.

PRIORITIZING AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY: President Trump has taken action to ensure the safety and security of the United States homeland, its borders, and its people.

Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of the Treasury sanctioned 25 entities and individuals involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program.
President Trump implemented new protections against foreign terrorists entering our country.
President Trump has proposed increasing the military’s budget by $54 billion so that it can begin to rebuild.
As a result of a Presidential Memorandum President Trump signed on January 28, he has received a plan to defeat ISIS designed by the Secretary of Defense and other members of his Cabinet.
President Trump ordered a review of military readiness and made it the policy of the United States to rebuild the United States’ Armed Forces.
President Trump has negotiated to bring down the price of the F-35, saving millions of dollars.

DELIVERING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM: President Trump has made enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws a priority of his Administration.

President Trump signed an Executive Order to start work on a southern border wall.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to enhance the public safety of Americans through enforcement of immigration laws.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to halt funding to jurisdictions in the United States that do not comply with Federal immigration rules.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to begin the removal of illegal immigrants who have committed certain crimes.
Following through on President Trump’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security will hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and agents and 5,000 border patrol agents.

RESTORING PUBLIC SAFETY TO AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: President Trump is following through on his promise to restore public safety for all Americans.

President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who engage in crimes against law enforcement officers.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a task force, led by the Attorney General, to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across America.
President Trump signed an Executive Order re-focusing the Federal Government’s energy and resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, such as drug cartels.

HELPING WOMEN AND MINORITIES SUCCEED: President Trump knows the country cannot reach its potential unless every American has a chance to prosper.

President Trump signed an Executive Order strengthening and repositioning the Historically Black Colleges and Universities initiatives within the White House to foster better opportunities in higher education.
President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders.
President Trump signed into law the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act to encourage the National Science Foundation’s entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world.
President Trump signed into law the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act to encourage women to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), pursue careers in aerospace, and further advance the nation’s space science and exploration efforts.

KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION: President Trump promised a U.S. Supreme Court justice in the mold of late Justice Antonin Scalia selected from his previously announced list of 20 judges

President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court because of his consistent record defending the Constitution.

Climate Depot Round Up

RELATED LINKS:

Dilbert Exposes Climate “Science”

Fundamentals of Communications Strategy

Improved Efficiency

Big Oil Finds in Texas and Alaska

Great for U.S. Companies and Workers