By David Holt
January 22, 2024
As 2024 unfurls, it’s worth putting a few things in context. While we may have seen a slight dip in gasoline prices, we’re still paying prices last seen 12 years ago. Add in persistent inflation that still brings sticker shock at the grocery store and interest rates last seen in the 1980s, and it is clear Americans will enter the election with money on their minds.
There is one important financial thread we all need to pay attention to, and that is energy costs. Lower energy prices spark lower prices for our essentials – food, housing, and transportation – including every gift you sent during the holiday season, whether by U.S. Mail, UPS, FedEx or Amazon. Conversely, higher energy prices mean higher everything prices because energy is literally an inescapable factor in every economic calculation.
This is the broad message I delivered in testimony during a Congressional hearing on Jan. 11, at the kind invitation of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Against this concerning energy backdrop, it behooves American voters to support candidates who, regardless of party, back sensible energy policies that deliver abundant, affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible energy.
Right now, the United States in 2023 is expected to have produced more natural gas and oil in a year than any nation, ever, according to the latest U.S. government data. This is a great achievement – coupled with our increasing use of renewable energy – but is generally viewed in a negative light by extreme activists and a few fellow travelers in government. This is a mistaken, sad response to an achievement that – if allowed to continue – will do more for our economy, our households, and our environment than the myriad of government controls being offered.
America’s energy success is borne largely of entrepreneurship and market competition, and comes despite a federal administration and a few states intent on throwing every regulatory and bureaucratic impediment in the way. That playbook has included, among other things:
· Ignoring laws passed by Congress requiring an oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico until forced to do so by a federal court
· A 500-day delay in a legally required offshore leasing plan
· The fewest onshore and offshore lease sales in history
· Constantly delaying and changing the rules to permit much-needed pipelines and transmission that would help keep electricity rates low for Americans.
The current Administration’s M.O. from day one has been to attack and limit domestic energy production, by issuing restrictions, delays and numerous economically self-defeating energy regulations. These include policies restricting the use of natural gas and targeting natural gas appliances – water heaters, furnaces and even the gas stovetops that a majority of Americans love – without any plan for how all that new electricity will be generated.
Although the stated impetus for these policies is something we all agree is important – an improved environment – the evidence is crystal-clear from California to New York to Europe that these policies trigger higher costs, restrict consumer freedom-of-choice and require us to use higher-emitting sources of energy to make up the predictable supply shortfall.
In other words, the environment loses.
Ordinary people lose, too.
Retail residential electricity rates slowed their rise in 2023 but still were still climbing in October, the latest data available. Although electricity pricing is complex, one of the biggest factors is the cost of fuel – once again, when supply is restricted in the face of unyielding demand, prices climb. This is what makes unwise, restrictive energy policies so expensive.
In states like California, New York and Massachusetts, where energy sources are limited by government fiat, rates have risen higher than elsewhere. The cold weather across the nation this month has shown that regional grid managers are right to have shouted from the housetops about near-term blackout worries.
Already, many elected leaders who have opposed traditional fuels are signaling they may have been shortsighted, or are trying to deflect blame and keep the cost quiet.
California has kept its Diablo Canyon nuclear facility and several natural gas power plants online longer than planned because the state doesn’t have enough generating capacity. It’s already importing more energy from neighboring states, increasing what are already some of the highest electricity rates in America.
All this is occurring while the U.S. leads the world in carbon reduction. In fact, since 1990, the U.S. has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% while the rest of the world has increased theirs by over 18%.
What conclusion can we draw from all this? It clear that curtailing energy production and consumer choice is costing families and businesses greatly while generating a federal debt that is unsustainable – and now exceeds $100,000 per American. All while we are already marching toward ever-improving environmental performance and ever-greater energy diversity – and we acknowledge that more needs to be done.
A sensible U.S. energy policy is essential. Cries to ban one energy resource for another should be cast aside in favor of non-partisan, broad-choice energy solutions.
