When our nation’s founders collaborated on a constitution to outline the country’s guiding principles and establish the structure of a new government, there were concerns that the original document allowed for federal government overreach and did not go far enough to guarantee individual liberties.
To address those concerns, James Madison wrote amendments that were strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason. Of the 17 amendments that were originally proposed, 10 were eventually ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights.
Americans’ fear of federal overreach was not relegated to the 18th century, and has been proven to be well-founded, whether in regard to our rights or the choices we make for our homes and families. Unwarranted federal interference has been a constant concern throughout our nation’s history – a fear often justified by watching Big Government infringe on the lives of our citizens time and again.
Such excess was never more evident than in the abuse of federal power to utilize threats, engage in market interference, and employ shady tax gimmicks to funnel Americans into a range of narrow choices in regard to energy sources. For four long years, the Biden administration embraced oppressive, heavy-handed bullying tactics designed to coerce Americans into a reliance on energy sources that are dangerously unreliable, routinely inefficient, and resoundingly more expensive.
Thankfully, the Trump administration is reversing as many of the previous regime’s energy mandates as can be accomplished by executive fiat. But what’s to prevent a future tyrant who wins the presidency from returning to the oppressive and coercive energy dictates that the Biden administration adopted?
It is not hyperbole to suggest that access to affordable and reliable energy is nothing less than a matter of life and death for most Americans.
Imagine the United States without reliable and affordable energy. An idle furnace that can’t heat a home in the dead of winter. A powerless refrigerator that can’t keep food safely cooled or frozen. Life-sustaining medical devices that won’t function. Stores that can’t open because the power has gone out. Goods that can’t be transported because fuel is too costly or cannot be accessed. Crops that cannot be harvested because farmers cannot afford or obtain the gasoline and diesel necessary to operate their trucks, tractors and combines. The list goes on.
Americans should never have to fear that dependable and affordable energy is subject to the whims of a fickle government swaying back and forth like a thin reed on a windy day. What resources are approved this year? What appliances can I confidently purchase? Will my electric bills skyrocket to satisfy the mandates and penalties imposed by a government enslaved to the demands of the climate cult?
One blueprint designed to codify energy certainty for all Americans is the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), a model for legislation quickly gaining traction that balances affordability and accessibility with responsible environmental objectives.
The ARC-ES would protect affordable and reliable energy by ensuring that:
- Fuel sources must be produced within the United States, and infrastructure should be developed domestically to minimize reliance on foreign countries.
- “Affordable energy” is defined as having a stable and predictable cost with substantial savings compared to other resources, being reliably available 24/7, and including energy generated by hydrocarbon as a resource.
- “Reliable energy” is defined as energy that is dependable even during peak demand, can ramp up or down electricity generation within one hour (stabilizing the electric grid), and can bolster and back up renewable energy sources during periods when those sources are experiencing low availability.
- “Green energy” is defined as any energy in which emissions are equivalent to the standard set by pipeline-quality natural gas, releases reduced air pollutants, and includes energy generated by nuclear reactors and natural gas
Further, the ARC-ES would require that any state and federal funding for “green” or “clean” energy will be based on the updated and more inclusive definitions of those terms.
Nearly 250 years ago, before we ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we boldly declared our independence as a nation, proclaiming our insistence on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, Americans today can sign America’s Declaration of Energy Independence, asserting that neither life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness can be truly realized without affordable, clean and abundant energy.
In 1789, when Madison introduced the original amendments, many argued that they weren’t necessary, and that the Constitution, as written, sufficiently restrained the government from employing powers not specifically enumerated within its framework. But others argued – correctly as it turned out – that it was necessary to spell out certain aspects of our freedoms protected from federal interference in order to eliminate any ambiguity.
Likewise, to once more guard against government tyranny and oppression, it’s important that access to affordable and reliable energy be clearly defined, and for all Americans to unite behind the self-evident truth that such energy access isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.
This article was originally published by The Empowerment Alliance (EmpoweringAmerica.com) and made available via RealClearWire. When republishing, please provide attribution to The Empowerment Alliance.
This article was originally published by RealClearWire and made available via RealClearWire.
Long range planning and cost and benefit analysis
are not the long suits of left wing liberal playbooks.
