Free Our Energy Sector From Crippling Regulations and Inflationary Spending on So-Called “Green Energy”

By John R. Hays, Jr.

President Donald Trump now has a second opportunity to free the U.S. energy industry from unnecessary and expensive regulations, including oppressive, senseless caps that jeopardize our energy independence and give advantage to foreign markets.  

Change is much needed, especially since Joe Biden has overturned three-quarters of Trump’s deregulatory actions that prioritized American energy independence and natural resources. Biden walked back President Trump’s sanctioning of the Keystone XL Pipeline, imposed burdensome regulations on the emissions of naturally occurring gases like methane, and circumvented the legislative process by mandating federal agencies to create wide-sweeping proposals on obtaining carbon neutrality. 

Additionally, the Biden administration’s disastrous misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” has raised energy prices, skyrocketed inflation, and has failed to provide the clean energy advancement it promised. 

With Congress now on his side, President Trump can spearhead the adoption of much-needed energy reforms that have been blocked or overturned and can encourage policies that reduce costs, cultivate energy independence and stability, and put America’s interests and wellbeing first. 

In his first term, President Trump made great strides with environmental and energy sector deregulation, such as suspending participation in the Paris Climate Agreement, replacing the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, and lifting natural gas and oil extraction bans. But because the majority of these reforms were temporary fixes in the form of executive orders, it is crucial that President Trump’s second term policies create sustainable, long-term change that is written into law by Congress. 

As a whole, President Trump’s energy and environmental philosophy must remain anchored in free enterprise, economic stability, and independence from foreign adversaries. There are several steps he can take and encourage Congress to adopt to revive the stability and excellence of American energy. 

First, he should focus on eliminating harmful subsidies that distort energy markets and effectively nearly double the capital cost of electric generation. Wind energy subsidies are one example of these extraneous expenses that are made in the name of climate justice.  Instead, they disincentivize innovation, reduce competition, and raise prices for consumers.  

Second, the new administration should take a deregulatory scalpel to the countless unnecessary environmental and energy regulations that choke out competition, discourage energy development, and are not otherwise justified, such as regulations on emissions from naturally occurring gases like methane.  

Next, President Trump should encourage Congress to unleash our natural resources for greater innovation and economic growth. This can be done by discouraging restrictions on natural gas usage for appliances, promoting exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), facilitating construction of new pipelines and use of existing ones, and streamlining the leasing of federal lands for oil and gas development, such as Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The latter is especially important in light of Biden’s recent action to prevent drilling on over 625 million acres of offshore lands, something President Trump should take every action to reverse.  

To accomplish these objectives, the permitting process for energy projects must be reformed and streamlined to remove unjustified permits and solve the inefficiencies and years-long processing delays that stifle energy development and growth. Processing energy project permits in a timely and efficient manner will grow American jobs, fast-track energy independence, and ignite innovation of cleaner, alternative sources of energy such as nuclear generation. 

In the end, America’s domestic energy policies can only do so much for the environment and lessening the effects of any anthropomorphic climate change, since America contributes only a small fraction of overall so-called “greenhouse gases.”  Moreover, human activity is not the sole determiner of climate changes, and much change is caused by environmental phenomena outside human control – such as sunspots, volcanic activity, variations in Earth’s orbit, and changing CO2 levels. It is crucial that the incoming administration have a clear, well-rounded energy agenda that stabilizes the economy and slashes burdensome, politically correct regulations while still exploring cleaner and more efficient sources of sustainable energy. The two are not mutually exclusive. Now is the perfect time for the incoming administration to prioritize their fusion.  

Ultimately, the new energy and environmental policy platform must protect taxpayers from gratuitous spending in the name of “clean energy” — the Inflation Reduction Act’s $1 trillion fiscal cost being a prime example. It must include them in important climate and energy policy discussions and proposals, and it must prevent the energy shortages and inflation that are inevitable under today’s progressive regulations and caps. 

Environmental and energy agency employees must be transparent with and accountable to the American people about the costs of policies and regulations made in the name of preventing global warming. Sweeping climate and energy policy discussions should occur in the public sphere, not behind the closed doors of the EPA and the DOE.  

America’s energy and environmental policies are no longer simply a debate over whether anthropomorphic climate change exists and whether fossil fuels are responsible for global warming – it has evolved into an economic and national security issue that affects every American. The country needs energy independence to not only succeed, but to survive. Threats of foreign aggression loom on every front. Depending on our adversaries for critical energy supplies is reckless and irresponsible. 

