From Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
I pointed out in my post on October 23 that during this election cycle, “energy realism” has suddenly become a positive election issue for Republicans. The positive electoral effect comes from pointing out that a forced energy transition would increase costs for consumers, limit choice and destroy jobs. Examples cited include President Trump's use of Biden-Harris regulations restricting incendiary vehicles during a campaign event in Michigan, and his use of Harris' statement on banning fracking in Pennsylvania.
But there is another approach to the energy realism theme, one that has been adopted by many Republican candidates and energy think tanks. This approach is called “all of the above.” The idea is that government policy should be to allow and/or support all forms of energy development. After all, wouldn’t allowing or supporting all forms of energy maximize consumer choice? And we can also “reduce emissions”, at least a little, simply by bringing some renewable energy into the mix. This is a victory, a victory!
Actually, no. In fact, “all of the above” is code for continued and ever-increasing government subsidies for energy programs that not only don't work, but drive up consumer costs and drive people into poverty. Under this banner we are developing a vast corrupt industry of uneconomic energy producers that rely on endless ongoing and increasing destructive subsidies. Ending subsidies could bankrupt these industries overnight, so you shouldn't be surprised that they're prepared to spend billions buying off politicians to keep the benefits flowing.
A prime example of a think tank pushing the “all of the above” agenda is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). CRES is characterized by “A center-right nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to engaging policymakers and the public in discussions about responsible, conservative solutions to our nation's energy, economic and environmental security problems while improving America's Competitive advantage. CRES's own website provides no details about who is behind it. Wikipedia at least provides some useful information, including its creator “Republican Grassroots Organizer James Dozier” The company was founded in 2013 and received a $1 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation in 2018. The MacArthur Foundation doesn't sound too “center-right.”
In the CRES annual report, we learn about their “vision” and “mission”. This is the vision:
Our goal is to reduce global emissions through U.S. policymaking to maintain a clean environment and mitigate the effects of climate change.
and mission:
CRES engages Republican policymakers and the public in discussions about responsible, conservative solutions to our nation’s energy, economic and environmental security issues while improving America’s competitive advantage.
Maybe you’re starting to see why these people may be more part of the problem than part of the solution.
CRES Chair is Heather Reams. On October 30, Reams published an article on RealClearEnergy titled “Keeping Conservative Climate Advocates in Congress in 2024.” The gist of this article is to advocate for “all of the above” energy policies and to support Republican members of Congress who adopt this message. excerpt:
Electing members of Congress who support all of the above energy approaches to reducing emissions should be a no-brainer. That's why CRES endorsed 40 House and Senate Republican candidates ahead of the November election. These proven leaders remain committed to combating climate change through American innovation, clean energy progress and thoughtful policy discussions.
So, in Remus’s concept, what does “all of the above” include? In this article, she first mentions some advocacy “Nuclear energy, geothermal energy and hydroelectric power.” So far, so good. But it quickly started going downhill. Next is publicity “Green Energy Tax Credit.”
On the CRES website, it gets worse:
- “CRES Commends Carbon Capture Funding Award”
- "CRES supports efforts to reduce industrial emissions," Includes federal subsidies “Decarbonization Chemicals” “Decarbonization of steel”, “Decarbonization of food and beverage products”, “Decarbonization of paper and forest products” etc.
- “CRES approved [package of four bills to support the adoption of hydrogen technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] Because hydrogen technology is critical to U.S. efforts to lower global emissions, promote a comprehensive energy strategy and leverage domestic manufacturing to create American jobs.
- “CRES commends Congress for working together to pass record-breaking federal energy research and development funding.”
These are just a sample. They fully believe 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 composed of whatever the powers that be in Washington want.
It's a little late for this election cycle, but I strongly suggest it's time to abandon this nonsense. Renewable energy (and carbon capture and hydrogen) either don't work, are too expensive or dangerous, or all of these things. This is the winning message.
Relevant
