Tag: energy

I Would Do Anything for the Planet, But I Won’t Do That

Reason writer Ronald Bailey hung out with some of the recent climate protesters at the People’s Climate March. I’ve written about their convenient embrace of science when it suits their biases before, but Bailey really gets into the awful thinking that underpins much of the modern environmental movement:

Among the chief capitalist villains: Monsanto. The assembled marchers fervently damned the crop biotechnology company despite the fact that modern high yield biotech crops cut CO2 emissions by 13 million tons in 2012-the equivalent of taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year. By making it possible to grow more calories on less land, biotech crops helped conserve 123 million hectares from 1996 to 2012. Many of the protesters oddly believe that eating locally grown organic crops-which require more labor and land to produce less food- will somehow help stop global warming. Vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, researchers estimate that lab-grown meat could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent relative to farmed meat.

Fracking aggravated a lot of the demonstrators. Artful placards alluded to another f-word as a way of indicating displeasure. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water. Yet just the week before the parade, new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by research teams led by the Ohio State University’s Thomas Darrah and the U.S. Department of Energy found that the controversial technique to produce natural gas does not contaminate groundwater. And never mind that burning natural gas produces about half of the carbon dioxide that burning coal does.

Another low-carbon energy source was also a cause of stress for the demonstrators: nuclear power. Some demanded that the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River be closed down. This particular petition is just perverse, since nuclear power is a big part of why New Yorkers emit a relatively low average of 8 tons of carbon dioxide per person each year, compared with the U.S. average of 16.4 tons per capita.

There is no such thing as perfect energy technology. Even solar and wind involve massive land use, enormous rare earth metal consumption and, at present, fossil fuel backup. Moreover, wind and solar are limited in the absence of a revolution in battery technology. You can’t run airplanes or big cargo ships on alternative energy. You can barely run cars on them.

Until a revolutionary technology is developed, the best way to fight global warming is to delay it as long as possible. GMO crops delay it by decreasing land and fertilizer use. Fracking delays it by cutting carbon emissions in half compared to coal. Nuclear delays it by replacing fossil fuels completely. All of these things have contributed to the US and Europe cutting their carbon emissions without sacrificing economic progress and have bought years, possibly decades, for us to come with a breakthrough technology that can replace fossil fuels.

The problem is that these technologies exist in the real world and the environmentalists want to live in fantasyland, where you can solve complex scientific, technical, social, political and engineering issues with wishcasting and marches; where there are no tradeoffs; where completely revamping our society is something you can do through legislative fiat.

Thankfully, enough people live in the real world that we’re making real progress … without putting capitalism on the funeral pyre.

A Few Quick Thoughts on Keystone XL

Last night, the Senate defeated an effort to push through the Keystone XL pipeline project. This was ostensibly an effort to save Mary Landrieu’s seat in Louisiana. But I doubt passage would saved her.

I’m finding the arguments against Keystone XL severely wanting. Critics points out that most of the jobs created will be temporary. But those same critics insist that we should engage in massive stimulus spending to create … temporary jobs in construction. They also claim getting oil from Canadian sands will contribute to global warming. That’s true, but that’s going to happen anyway. Trans Canada has no intention of leaving that oil in the sand.

Ultimately, this is not about policy, it’s about identity. The opponents want to establish their environmentalist bona fides. They want to show that they care about the planet (although usually not enough to go to school, get an advanced science degree and do something about the planet). I don’t see any reason why we should base policy on that. Keystone XL won’t rescue the economy. But it’s not going to doom the planet either. I tend to default to freedom in that case. Let it get built.

The Fusion Future … Always the Future

So earlier this week, Lockheed-Martin announced a potential breakthrough in the field of nuclear fusion:

Hidden away in the secret depths of the Skunk Works, a Lockheed Martin research team has been working quietly on a nuclear energy concept they believe has the potential to meet, if not eventually decrease, the world’s insatiable demand for power.

Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.

Lockheed says they could have a prototype within five years and be selling the things within ten.

I must admit … I am very skeptical. The Aviation Week articles goes into amazing detail and it … sounds plausible. But I am dubious that it will turn out to be practical, especially that they will have the materials necessary to do it. Still, it’s something to keep in mind for 2024.