Thankfully, conservatives finally have another chance to restore reliability, abundance, and affordability in the energy sector by unleashing our natural resources and removing anti-growth regulations.  

At long last, the new administration can combat the Biden-Harris progressive climate agenda that did nothing but waste American energy potential and burden hardworking Americans, all in the name of “saving the planet.” Such virtue-signaling policies are neither economically nor scientifically sound, and the next four years provide the perfect opportunity to overturn them and unleash the economic growth, innovation, and energy stability that America’s abundant natural resources make possible. 

John R. Hays, Jr., is a longtime energy lawyer based in Austin, Texas.  He served as an adjunct professor of energy law and policy at the University of Texas School of Law from 2008 through 2023. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

4.9 19 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

43 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gregory Woods
January 26, 2025 2:09 pm
Reply to  Gregory Woods
January 26, 2025 4:51 pm

That site says:

“Wind energy provides about 10 percent of the nation’s electricity, making it the largest source of renewable energy in the U.S.”

But it can’t always be 10%. It must vary a great deal. Maybe that’s an average? I doubt the average is even 10%.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 27, 2025 3:26 am

It provides 10% of generation capacity. They always leave that last word off.

Editor
January 26, 2025 2:11 pm

Good article, but something’s missing. You can’t properly describe what went wrong without the word “Obama”.

January 26, 2025 2:16 pm

No offshore wind project will be able to get financing and insurance at acceptable rates.
That means every one of these projects is doomed.
That will also happen to onshore whirly things
Trump will withhold subsidies; more doom

Tens of thousands of state and federal bureaucrats, who thought they had cushy bullshit jobs to retirement, will be looking for jobs in the profitable private sector that pays taxes, instead of sucking of the government tit.

Reply to  wilpost
January 26, 2025 2:22 pm

US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off
.
US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost
.
Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.
Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh 
Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want more.
 
High Costs/kWh of Offshore Wind
Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems, and forcing utilities to pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind systems, is suicidal economic insanity.

Excluded costs, at a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level: 

1) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers, about 2 c/kWh
2) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh 
3) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked, to provide the electricity not produced by W/S systems, to meet demand, about 2 c/kWh.
4) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced, about 1 c/kWh
5) Disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these costs/kWh exponentially increase as more wind and solar are added to the grid
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming

Reply to  wilpost
January 27, 2025 4:11 am

Trump is going to the UK in the near future. He can explain to the citizens of the UK just how bad windmills and solar are for the UK and its economy and national security, and can explain that anyone who proposes to power the UK using windmills and solar should be voted out of office as soon as possible.

I look forward to this trip.

Somebody has to get the UK and Germany back on track, and Trump is just the guy that can do it, mainly by telling the citizens of the UK and Germany just how horrible and clueless their governing politicians really are.

I bet Labour is not looking forward to this visit.

January 26, 2025 2:21 pm

I asked Perplexity AI to determine the cost of wind generated electricity using battery firming under a realistic scenario of a 2 week wind drought. This is the question:

What will be the cost in USD of electricity from a wind farm in western Victoria able to supply dispatchable power during a 2 week wind drought with overbuild to minimise battery cost with battery life of ten years; annual maintenance and operating cost of 2% of capital; a 300km transmission line and 10% discount rate.

The reply:
To calculate the cost of electricity from a wind farm in western Victoria with the given specifications, we’ll use the most recent data available and make some assumptions where necessary. All costs will be converted to USD using an exchange rate of 1 AUD = 0.66 USD.
1. Wind farm costs:
– Capital cost: $1,749/kW AUD (medium-cost scenario)[1]
– O&M fixed: $25/kW/year AUD[1]
– Lifetime: 25 years[1]
2. Battery storage costs:
– Current prices: $300-$437/kWh AUD for large-scale projects[2]
– We’ll use $350/kWh AUD for our calculation
3. Transmission costs:
– Overhead transmission: $3,860/MW-km AUD[1]
– 300km line: $3,860 * 300 = $1,158,000/MW AUD
4. Overbuild factor:
– Assume 50% overbuild to minimize battery costs
5. Calculation for 2-week storage:
– Assume 1,000 MW wind farm with 35% capacity factor
– Energy needed for 2 weeks: 1,000 MW * 24 hours * 14 days * 0.35 = 117,600 MWh
– Battery cost: 117,600 MWh * $350,000/MWh = $41.16 billion AUD
6. Total capital cost estimate:
– Wind farm (1,500 MW due to overbuild): 1,500,000 kW * $1,749/kW = $2.62 billion AUD
– Battery: $41.16 billion AUD
– Transmission: $1.158 billion AUD
– Total: $44.938 billion AUD
7. Annual costs:
– O&M: 2% of capital = $898.76 million AUD
– Battery replacement (every 10 years): $4.116 billion AUD annualized = $411.6 million AUD
8. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) calculation:
– Annual energy production: 1,000 MW * 8760 hours * 0.35 = 3,066,000 MWh
– Capital recovery factor (10% discount rate, 25 years): 0.11017
– Annual capital cost: $44.938 billion * 0.11017 = $4.951 billion AUD
– Total annual cost: $4.951 billion + $898.76 million + $411.6 million = $6.261 billion AUD
LCOE = $6.261 billion / 3,066,000 MWh = $2,042/MWh AUD
Converting to USD:
LCOE ≈ $1,348/MWh USD or $1.35/kWh USD
This estimate is significantly higher than conventional power sources due to the large battery storage requirement for a 2-week wind drought and the overbuild factor. It’s important to note that this is a simplified calculation and actual costs could vary based on specific project details, technological advancements, and economies of scale.