For all of us, energy is a central part of every day, all but taken for granted as it underpins our economy, our lives and our future. Energy should not be a partisan issue, especially when higher prices affect us first through our bills and second, when those costs are passed on to us through the goods and services we buy, which drives inflation. Those in poverty and on fixed incomes are hurt the most.
If we all bear that big picture in mind, regardless of party, our ballot-box decisions should become self-evident. Are we for affordable progress and future prosperity, or failed ideas that remove freedoms and raise the cost of living?
David Holt is president of Consumer Energy Alliance, a U.S. consumer energy and environment advocate supporting affordable, reliable energy for working families, seniors and businesses across the country.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. “Renewable” energy is negative EROEI and negative ROI (without taxpayer subsidies/reliable power customer rate surcharges).
Solar, wind, etc., should NOT be promoted. At all.
2. The “stated impetus” for pushing “renewables” and banning fossil fuel energy is NOT an “improved environment.”
The anti-reliable energy gang uses anti-data conjecture about human CO2 emissions to push their “renewables” scams.
“FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE” is their loudly stated goal.
3. “Carbon” reduction is, far from being an admirable achievement, patently STUPID.
CO2 emissions are a GOOD thing for the planet. At worst, they have only a negligible effect.
**************
So, yes, data-driven energy policy is essential to prosperity and a meaningfully clean environment. Reducing CO2 emissions is not only unnecessary, but destroys prosperity.
Solution:
TRUMP 2024!
That should be up in flashing lights.
Judging by the falling GDP, destroying prosperity seems to be the feature not the bug.
OTOH, there are plenty of grifters who are making serious bank on shorting a molecule.
In the US the GDP unexpectedly increased last quarter.
What falling GDP?
Real GDP increased 2.5 percent in 2023 (from the 2022 annual level to the 2023 annual level), compared with an increase of 1.9 percent in 2022. The second half of 2023 was stronger than the first half.
The US economy is so strong the next major move is likely to be down rather than up.
Stock market averages are at all time highs
Unemployment is low
Home prices are high
Inflation is low — 3.4% year over year in December 2023
If you start it like this everyone will know that the rest is probably wrong too.
If you think Janice is wrong, you are almost certainly economically and technically challenged and highly gullible.
I repeat what I said before, ‘gullible’ implies that the liar doesn’t know that he’s lying.
Think she is probably right about EROI and certainly right about ROI. The problem in both cases is the costs additional to the installation of a given facility. Put up a wind farm in the North Sea, and so far you have nothing usable. Put up a solar farm in some flat sunny area of the UK, same thing.
If you were relying on either one, or both together, as the source of power to manufacture either more turbines or more solar panels, you would not even get started. And if you offered the product of either one to an electricity supply company in a free market, you’d get no buyers at any price close to writing off what the system cost.
The only way people get to pretend that wind and solar are cost effective is to use ‘levelized costs’ and leave out all the costs of making the intermittent supply into something usable. Levelized costs also distorts the profitability picture by assuming that power generated when it cannot be used for lack of demand is as equally valuable as power generated when there is demand. Another way of expressing this is that it overstates the capacity factor. If you generate 30% of faceplate on average through a given year, but 10% of your output is when there is no demand, your actual factor is 20%.
The central problem in both cases is intermittency. Wind is unreliable and unpredictable, solar is predictable but only works part of the day and even then part of the year. By the time you allow for storage to make them both usable, and transmission to get whatever they deliver to where its usable, and reckon with the fact that they are often producing unusable product, renewable costs far more than conventional, and almost certainly does not produce over its lifetime the energy required to replace it.
Now, whether Trump is the answer to this conundrum….? That’s a whole different question and the answer is best left to the reader….
Explain
If you start it with Lusername everyone knows for certain that the rest is wrong, griff.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Every word you write should cause an anaphylactic reaction among the green gestapo due to their severe allergy to truth. Keep it coming!
Thank you! 😀 Never fear… 🤨😏
Excellent points Janice.
One comment on the solution though. If we don’t have a significant conservative majority in the Senate and the House, just electing Trump isn’t going to produce anything but more chaos, or at best a 4-year pause in the population replacement program.
