{"id":350099,"date":"2024-11-04T09:00:49","date_gmt":"2024-11-04T08:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=350099"},"modified":"2024-11-04T09:00:51","modified_gmt":"2024-11-04T08:00:51","slug":"big-energy-policy-mistake-all-of-the-above","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=350099","title":{"rendered":"Big Energy Policy Mistake: “All Of The Above”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a post on October 23<\/a>, I noted that, during this election cycle, \u201cenergy realism\u201d has suddenly become a positive electoral issue for Republicans. The positive electoral effect comes from pointing out that a forced energy transition increases consumer costs, limits choice, and destroys jobs. Examples cited included President Trump\u2019s use in his campaign in Michigan of the Biden-Harris regulations restricting combustion vehicles, and his use in Pennsylvania of Harris statements that she would ban fracking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there is another approach out there to the subject of energy realism, which has been taken up by many Republican candidates and energy think tanks. That approach goes by the name \u201call of the above.\u201d The idea is that the government\u2019s policy should be to allow and\/or support all forms of energy development. After all, won\u2019t allowing or supporting all forms of energy maximize consumer choice? And, to the extent that some renewables get into the mix, we could also \u201creduce emissions,\u201d at least by a little. It\u2019s a win, win!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Actually, not. In practice, \u201call of the above\u201d is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don\u2019t work and the drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we\u2019re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A leading example of a think tank pushing the \u201call of the above\u201d agenda is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, or CRES. CRES characterizes itself<\/a> as \u201ca right-of center non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that engages policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation\u2019s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America\u2019s competitive edge.\u201d <\/em>CRES\u2019s own website doesn\u2019t provide many details about who might be behind it. Wikipedia<\/a> provides at least a little useful information, including that it was founded by \u201cRepublican grassroots organizer James Dozier\u201d<\/em> in 2013, and that it received a $1 million grant in 2018 from the MacArthur Foundation. The MacArthur Foundation doesn\u2019t sound very \u201cright-of-center.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the CRES Annual Report, we learn about their \u201cVision\u201d and their \u201cMission.\u201d Here\u2019s the Vision:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our goal is to lower global emissions through U.S. policymaking to maintain a clean environment and mitigate the impacts of climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the Mission:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CRES engages Republican policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation\u2019s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America\u2019s competitive edge.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps you are starting to see why these guys might be more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The President of CRES is Heather Reams. On October 30 Reams published a piece at RealClearEnergy with the headline \u201cKeep Conservative Climate Champions in Congress 2024.\u201d<\/a> The gist of the piece is to advocate for the \u201call of the above\u201d energy policy, and to support Republican Congresspeople who adopt that messaging. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Electing members of Congress who champion an all-of-the-above energy approach to reducing emission should be a no-brainer. That\u2019s why CRES endorseda slate of 40 House and Senate Republican candidates ahead of the November election.  These proven leaders have consistently shown a commitment to addressing climate change through American innovation, clean energy advancement and thoughtful policy discussions.<\/em>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what, in Reams\u2019s conception, does \u201call of the above\u201d encompass? In this piece, she first mentions some members who have advocated for \u201cnuclear, geothermal, and hydropower.\u201d<\/em> So far so good. But it quickly goes downhill from there. Next up is advocacy for \u201cgreen energy tax credits.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And over at the CRES website<\/a>, it goes from bad to worse:<\/p>\n\n\n\n