Reply to  RickWill
January 26, 2025 2:54 pm

Your numbers are too low

Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually is not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, has just turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia. 
Ultimately, it will be a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems will cost much more than $500/kWh

Reply to  wilpost
January 26, 2025 3:37 pm

Not my figures. They just come from Perplexity AI. It cannot learn from experience so it will not be able to use different data than what it has. I could have asked it to use the top end of the range which is just a tad lower than your value.

Irrespective, only a lunatic would claim firmed wind is cheaper than coal fired generation.

Reply to  RickWill
January 26, 2025 4:07 pm

You could have asked it how much will “wind generated electricity using battery firming under a realistic scenario of a 2 week wind drought” affect the Keeling curve.

After all, the stated goal is not to provide affordable energy, it’s to “turn down the CO2 thermostat.”

1000012330
John Hultquist
Reply to  David Pentland
January 26, 2025 4:25 pm

To the nearest whole number, the answer is 0 (Zero).
Next question.

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 26, 2025 4:34 pm

“Next question”. Why is this being done?

From Doomberg :

… Stafford Beer, author of the classic book Brain of the Firm.

Beer popularized the concept of POSIWID (“the purpose of a system is what it does”), a profoundly clarifying insight that has formed the foundation of many a brainstorming session. As Beer correctly pointed out, if a system constantly fails to achieve its stated purpose, then its purpose is an unstated one, no matter how often politicians or business leaders insist otherwise.

Reply to  David Pentland
January 26, 2025 5:54 pm

Battery firmed wind does not reduce CO2 by very much. You could eventually get Perplexity to arrive at this reality but you would not get there by asking your question.

You need to have it do the system design then take it through the carbon intensity for each component. For example, three 117.6GWh batteries used over the 25 years would produce 43Mt of CO2 in manufacture according to Perplexity based on its high figure. . The wind turbine and foundations are not much by comparison.

A USC coal plant producing 3.07TWh per year would produce 53.7MT CO2 over a 25 year life according to perplexity.

The price of consumer goods is mostly the cost of energy that goes into it and the getting it to the point of sale.

In Australia, ice cream has a large energy component and the price has gone up 50% in the last 4 years.

Reply to  RickWill
January 26, 2025 4:05 pm

I agree the numbers are somewhat low, particularly, the intermittent renewable energy (IRE) overbuild is much larger than suggested, but your point is still clear.
Backup, unless it is coal or nuclear, costs far more than the IRE plant which it must replace during dunkelflaute.
Then, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the IRE plant is superfluous since the coal-nuclear plant must equal the IRE plant to replace it, removing any need for the IRE plant at all.
The climate excuse is, by now, clearly, a fraud, at every level.
The money spent for the IRE plant is a total waste. It has replaced NOTHING. Yet, governments STILL are spending $trillions annually. WHY? It is obvious – corruption and crony capitalists.
The costs of IRE plants must also double again for the grid growth that is required due to remote IRE plants. An additional 20-30% for the huge computer control system is required to juggle the grid in the best of times, and of course, it fails anyway.

oeman50
Reply to  RickWill
January 27, 2025 4:30 am

I also think just 2 weeks of no wind is too low.

Tom Halla
January 26, 2025 2:24 pm

Preventing weather dependent sources being added to regulated utilities is a crucial step. Wind and solar are added on, as replacing written down assets like coal or gas turbine plants that are dispatchable. The utilities have a perverse incentive to make the grid less reliable.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 26, 2025 4:45 pm

This is a key point, that the utilities have a perverse incentive to make the grid less reliable. One remedy for this problem is to remove all subsidies for wind and solar. Another is to disallow inclusion of wind, solar, and battery infrastructure in a regulated utility’s asset base.