I’m not the only one who is skeptical, of course. But what’s surprising is that a huge fraction of the liberal echosphere is not just skeptical, but hostile:

Therefore, I find it frustrating (and only wish I found it surprising) that ThinkProgress, run by people who consider themselves “progressives,” is rushing to pour cold water on the idea because the timeline can’t meet the arbitrary deadline someone in the global-warming PR business has dreamed up. (Really, of course, because cheap non-polluting energy would help reduce the relevance of a bunch of Green ideas about regulating this and subsidizing that, and because at some point after 1973 gloom and fear got to be the official emotions of the progressive movement, when by rights they belongs to conservatives.)

Since there’s no hope in Hell our current set of technical options, working under our current set of political and economic arrangements, are going to stop the rise of GHG levels by 2040, let alone 2020, bellyaching that a game-changing technology might come in a decade or so behind the current unattainable target is plain silly. If all we needed to deal with is a gap of a decade, or even two, there are geoengineering options that could be used to limit the damage in the meantime.

Basically, Think Regress believes that if we don’t cut greenhouse emissions by 2020, the planet is DOOMED. After correctly noting that efficiency has cut energy consumption massively (something that was mostly market-driven) they claim that solar, wind and grid technology could be deployed much faster than this tech could be developed.

As I have noted many times, that’s a liberal fantasy. The cost of switching to alternative energies is estimated to be some $6 trillion per year. That’s assuming you have the capacity to manufacture that tech and the rare earth minerals to build it with. That’s also assuming that you can find some way to store and easily transport energy (and they think fusion is a pipe dream) and that you can cut through the gigantic swathes of red tape.

But I sense more than that. There has always been a whiff of Ludditism in the radical environmental movement. A worship of primitivism and a hatred of modern civilization. In P.J. O’Rourke’s All the Trouble in The World he talks about this trend specifically in the context of nuclear fusion:

People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important. In fact, there’s some evidence that these people want the earth to be worse than it is. Michael Fumento, author of Science Under Siege, has compiled additional damning quotations. Fumento notes that in 1990, when cold-fusion nonsense briefly promised an infinite supply of bargain-priced, ecologically harmless energy, environmental pest Jeremy Rifkin called this, “The worst thing that could happen to our planet.” This is not a new position among the pesky. In a 1977 issue of Mother Earth, Amory Lovins wrote, “it would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it.” And in 1978 the inevitable Paul Ehrlich said, in the Federation of American Scientists’ Public Interest Report, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” (Not a meal, a bath, some toys, and a warm bed or anything like that.)

We’ve seen this split in the environmentalist movement before, over nuclear fission. Sensible environmentalists recognize fission as the lesser of two evils. The luddites oppose it ostensibly for safety but mostly because they don’t really want the problem of global warming to go away. What would they fundraise for and bash Republicans over? And a small faction just don’t want human society to exist at all, or at least not in its current state.

The odds that Lockheed’s breakthrough will work are very low. Even assuming the theory is right, it is likely to trip up on some impossible technical detail. If you want to make the case that we should plan as if nuclear fusion will never happen, go ahead. But to make the argument that nuclear fusion isn’t good enough boggles the mind.

A Real Earth Day

Ah, Earth Day. Usually, I use this space to mock the do-nothing feel-goodism that constitutes the bulk of the environmentalist movement. I’ll point out how they do things like “Earth Hour” where they turn out the lights and light up candles and actually do more damage to the environment in the process.

But this year, I want to do something different. I want to recognize the things that are benefiting the environment and truly making the Earth a better and cleaner place.

  • Hydrofracking and the natural gas boom have resulted in the United States being one of the only countries to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, despite not signing the Kyoto Protocol, the United States easily met its standards … without wrecking the economy (or at least, not wrecking it through environmental policy). By replacing more carbon-intense fuels, natural gas is buying years, possibly decades, to address the problem of global warming. And concerns over contamination of groundwater have turned out to be overblown.
  • Nuclear Power is the only alternative energy that functions on a large scale. It uses 10-100 times less land per kilowatt hour than comparable alternative energy and makes far less of a mess, even accounting for the meltdowns at Fukushima and Three Mile Island. New technology, such as pebble-bed reactors, promise to make this energy source even safer and more efficient. And nuclear fusion continues to make slow progress.
  • Mass transportation and free trade allow food to be grown in environments that are ideal and then shipped all over the world. Because transportation uses far less energy than raising and maintaining crops or animals in imperfect environments, the result, contra the “food miles” idiots, is less energy consumption, less resource consumption and lower food prices.
  • While we’re on the subject, Genetically Modified Organisms are increasing crop yields while using less land, less fertilizer and less dangerous pesticides. And they have yet to produce a single attack of killer tomatoes.
  • Capitalism has made a clean environment a consumer good. Consumer pressure has done more to improve the environment than every United Nations treaty combined. Capitalist countries are much cleaner, much more efficient and much more environmentally conscious than command-and-control economies. If you think top-down economies are better for the environment, I invite you to go to random city in China and a take a deep searing breath.
  • If people really want to do some good for the planet, they can go to school and learn about it. They can learn the laws of physics, biology and chemistry. They can study engineering and develop the technology to produce food and energy at an ever smaller cost to the environment. If they don’t have the ability to do science, they can build businesses to exploit those technologies and bring them to market. And failing that, they can at least align their politics with markets, freedom and technological innovation — the things that have really cleaned up the environment, the forces that have every environmental indicator, apart from greenhouse gases, moving in the right direction.

