Misleading on the mountain, Trump's energy policy will not damage the climate and will promote American interests – What about Watt?

From the climateRealism

By Heartland Institute

Linnea lueken and H. Sterling Burnett

Recent Posts MountainPresident Donald Trump has led to an increase in weather disasters by prioritizing traditional energy and depriving renewable energy, “as Trump's energy policy completely ignores climate change, and disasters completely ignore climate change.” This is wrong in all respects. First, the data suggests that the weather has not become more extreme. Second, there is no evidence that wind and solar growth has been completed or that any measures can be taken to change the process of climate change. Third, Trump's U.S. first agenda promotes energy advantages and concentrates energy reliability and abundant, safe domestic supplies. Trump's energy plan is a stable factor in energy costs.

William Becker, former U.S. Department of Energy’s regional director during the Obama administration, made many false claims in a quick way in his position Mountain. For simplicity, the point is Climate Realism The post focuses on part of his post:

While we can thank fossil fuels for their lifestyle and convenience, most Americans love today, their long dominance is the instability and degradation of environmental systems that are crucial to life. The atmosphere is one of them. Unprecedented extreme weather is the result of dumping fossil fuel pollution into it. As the garbage continues, weather disasters become more frequent and destructive. Over the past five years, the American people have suffered an average of 23 major weather disasters (losses over $1 billion) each year, compared with only nine in the first 45 cases.

Every point that Becker puts in this statement after the opening clause of the first sentence is wrong. Indeed, we can thank fossil fuels for their lifestyle, not just for convenience, but also for the necessary terms of modern life. The use of fossil fuels has caused unprecedented extreme weather, and it is wrong to have them become more frequent and destructive.

Becker currently runs a climate policy lobbying organization, where he uses deceptive indicators to calculate the increase in weather disasters that explore the monetary value of losses caused by weather. Becker did not try to claim that these weather events are becoming more frequent or extreme in themselves, because they are not. Data on the most common extreme weather such as hurricanes and wildfires have not increased because Climate Realism It has been covered dozens of times. Instead, Becker cited misleading calculations that resulted in a billion-dollar price tag from weather losses.

Roger Pielke, a scientist emeritus professor at the University of Colorado Boulder University, called the National Climate Assessment (NCA) a “national embarrassment” because he used this misleading metric and explained that the NCA made the number of disasters three times higher by recalculating individual events when recalculating multiple states. So if the hurricane passes through Florida and then goes into Georgia and South Carolina, the NCA will see it as three separate “billion dollar disasters”, even if the damage suffered by the hurricane in each state does not result in $1 billion in damage.

In fact, in states like California and Florida, where extreme weather is prone to extreme weather, the population has increased. More infrastructure is built in susceptible areas, so when storms hit, more infrastructure needs to be eliminated. In some ways, Becker and the sources he used estimates that the multi-billion dollar cost increase attributed to extreme weather events, which is due to changes in weather, but a well-known phenomenon marked “Expanded Bull-Eye Effect” Climate Realism It has been discussed dozens of times before, for example here.

Further, Pielke, Jr. The analysis of insurance data presented in another climate realism post raises controversy that the cost of natural disasters has risen when measured in fair terms. Compared with global GDP, the trend of property losses has declined due to the warmth of the earth over the past few decades. (Please refer to the picture below)

Becker’s additional claim is that Trump’s focus on reliable energy rather than intermittent renewable energy will increase costs and reduce energy security, which is just as wrong as his claim of worsening disaster costs. The wind and solar technologies promoted by Becker rely heavily on materials and technologies produced by foreign powers that are not friendly to the United States, such as China. Grids powered by wind and solar energy are no cheaper than natural gas, or even nuclear energy. Energy modelers have always found that both wind and solar energy suffer from the huge costs associated with overbuilding needed to overcome intermittent problems. Using load balancing for battery storage will also bring high costs. Despite the high upfront costs, these nuclear power are lower than existing wind or solar power than existing wind or solar power.

Similarly, for fossil fuels, the complete system LCOE shows that wind and solar in Texas costs much more per megawatt-hour than nuclear energy, coal (the United States has hundreds of years of domestic supply and does not rely on foreign sources), or the cheapest natural gas-gas, which is also domestically sourced.

Utilities and federal energy regulators say high penetration of solar and wind and shutdowns of traditional energy sources have damaged grid stability.

Almost all claims in Becker's article Mountain Prove it was wrong. The post has been long-standing in exaggeration and misinformation, but lacks facts and data. Real-world weather data show extreme weather, weather disasters occur or weather disaster costs as a percentage of economic growth. Trump focuses on the reliability of the United States, first of all, energy policy will not harm our energy security or the planet, but it will support the hostile intentions of any foreign government in the United States that may use us to rely on to blackmail economic or geopolitical offers. It will also make the United States the dominant energy sector, which is to remove its population from energy poverty by providing an allies with a rich domestic energy supply, especially for developing countries that need reliable energy.

Heartland Research Institute

Heartland Institute is one of the world's leading free market think tanks. It is a national nonprofit research and education organization located in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop and promote free market solutions to social and economic problems.

Related