On 2nd thought long range planning is in their play book:
“The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it
will happen incrementally, year by year, generation
by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their
educational institutions and their political offices,
transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as
we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
Max Horkheimer
Columbia University hosted him, his Institute for Social Research, and even provided it a building when they were kicked out of Germany in the early 1930’s. Neo Marxism lives on there.
An historical nexus that leads to today’s unhappy issues.
Autarchy is a sillyass principle. While a regressive tax to support the Green establishment of religion is bad, demanding only domestic energy production is an invitation to play all sorts of perverse games.
It’s insanely wrong headed. Canada is a major, reliable source. We should “give them the shaft”?
The US is hardly the only country that has correctly labeled a reliable energy supply as an absolute essential. The biggest developing nations, like China and India among others, recognized this as soon as they determined that widespread industrialization was the the crucial route to follow for economic growth, poverty alleviation and elevation of living standards. That’s precisely the reason that they’ve rejected leftist demands for the adoption of renewable energies that can’t deliver any of the above and have increased their fossil fuel consumption. They want a source of energy security, not something that’s supposed to save the planet, but will fail to do either one.
““Green energy” is defined as any energy in which emissions are equivalent to the standard set by pipeline-quality natural gas, releases reduced air pollutants, and includes energy generated by nuclear reactors and natural gas.”
No need for any such definition of “green” or “clean.” Nothing wrong with coal and oil – just continue implementing measures against actual pollution.
So please be careful what you wish for. Ditch ALL the “green” and “clean” terminology, incentives, and what-not. And stop allowing developers of intermittent sources such as wind and solar to connect and inject their output into the grid with no responsibility for anything at all when it is calm or dark.
The emphasis on reliable, affordable, abundant supplies of fuel and electricity is good.
Solar voltaic and wind turbine generators have legitimate niche applications.
The are a disaster for grid scale applications.
There are potential benefits as supplements to the grid.
Weight against those potential benefits are impacts to the environment, fauna (birds, bats, whales), and local weather patterns.
SV and WTG are also seriously vulnerable to the vagaries of weather. Look at the number of extensive “solar farms” destroyed by tornados and hail.
Weighed against those potential benefits are lifecycle costs of ownership.
Very nice, couldn’t have said it better. One correction there is no need for talk of green energy until it is proven green energy is necessary and energy sources that can’t provide energy 24/7 can’t be called green.
I though energy was blue. Just look at the color of a spark jumping from finger to doorknob.
/humor
‘Of the 17 amendments that were originally proposed, 10 were eventually ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights.’
Unfortunately, the 10th amendment, below, has consistently been ignored by the entirety of the Federal government to the extent that it is mostly known today by most prospective lawyers as the wrong answer to any multiple choice question on their Bar Exam.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
+10
Sage. Brush. Rebellion.
To defund the Feds, first de-Fed the funds distributed to the various States.
No more strings attached!
Then the 10th Amendment (X) can kick in.
P.S. In this context, it wouldn’t hurt to treat like Prohibition to Amendment that instituted direct election of U.S. Senators — a colossal step backward for the Republic. Just imagine if the respective State Legislatures could recall & replace their U.S. Senators anytime they felt ahem underserved (betrayed), how much that would improve the performance of that august body.
In context, the Congressional Senators were to represent the States and the House Representatives were to represent the people in their respective districts.
With the ongoing struggles to achieve one part rule (both major parties, although there is a valid discussion about those), how much representation do the States and the People actually get?
So the cheap oil from Alberta and the abundant hydro from Quebec would be prohibited. This is not wise.
“Major dittos”. As a wise man used to say.
Well, maybe Canada could decide to become the 51st state. Or, more reasonably, several states. I was thinking about this several decades ago. Canada is already, essentially, part of the American economic and cultural realm and certainly very closely linked to the American security system. Trump has recently suggested Canada join America. If Canadians don’t want this- so be it- then they might get locked out of the American economy, or it might just be reduced.
Canada has more population than 80% of the countries on Earth, is second largest in area, probably largest in natural resources per capita, 10th largest economy…why on Earth would they want to be the 51st state ? How about states 51 to 105, and centrally relocate the capital to Winnipeg ?
I’ve had occasion to discuss some issues with my neighbors in Montana and they don’t seem to be that impressed with Washington’s input….
