Posted on 11/05/2024 3:48:48 AM PST by MtnClimber
In a post on October 23, I noted that, during this election cycle, “energy realism” has suddenly become a positive electoral issue for Republicans. The positive electoral effect comes from pointing out that a forced energy transition increases consumer costs, limits choice, and destroys jobs. Examples cited included President Trump’s use in his campaign in Michigan of the Biden-Harris regulations restricting combustion vehicles, and his use in Pennsylvania of Harris statements that she would ban fracking.
But there is another approach out there to the subject of energy realism, which has been taken up by many Republican candidates and energy think tanks. That approach goes by the name “all of the above.” The idea is that the government’s policy should be to allow and/or support all forms of energy development. After all, won’t allowing or supporting all forms of energy maximize consumer choice? And, to the extent that some renewables get into the mix, we could also “reduce emissions,” at least by a little. It’s a win, win!
Actually, not. In practice, “all of the above” is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don’t work and the drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we’re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.
A leading example of a think tank pushing the “all of the above” agenda is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, or CRES. CRES characterizes itself as “a right-of center non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that engages policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation’s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America’s competitive edge.” CRES’s own website doesn’t provide many details about who might be behind it. Wikipedia provides at least a little useful information, including that it was founded by “Republican grassroots organizer James Dozier” in 2013, and that it received a $1 million grant in 2018 from the MacArthur Foundation. The MacArthur Foundation doesn’t sound very “right-of-center.”
At the CRES Annual Report, we learn about their “Vision” and their “Mission.” Here’s the Vision:
Our goal is to lower global emissions through U.S. policymaking to maintain a clean environment and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
And the Mission:
CRES engages Republican policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation’s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America’s competitive edge.
Perhaps you are starting to see why these guys might be more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.
The President of CRES is Heather Reams. On October 30 Reams published a piece at RealClearEnergy with the headline “Keep Conservative Climate Champions in Congress 2024.” The gist of the piece is to advocate for the “all of the above” energy policy, and to support Republican Congresspeople who adopt that messaging. Excerpt:
Electing members of Congress who champion an all-of-the-above energy approach to reducing emission should be a no-brainer. That’s why CRES endorseda slate of 40 House and Senate Republican candidates ahead of the November election. These proven leaders have consistently shown a commitment to addressing climate change through American innovation, clean energy advancement and thoughtful policy discussions.
So what, in Reams’s conception, does “all of the above” encompass? In this piece, she first mentions some members who have advocated for “nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower.” So far so good. But it quickly goes downhill from there. Next up is advocacy for “green energy tax credits.”
And over at the CRES website, it goes from bad to worse:
- “CRES Applauds Funding Awards for Carbon Capture”
- “CRES supports efforts to reduce industrial emissions,” including by federal subsidies to “decarbonize chemicals,” “decarbonize steel,” “decarbonize food and beverage products,” “decarbonize paper and forest products,” and so on and on.
- “CRES endorsed the [package of four bills to support the adoption of hydrogen technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] because hydrogen technologies are critical to U.S. efforts to lower global emissions, promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and leverage domestic manufacturing to create American jobs.”
- “CRES commends Congress for working together to pass record federal energy research and development funding.”
And those are just a sample. They completely buy into the idea that the source of the people’s wealth is the distribution of federal handouts and subsidies, and that with enough federal funding we can have an energy system consisting of whatever the powers in Washington want it to be.
It’s a little late for this election cycle, but I would highly suggest that it is time to ditch this nonsense. Renewables (and carbon capture, and hydrogen) either don’t work or are hugely too expensive or dangerous or all of those things. That’s the winning message.
I don’t think it is the job of the unicorn worshippers to use government force to shape anything.
Manhattan Contrarian Ping
“I don’t think it is the job of the unicorn worshippers to use government force to shape anything.”
The “unicorn worshippers” are just the useful idiots that enable the Deep State to extract more money from the private sector for their own purposes.
All of the above with subsidies for none.
Which effectively means goodbye Gaia Worship because we all know Wind and Solar can’t compete without massive subsidies.
I partially agree and partially disagree. Energy diversification for the sake of carbon emission reduction is a boondoggle.
Energy diversification for developing robust energy sources and global independence falls under the umbrella of national security to me. Also, it can smooth supply shocks and disruption due to geopolitical upheaval.
There are real environmental realists up there:
Heartland Institute
CO2 Coalition
And many more!
I hope Trump rehires Prof. Happer.
“all of the above” is the right policy as long as each one of us is allowed to freely choose from all of the above.
Good. So long as energy diversification does NOT include any sort of government subsidy or ban.
Exactly. The open market will develop the best approaches.
You mean like we do now with oil? We subsidize oil in many ways. From sending money to exporting countries, to getting involved in military operations over oil stability.
I don’t mind a little bit of subsidization if it is under the umbrella of national security.
Natural Gas and Nuclear is the way to go for cheaper electricity and less pollution. CO2 is plant food not a pollutant. By product of natural gas is H2O and CO2. When CO2 is high plant life flourishes on earth and thus all life flourishes. Geologically speaking we are in a CO2 drought.
Yes. No government subsidies.
How can wind & solar be made very efficient & enough so to compete very well with other more conventional forms of energy? As I understand it, both of these forms require vast amounts of land that negate any other uses for that land.
That is why it has to be left to the market. Costs will determine then, what methods are used. It turns out that windmills require a lot of maintenance and a lot of plastic which comes from petroleum. Solar panels get trashed in bad storms. Alternate energy, to be any sort of cost effective must come from nuclear or thermonuclear and we still have to have petroleum because everything requires plastic. If there is some other solution out there we are much more apt to find it by leaving the government entirely out of it. Then entrepreneurs or big companies will compete with each other to find the lowest cost most profitable way to get energy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.