    Anything else is intellectual masturbation. Turning out your lights for an hour and using recycled toothpaste may make you feel like you’re helping the planet. But the people who are really saving the world are too busy working in labs, classrooms and boardrooms to be bothered with this nonsense.

    Slowly, the Truth About Ethanol Emerges

    We’ve talked quite a bit about the dangerous delusion of ethanol fuel. It creates (maybe) as much energy as it consumes, so it doesn’t actually benefit our energy situation. It diverts corn to fueling cars instead of people, thus raising global food prices and causing hunger. It tears up engines. It doesn’t benefit the economy. And … to cap it off … it actually harms the environment.

    Conservatives and libertarians have been saying this for a decade. Looks like the AP finally caught on:

    But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

    As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

    Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama’s watch.

    Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

    Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can’t survive.

    The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

    All right, let’s take on that last part first. I don’t know of a polite way to say this but … to hell with the farming industry. I am sick and tired of Washington’s romantic vision of farming and anything that can remotely be called farming. We’re not talking about Ma and Pa Kettle tending their 40 acres like my grandparents did; this is Monsanto and DuPont and other mega-businesses raking in tons of money to rape the land. This is driving family farmers to ruin their own plots. One of the main characters in the AP’s report is a family farmer debating whether to ruin his 91 acres while out-of-towners buy up the entire county and plow up the land for corn. Ethanol isn’t <>Little House on the Prairie.

    The key to understanding the Obama Administration has never been their supposed socialism or radicalism or Alinskyism or whatever else Sean Hannity has been talking about this week; it’s how much they bend and sway for every big special interest group out there. The healthcare reform bill was practically written by insurance lobbyists and honed by union lobbyists. Their labor policies are entirely dictated by union money. They never proposed a serious alternative to the sequester because they couldn’t figure out which special interest to sell out in favor of the others.

    And their “environmental” policy is not dictated by science, data or any concern for the Earth. It’s dictated by alternative energy interests. It’s dictated by campaign contributors and bundlers. And it is dictated by the massive ethanol lobby that continue to rake in billions from this planet-befouling, car-destroying, economy-crippling poison. And the only reason there is now a growing pushback? Because some lobbyists are now aligning against ethanol.

    You should read the entire article, which is long but worth your time. The idiocy and mendacity of the Administration would be astounding except that it’s what we’ve gotten used to from these clowns. They are puzzled that artificially driving up the price of corn has resulted in … people growing far more corn than the environment can realistically support. They’ve turned back decades of progress that has seen crop yields boom while land use, fertilizer use and pollution have fallen. In some areas, they are driving us toward a second Dust Bowl. Remember when Obama used to say no lobbyists would work in his Administration? Yeah, he had ethanol lobbyists and their adherents on his staff.

    Ironically, it was the EPA that saw what was coming and tried to warn them about it. The Administration responded by — tell me if this sounds familiar — forcing the EPA to change its analysis until it produced the conclusion they wanted.

    This is a catastrophe. And the people who should be leading the charge against ethanol are Obama’s own dim-bulb supporters. I can guarantee you that if five million acres of conservation land disappeared under Bush, the environmentalist would be going completely apeshit. But the most we’re getting is polite missives and “concern” and a thousandth of the protest we’d get if Mitt Romney squashed a daisy.

    How Not to Fight Global Warming

    Following on Alex’s post about the booming energy sector, you should check out this report from Der Spiegel about the disaster that is Germany’s green energy sector:

    For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.

    If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the “phantom electricity” the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as “negative electricity prices.”