There must be meaningful reversals in policy and actual mass deportation just to stabilize the situation. It’s almost too late.
Thank you.
Restated Solution: TRUMP 2024 and policies and … Then, FREE MARKET, DATA-DRIVEN, POLICY POTUS 2028, 2032, etc.
Pew Research says 67 % of American adults want the US to take steps to become carbon-neutral by 2050 versus 23 % who don’t.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Gallup says by a 59% to 35% majority, the public believes the nation should emphasize the development of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power over producing energy from oil, gas, and coal.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/473810/sharply-fewer-energy-situation-serious.aspx#:~:text=By%20an%20even%20larger%20margin,from%20oil%2C%20gas%20and%20coal.
The brainwashing has been very extensive and inclusive. Even two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 30 want alternate energy sources found, according to the Pew Research poll cited above
Indeed.
And yet in another poll only 3% say that climate change is an important issue and at the same time are not willing to spend very much to change global warming. As with all polls the results often reflect the question and tactic (i.e., online, telephone, in person).
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/poll-likely-voters-more-concerned-economy-inflation-and-cost-energy-climate
So?
The Republican states are the main states using wind power with Texas producing the most wind power of any state in the US. The Democrats are favoring solar power.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/red-states-renewables
Although we have disagreed about just about everything in the past, I agree with this post … except many of us may have too much wishful thinking about Donald Trump.
Please recall in his four years as President, CO2 remained a “pollutant” — which is anti-science. Trump fought the Deep State and the Deep State won with 2020 election fraud.
The Deep State is currently fighting Trump’s campaign like fascists this year. If Trump is not in prison before the 2024 election, then will 2024 election faraud be worse than 2020?
Fraud worked in 2020 and almost no one was punished. In 2024, after nine years of the mass media slamming Trump, Democrats will think election fraud in 2024 is justified to avoid a dictator. If such election fraud happens and a pre-election Trump lead of 5 points or more does not result in an expected victory, I predict a US civil war. And not only a war or words.
This is only the second prediction I have made in the past 30 years. In 1997 I predicted the climate would get warmer, unless it gets colder.
I have thought for a while a crowd sourced (GoFundMe type) Muckraker operation is needed to expose these charlatans, grifters and con-artists.
The witnesses paid due recognition to the evils of CO2. It is no different to Australians being required to pay their respects to the traditional owners of Australia.
What a woke world we live in.
Hopefully a second Trump term can provide the impetus to restore sanity.
You get the odd glimmer of truth occasionally with unreliables-
Australia’s biggest utility begins charging trial with promise to fill up EVs for $5 (thedriven.io)
…the trial was ultimately designed to work out the best ways to manage car-charging demand.
“Not too far from now, we’ll be in 2030 and there’ll be something like three million EVs on the road,” he said.
“If all of those EVs turn up back at home at 6pm and plug into charge at the same time, we don’t have a grid that can handle that.”
What do the bozos expect? We’ll introduce a midday Siesta so everyone can pop home for a charge?
Suggestions as to what folks can do while the car is charging?
One of them might result in an increase in population, fulfilling the law of unintended consequences.
As of January 24, top seasonal snowfall amounts at official NOAA snow stations include Juneau, Alaska, with 89.7 inches (7.5 feet); Anchorage, Alaska, at 87.7 inches; Marquette, Michigan, at 63.2 inches; and Buffalo, New York, where 52.9 inches of snow has piled up.
Most winters, 49 U.S. states have measurable snow with Florida being the exception. Measurable snow has been recorded in Florida in at least six of the last 14 winters, and, similar to this winter, snow flurries have been recorded in the Sunshine State most years.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/all-50-us-states-have-reached-snowy-benchmark-this-winter/1616236?fbclid=IwAR1LAGjzderyIzkiDoj9jtlN9E2KQsOLXcSgXjY6HnxXT4aiLFiBlhppbIk
‘All this is occurring while the U.S. leads the world in carbon reduction. In fact, since 1990, the U.S. has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% while the rest of the world has increased theirs by over 18%.’