The latter is a more difficult nut to crack than the former; but hey, why not give it a shot.

How can subsidies for wind and solar be ended? Politically, one could argue that if wind and solar are indeed the cheapest form of power generation, then subsidies have no benefit either for the consumer or for the nation.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 27, 2025 4:23 am

“The utilities have a perverse incentive to make the grid less reliable.”

And they are doing a pretty good job of it. Every electric grid in the United States is now on the brink of blackouts because of adding windmills and solar and taking coal plants off-line. The electrical grids were not in jeopardy before the addition of windmills and solar.

It’s insanity. The cause of the grid problems is obvious. The solution is to get rid of the windmills and solar and start building reliable electric generation facilities (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) again.

The way to get rid of windmills and solar is to cut off the subsidies. That’s all it will take because windmills and solar are not economically viable without taxpayer subsidies.

No more subsidies = No more Windmills and Solar.

Rud Istvan
January 26, 2025 2:55 pm

Trump may not have sufficient votes to do much legislatively. There is a lot he can do as executive. He is only now finishing day 6. Give it another week.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 26, 2025 3:47 pm

The test for Trump’s ability to bring congress along with him will be the confirmation of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Both viewed as traitors by the Democrats and not a lot of love amongst Republicans for converted Democrats.

Trump’s work ethic is infectious. It carries people along for the ride. But he is a long way from having total commitment to his direction.

January 26, 2025 3:44 pm

EXACTLY!
Not a penny of the $trillions spent on renewable energy has replaced a single drop of oil or lump of coal. That is misinformation. Intermittent Renewable energy investment has been entirely a waste.That is the tragedy of the millennium since those $trillions COULD have been spent wisely, but they were not. The same money and regulatory relief would have provided us with over 1000 nuclear reactors by now, and the electricity grid would be as stable as ever.
The thermal residual from electricity production could be used as industrial heat, heat for homes, and heat to convert CO2 to CH4 for transportation. That is what we COULD have had from the wasted money. AND, we would not have incredible battery fires, polluting the air.

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
January 26, 2025 5:35 pm

We don’t want convert CO2 to CH4. The plants are starving and need more CO2. In greenhouses, the CO2 concentration is ca. 1,000 ppmv during the day.

BTW: Most of the CO2 produced from the use of fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans.

Chris Hanley
January 26, 2025 3:46 pm

A quibble:

only do so much for the environment and lessening the effects of any anthropomorphic climate change …

… a debate over whether anthropomorphic climate change exists

The climate looking or behaving like a human being?
Could be a spell-check solecism, it is only recently that the Oxford Dictionary included “anthropogenic”.

January 26, 2025 3:53 pm

There seems to be silence regarding damage to solar and wind generators following recent Storm Éowyn in the UK/Ireland.

Only crickets……

Reply to  jayrow
January 26, 2025 4:04 pm

I don’t know how the BBC in this report let these comments through the greenwall….

“Unfortunately, our executive and political leaders are not facing up to the fact that we really need a very resilient electricity supply system; This is where our money needs to go. To decarbonise as a nation we need a very green electric grid, and it needs to be resilient for these storms.”

“…….have been without power but do have a gas stove for hot water and heat.”

“I work as a care assistant, and I was working this morning, and there are quite a few that are living in the cold, and the likes of my granny I’d be worried about.

“A lot of them are scared and worried about getting sick in the cold weather.”

Reply to  jayrow
January 26, 2025 5:48 pm

The censors at the Greenwall were probably on tea break.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  jayrow
January 26, 2025 4:06 pm

Couple of images of fallen turbines, but not much. Nasty enough storm though.West coast took worst of it.

Reply to  jayrow
January 26, 2025 4:26 pm

I doubt there will be any official reports of damage made public, but expect energy bills to rise in respect of ‘unscheduled maintenance and repair costs’.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
January 26, 2025 5:13 pm

… but expect energy bills to rise….

I found the following comments on the Telegraph before getting paywalled:

“When the wind speed averages over 25m/s (approximately 50mph) for more than 10-minutes, the turbines will automatically soft stop, make themselves safe, and wait until the wind speed drops to below 25m/s, where they will automatically restart in a safe manner.”

“We expect many of Scotland’s wind farms to be disconnected from the grid during the coming strong winds, even though the wind will be blowing strongly.

“However, the operators will still be getting paid because they have made their assets available.”