I didn’t say that should happen. As I suggested, it already is tightly bonded to America in many ways- more than any other 2 nations. But you never know how history will play out.
We don’t want the whole country anyway. Only the prairie ones. Oil and food.
Also, CO2 should be declared a non-pollutant.
Burning fossil fuels does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
This is one of those cases of the intent being noble but the implementation sucks.
Good luck making your pipeline and refinery systems economical without Canadian and Mexican oil. The pipeline system is uneconomical without volume and your refineries were built for heavy oil which the US doesn’t have a good supply of.
That is unobtainium. Energy prices fluctuate wildly based on global events. You can ask for efficient energy, cost effective energy, but escaping price fluctuations is not possible.
The sentence should have simply stopped there. All the words after it just open the door for debates and exceptions and arguments about definitions. In fact it could be even simpler. Energy should be reliable. Period.
Say what? Why define it at all? Is it reliable? No? Don’t use it. Is it cost effective? No? Don’t use it. Does it destabilize the grid? Yes? Don’t use it. Does it reduce emissions when the entire life cycle from mineral extraction to decommissioning is taken into account? No? Don’t use it. I don’t care what color it is and neither should policy makers. They should make objective decisions based on facts regardless of it being coal, gas, solar, wind, nuclear or hamsters running on wheels.
Noble cause but a complete fail in wording. Sorry to be harsh but if skeptics are going to win this argument we need to provide clear, concise, objective language.
Agree 100% with your last paragraph.
Energy independence is essential to national security. Just look at the energy embargo against Japan pre-WWII as an example for what can happen. That doesn’t mean we can’t use importation of energy to buffer against market fluctuations and such. There is, however, a baseline production level that is absolutely necessary. When it comes down to nut-cutting time, you need to be able to stand on your own.
Nope scrap this ARC-ES.
From the post:”…bolster and back up renewable energy sources…”
It continues to accept “renewable” as a viable alternative and slates others as back up.
No. It is a definition, not policy.
Although I agree it should be emended to eliminate that phrase “bolster and back up renewable energy sources” as written. Bolster and back up I have not come up with a replacement, but the phraseology should limit such to established/installed energy sources.
Why? While getting the energy production back onto a sane standing, it would unwise to demolish the intermittents both for cost and total energy reasons.
I agree that the phraseology employed infers and acceptance and to that I agree. It is objectionable.
Stop, abolish, put an end to, get rid of, terminate, eliminate, … pick one.
Mostly stop new.
Continue with existing until replacement is practical.
Eliminate, get rid of, no. Costs and disruptions unless the replacement is online. Then terminate applies.
Abolish, no. Limited niche applications should be allowed, not grid scale, not massive environmentally destroying “farms” or whale killing “fleets.”
Even ignoring the issues with near abroad imports, the problem with this bill is that … it is a bill. It can be abrogated by the very next Presidential administration that desires to.
This is why the Greens focus so heavily on the Deep State: emplacing agencies with open ended mandates and fief-building, self enriching, revolving door bureaucrats is much more long lasting.
If it is legislation, then no, not the Presidential administration, rather Congress.
Congress can repeal the legislation, but we have already seen that a President can simply not enforce any laws or rules which he does not like (see Biden 46).
This article is wrong on so many counts…
Taxpayer funding from for “green” or “clean” energy should be terminated.
The above statement clearly shows that the green lobby wants to perpetuate subsidy mining. It wants the parasitic climate-industrial complex not be destroyed, but to be “bolstered and backed up” at consumer cost, to be scaled down to the “sustainable” level at which it could forever suck resources from real value-generating economy.
“promote the general welfare”
Welfare in the contest of the original writing carried the definition of “wellbeing.”
This should not be conflated with the modern use of welfare that entails free subsidies (taxpayer dollars) to whoever has their hand out (whether a real need or real greed is not part of the discussion).
Wellbeing is promoted by more productive labor, more productive technologies. By being more productive they naturally replace less productive ones in an open and fair market. Therefore, one who truly wants to promote wellbeing should promote open and fare markets. The author of the article is more concerned with continuation of state and federal subsidies under pretense of caring for general wellbeing. (Using “welfare” instead of wellbeing is their Freudian slip). Beware of those who advocate everything good by fighting everything evil and make it their profession…
Spot on.