    On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That’s when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany’s energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

    Emphasis mine. New gas plants are able to cut greenhouse gas emission in half through better engineering and using gas instead of coal. But somehow, green energy is increasing greenhouse gas emissions (although that may partially be because Germany is foolishly phasing our nuclear power).

    It actually gets worse. Big factories are being told to shut down when energy use exceeds capacity. Spiking energy prices and taxes are incredibly hard on poor Germans, with some 300,000 having the power shut off every year for delinquent bills. The soaring bills are mainly going into some 4,000 different subsidies that mainly go to affluent people who can afford to dabble in green energy.

    I should point that Der Spiegel is not a conservative rag that opposes green energy. What they actually are suggesting is modeling Germany’s energy policy after Sweden’s, which abandoned micromanaging in favor of overall mandates on renewable energy. This has allowed Swedish energy interests to invest in whatever technology is most promising (mainly hydroelectric, but many greens don’t like hydro). For the US, a better policy might be a carbon tax, which attempt to fold in the environmental cost of CO2 into the cost of carbon energy and could be balanced by cutting or eliminating corporate income taxes. But however you look at it, the system of micro-management and subsidies is a disaster.

    Long term, the only solution to global warming is technological innovation. The current version of solar and wind are not up to replacing fossil fuels. The energy grid is not efficient enough. And there is no way of storing energy effectively. Here’s a question: will German businesses and universities make big breakthroughs in dark rooms? Will they make them when their industry can’t run because there is no power? Will they do it through a maze of red tape, subsidies and mandates?

    The good news is that we have time to back away from this foolishness. The latest data show that global warming has slowed, as it did in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and climate sensitivity may have been overestimated. We have a lot more time to deal with this than we thought — decades more. That means we don’t have to break our civilization on the alter of wind turbines to stop global warming NOW RIGHT NOW. We have time to unshackle industry, fund basic research and make the true breakthroughs that will give our economy the same boost 20 years from now that fracking and shale are giving it now.

    Nukes Save Lives


    A study published recently in Environmental Science and Technology by scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute adds heft to that argument, indicating just how much human life nuclear power may have saved over the years. To wit, researchers estimate nuclear power has prevented more than 1.8 million deaths due to air pollution between 1971 and 2009.

    Given our fears, the findings are counterintuitive. But they’re persuasive. Those lives were spared, researchers say, because nuclear power spared the earth’s atmosphere 64 gigatons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions. What’s more, they argue, an additional 80 to 240 gigatons and up to 7 million deaths could be prevented by around 2050 if we replace some of our fossil fuels with nuclear power over time.

    Mother Jones actually misquotes the study, I think. The 1.8 million lives were spared by dint of reduced pollution in the form of particulate matter (soot, sulphur dioxide, etc). That’s fewer heart attacks, lung cancers, etc. because people haven’t been breathing as much shit into their lungs. Nuclear power also saved 64 billion tons in CO2 emissions but there is no way to realistically correlate that to lives saved.

    I’m suspicious of studies like this even when they reinforce my beliefs (especially when they do). But their number is, if not in the ballpark, at least on the highway to the ballpark. The number could be a lot less (which they acknowledge). But they would have to be way WAY off for the lives saved by nuclear power to be less than the 5000 they estimate to have been lost to it (from accidents and radiation).

    Nuclear power is not perfect. But, of the realistic alternatives we have right now, it is the least harmful to the environment. It should be at the heart of any discussion about the future of energy.

    Everything You Know About Alternative Energy is Wrong

    A trio of articles published in the last week blow the doors off everything the media has been telling us about alternative energy. The first two are from Bjorn Lomborg, the economist who accepts that global warming is real but rails against top-down economy-crushing solutions (his “Cool It!” documentary is worth a look).

    First, the electric car: the salvation to our energy and climate woes. How is that doing? Certainly it must be … oh:

    While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

    So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

    To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: “Don’t Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much.”

    For an electric car to have net environmental benefit, you would have to drive it for 90,000 miles between battery changes and get all your electricity from carbon-free sources. Even then, you’ve only cut 24% off the emission of a similar gas-powered car. Frankly, I think engineering more efficient gasoline engines would be a more practical way of cutting emissions. And we’re subsidizing this crap to the tune of thousands of dollars per car.

    Well, you say, maybe the electric car isn’t as huge a thing as we thought it would be. But we have to subsidize green tech and put cap-in-trade in place. Look how well it’s working in Europe!