So the wind turbine operators still get paid while in safe mode, and the backup gas-fired generators get a premium pay-day for their supply – the unintended consequence of cheap renewable power or is it net-zero intelligent design?
 

Reply to  jayrow
January 27, 2025 4:28 am

“Storm Éowyn in the UK/Ireland”

Does this storm get a different name from the French meteorologists when it crosses the English Channel?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 27, 2025 5:53 am

The storms are named by the weather service of the country that they are expected to do most damage in. For example today in the UK we are being told to expect high wind speeds from storm Herminia tomorrow (Tuesday). The storm has been named by the Spanish equivalent of the Met Office.

John Hultquist
January 26, 2025 4:22 pm

Has anyone seen information on Hydrogen projects?
Some are called Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs) 

Old Mike
January 26, 2025 5:21 pm

Ha d they existed I’m sure Shakespeare’s Dick the butcher would have included mass media in his comment “first we kill all the lawyers”.

Bob
January 26, 2025 5:26 pm

Very nice.

Richard Greene
January 26, 2025 9:00 pm

“Additionally, the Biden administration’s disastrous misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” has raised energy prices, skyrocketed inflation,”

Total BS

We have a biased hack author

Energy success under Biden:

Oil
Record production in 2023
Record production expected in 2024
Record exports in 2023

Natural Gas
Record production in 2023
Near record production expected in 2024
Record exports in 2023

Coal
Record exports in 2023

CO2 emissions
Down 6% from 2019 through 2023

The alleged “skyrocketing inflation” of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is total BS.

June 2022
year over year CPI
+9.1%

Inflation Reduction Act
August 2022

December 2024
year over year inflation rate
2.9%

The inflation rate has declined by 68%

The author falsely cIaimed: “Inflation Reduction Act” has raised energy prices, skyrocketed inflation”

The author is a hack writer Trump cheerleader who ignores actual data to slam Biden.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 26, 2025 9:28 pm

I wonder if part of the “record” sales included Australia’s bit….. from 2020.

Australia has access to hold oil in the US SPR for an initial period of 10 years.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 26, 2025 10:17 pm

The US inflation rate as in other countries over 2021 – 2023 correlated with the oil price and the decline from June 2022 as in other countries had nothing to do with the Inflation Reduction Act, the US rate in Dec 2024 at 2.9% was still ~ 1% higher than the average over 2017 – 2021.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 27, 2025 3:27 am

Inflation is caused by an increase of the money supply with a lag of 6 to 12 months. Inflation has nothing to do with oil prices. Most prices rise when there is inflation. Oil is usually one of them but not always.

In December 2008, the price of crude oil was around $41 per barrel, while in December 2009, it was around $74 per barrel. This was a significant increase, more than doubling the price. 

According to your theory there would be high inflation in 2009 with the price of oil doubling

Did not happen

The inflation rate in the United States in 2009 was -0.4%. This means that the cost of living decreased slightly that year. 

Another conservative myth bites the dust.

When you claim rising oil prices cause rising consumer prices, you are saying rising prices cause rising prices. That does not compute/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 27, 2025 6:11 am

Not just increase of the money supply. Too simplified. Many other factors ignored in your statement.

At least you did not post insults this time.

Tim L
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 27, 2025 7:29 am

Inflation has multiple potential causes:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-causes-inflation-and-does-anyone-gain-it.asp. Money supply is but one.

I believe the claim is that cost increases often lead to price increases, which is undeniable. It goes to the difference between cost to produce a good and the price of that good. There are numerous costs from raw material(s) to final product, and in some cases price can be shielded from one or more cost increases along the production process. Energy cost increase is very difficult to mitigate because it is so pervasive in the journey from source to shelf.

The oil price example is an outlier because it covers a recession and post-recession recovery period. In 2008 the oil companies couldn’t give their product away.

oeman50
January 27, 2025 4:38 am
  • Just one extra point: The draft (or should I say “daft?”) Affordable Clean Energy Rule (we called it ACE) was a bureaucratic nightmare. It was an attempt to make power plant minimize CO2 production, let the power generated be hanged! It would also have caused other emissions to go up. I studied it in detail and found it lacking in many ways.
January 27, 2025 2:35 pm

I wonder if it is possible to produce durable legislation that would guide policy making by enforcing standards of science that reflect the true intent of scientific investigation and the proper interpretation of results. A policy that derives from outputs from unvalidated computer models should be abandoned without hesitation. Similarly conclusions derived from highly selective and biased correlation studies should have little weight in crafting policies that have significant economic, environmental and social impacts. Perhaps I am setting my sights too high.

Verified by MonsterInsights