And you think that this is a good thing?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&country=USA~OWID_EU27~CHN~OWID_WRL
Leads the world..in still being extremly high.
Only reason US CO2 emissions have declined is because of the change from COAL to GAS
“still being extremly high.”
Great news , hey
The world needs more atmospheric CO2.
It is totally beneficial, and supports the world’s biosphere.
There is ZERO down-side to enhanced atmospheric CO2.
So what?
GOOD! That means the U.S. economy is still viable!
“And you think that this is a good thing?”
________________________________
Kissing up to the opposition is never a good thing.
“And you think that this is a good thing?”
Doesn’t matter a jot one way or other. In the US, Gas replaced Coal.
China, India etc keep providing necessary CO2 to the atmosphere.
No need to be concerned about a drop in CO2 levels. for many years to come..
quote:“”What Energy Costs Means to Their Vote
Cut to the quick: We are describing Selfishness and The Love Of Money with those words – is that a good thing?
Then we read about ever increasing oil/gas production in the US.
Are you REALLY suggesting that there’s an infinite supply of that sh!t. Really.
OK so we’ve got really clever at scraping the haha barrel but does not mean that the barrel is infinite in extent.
Or that an ever increasing number of bombs, military expenditure, jet fighters and Special Envoys will bludgeon the rest of the world into giving you more.
At which point does ‘The World’s Policeman’ become The World’s Biggest Bully – it’s a very fine line.
Even before, the burning of Oil in combustion engines with 33% efficiency is Utter & Complete Madness.
Something so useful & precious as a raw material for loads of fantastically useful things and you say Burn it Like No Tomorrow and infinite supply.
Has this Entire World lost the plot?
Don’t look to us for ideas…
Lib Dems amend Sadiq Khan’s budget to include £700,000 for ‘green doctors’City Hall’s Lib Dem group argued that more Londoners should receive tailored advice on how to reduce their energy bills
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/liberal-democrats-green-doctors-insulation-energy-bills-sadiq-khan-draft-budget-b1135174.html
Money for old rope
https://www.desmog.com/consumer-energy-alliance-cea/
Doing PR now?
desmog.??
Why lower yourself into a sewer ???
..Story Tip>> More suspected LI battery fires. Home destroyed, thankfully no deaths. Queensland Australia.
Suspected lithium-ion battery fire tears through house in Brisbane (msn.com)
Reform can only be done by Congress. Is energy even an election issue at that level?
The short answer is NO. If you doubt this assessment, call your local congressperson’s office and ask about it. The legal intern you speak with, if you are lucky enough to speak to anybody, will have nothing more than a handful of the usual talking points and will not be able to deviate from the script. They also will not be able to have anyone with knowledge call you back to discuss the topic.
There are lots of other election issues (the border, guys in girls locker rooms, DIE, etc.) but inflation is still a biggie. More are waking up to “The Green Raw Deal” being one of the roots.
Against this concerning energy backdrop, it behooves American voters to support candidates who, regardless of party, back sensible energy policies that deliver abundant, affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible energy.
That makes a lot of sense. However, there is a very large number of human beings for whom there is a real and literal existential crisis: unborn babies. Every year, the lives of millions of unborn babies are ended through abortion. So, in the interests of all those young lives which are ended before natural birth, I would say that it behooves American voters to support candidates who, regardless of party, back an end to abortion. Fortunately, there may be candidates who Americans can vote for for both reasons.
There are people all over the US living on the streets now. We can’t take care of the people we already have.
EVERY one of those murdered babies had a loving home waiting for it. Their “mothers” rejected adoption.
People living in the streets? Well, then, aborting babies has clearly not worked, has it.
Perhaps, not allowing people to invade our country by the MILLIONS would help.
People are living on the streets in California (the state with the most homeless and the most poverty) and other places because of insane far-left Democrat Party policies. Your suggested solution to that problem of murdering innocent children is not only incoherent and disgusting, but inhuman.