    Yeah, about that:

    Yesterday, we saw how Great Britain’s much-hyped carbon reductions have simply been exported to China.

    The same holds true for the much of the developed world 1990-2008. We see how the US has increased its territorial (domestic) CO2 emissions, but Europe has reduced its emissions, as has the Former Soviet Union (rest of Annex B). The reductions in the FSU are mainly from the collapse in 1991. But the much vaulted EU reduction is exactly the same as the increased CO2 emissions import just from China. Overall, the EU emissions have increased, not as the national accounts seem to indicate, decreased.

    This matters because when nations claim to be able to cut CO2, it often simply means that they have exported the CO2 emissions to somewhere else, leaving them feeling better, but obviously with no real environmental benefit.

    Actually the evil, capitalist United States is seeing CO2 emissions fall in real terms as we switch from coal power to gas power. And economically, the greenhouse emissions per dollar of GDP has fallen dramatically owing to improvements in the technology of household appliances, computers and lighting — stuff companies are investing in anyway.

    So, subsidized tech isn’t saving the planet. But hey! At least it will stimulate the economy. After all, if we don’t go all-in, we’ll stay behind the Chinese in … oh:

    So China must hold a massively large trade surplus in clean energy with America, right? Quite the opposite, finds a striking report titled “Advantage America” released on March 6th. The two countries traded about $6.5 billion in solar, wind and smart-grid technology and services in 2011—and America sold $1.63 billion more of such kit to China than it imported from there. The analysis was done by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), an industry publisher, and funded the Pew Charitable Trusts, a charity.

    So let’s summarize. Continuing to pressure Americans to use alternative energy and subsidize alternative energy is not cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The European model on which these policies are based is only shifting greenhouse gas emissions. And they really can’t be justified economically as some “green energy boom” because we are already exporting the clean energy technology that is actually useful.

    So why do we need to do this? Oh, yeah. Wealthy donors need to have their businesses propped up. And here I was thinking it was about the science.

    Gassed Out

    I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago about how awesome natural gas is as a source of energy. That doesn’t mean I’m fine with stuff like this:

    In August 2011, the City Council of Boulder, Colorado, referred two ballot measures to voters. One authorized the city to take over (or “municipalize”) the privately owned utility that provides Boulder’s electricity. The second measure imposed a modest tax on ratepayers to finance the takeover and convert the utility from coal to natural gas.

    The initiative passed. Amazingly, the Spectator portrays this as a good thing: that the citizens of Boulder, in the face of an “astroturf” campaign of a company trying to defend their interests, deprived their fellows citizens of their property rights (this isn’t an eminent domain issue; energy is a “public use”). Boulder is also pushing to go 90% renewable. We’ll see how that goes. Forbes warned a month ago that such efforts often massively underestimate the cost and technical problems connected with such municipalization schemes. You can’t just wave a magic wand and cause renewable energy to appear because you want it to.

    We may see more of this in the future as the Left becomes more frustrated with their inability to foist “green” energy on us. And, of course, they’ll find some other industry to blame when these schemes completely fail.


    Now that energy secretary Chu admitted during testimony to congress that this administrations actually understands what they are doing is going to jack up energy prices and will do nothing to mediate that, can we stop pretending that these people want high gas prices?

    COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.

    Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.

    Yahoo is trying real hard to put a positive spin on this revelation, and Chu was forced this morning to recant on that admission, but those of us paying at the pump that are stuck with the pain, while our credentialed elite jet set and live large, now have proof we where right that was the plan from the start. Look, the left wants us off fossil fuels and dependant on the unproven, unreliable, and incapable of producing the needed energy technologies that their green bullshit initiatives will produce, while making these of them part of that insider lop – that’s people like you Al Gore! – stinking rich. We can now stop arguing if what they are saying means we are going to have to pay a lot more for energy, because in a candid moment we have the guy leading the effort to bring us these sky high prices admitting that’s the plan.

    This is more of the same from the WH that claimed they had a “jobs” policy, only that policy seems to have been about protecting democrat constituents and their power. We need to do away with these people, and do so fast, unless we are content to have them set the standard of living for all of us not part of their special circle to tat of Bangladesh. Stop trying to get us off oil and making leftist investors in green energy rich, and give the people a damned break already. They are not doing this for our own good. Don’t believe that lie. This is so these poverty pimps can make astronomical amounts of money and gain even more intrusive and absolute power over the people. That’s the real driver here. It’s what’s behind all this green shit.