The author’s claim that higher energy prices cause higher consumer prices is a myth as old as Jow Biden. And as dumb as Joe Biden.
There are plenty of examples of rekatively high energy prices and low inflation … and relatively low energy prices and high inflation in US economic history.
Companies can not just pass on higher costs with no consequences. Another myth. Higher prices reduce sales.
If there were no consequences from companies passing on higher costs, why wait until their cost increased? Why not just hike prices any time they feel like it?
The claim the higher energy prices cause higher inflation is exactly like saying higher prices cause higher prices, which is circular reasoning.
Inflation is caused by the money supply increasing faster than the suppky of good and serves available for purchase.
In the absence of money supply growth, higher energy prices just mean all other prices will be lower, not high, because after buying higher priced energy products, people will have less money left to spend on all other products.
Do you have any idea how much transportation costs effect costs of goods? For example, transportation costs are about 60% of food costs. You don’t think that effects inflation. You frequently claim that inflation is only caused by money supply . You apparently missed the section on cost-push inflation in economics courses.
RG is just a bat-in-the-sunshine crazy troll. As if energy price doesn’t drive prices. 🙄 AS IF inflation is not (as it always has been) manifested in “a general rise in prices.”
RG was fun for awhile. Apparently, he is now drinking heavily or ….. something…. he WAS a fun drunk. *sigh*
RG has forgotten more about economics than Ms. Moore will ever know.
RG does not drink alcohol or use mind altering drugs, although reading some of Ms. Moore’s posts could drive a person in that direction.
There are many dozens of example of 6 to 12 month periods when energy prices and the CPI were not positively correlated.
In 2008, for one example, a barrel of oil reached
$147.27 which is $209.43 in 2023 dollars.
Was the CPI high in 2008?
No.
For the 12 month period ending December 2008, the CPI-U rose 0.1 percent. This was the smallest calendar year increase since a 0.7 percent decline in 1954 and compares with a 4.1 percent increase for the 12 months ended December 2007.
2023 US WTI oil price down over 10%
Year over Year CPI inflation up 3.4% in December 2023
2022 US WTI oil price
up only 2.4%
Year over Year CPI inflation up 6.5% in December 2022
I have the data
You have the claptrap
I wrote the economics newletter ECONOMIC LOGIC for 43 years which I sold at $1 each to hundreds of subscribers. I thought some people here would be interested in economics but many are not.
If there were no consequences from companies passing on higher costs
Where have seen this claim made?
Renewable “energy” is only electricity as Wind turbines and Solar Panels CANNOT manufacture any of the 6,000 products and the various fuels for our materialistic society of the 8 billion on this planet that are now based on crude oil.
The elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss is that we’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of more than 6,000 useful products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program made from crude oil that did not exist before the 1800’s.
Crude oil is the current foundation of our materialistic society as it is the basis of all products and fuels demanded by the 8 billion on this planet.
Until a crude oil replacement is identified that can support making the more than 6,000 products in today’s society, the world cannot do without crude oil that is the basis of our materialistic “products” society.
The government is trying to do what the people say they want, attempting to find new energy sources.
About 61% of adult Americans say they want alternate energy sources in a recent Pew Research poll,
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Gallup says 59 percent versus 35 percent want new energy sources found.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/473810/sharply-fewer-energy-situation-serious.aspx#:~:text=By%20an%20even%20larger%20margin,from%20oil%2C%20gas%20and%20coal.
The brainwashing has been very inclusive and effective.
So?
“The brainwashing has been very inclusive and effective.”
Yep, you seem to have fallen for it hook line and sinker. !!
I don’t believe to so-called “climate change” story being pushed by the UN for an instant. The polls are what they are.
Very nice David. I agree with you on every count but one. Even if a democrat held sensible views on energy I won’t vote for them. Number one I am not a single issue voter. Number two there is no more important consideration than keeping republicans in the majority, not because I think republicans are blameless for our problems, they aren’t. Rather it is because the majority sets the tone and direction for our government. Think Nancy Pelosi. People like her need to be stopped, keeping the majority out of the hands of democrats is the best way.