“Michael Goggin says that attacking the validity of the CEMS data is a sure sign of desperation. But it can be argued that any possible desperation is on the other side.”
In my 2014 post Where Wind Studies Go Wrong: Cullen in AEJ (Part II) , Michael Goggin of the Amercian Wind Energy Association (AWEA) made a comment that recently came to my attention, which deserves a rebuttal despite the lapse of time. My 2014 post critiqued a paper by Joseph Cullen, Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Wind-Generated Electricity.
In summary, Goggin’s points were as follows:
“IER’s philosophy and research reflects a number of academic traditions, from natural-rights philosophy to market-process economics to Public Choice. We are heavily influenced by the lessons of history, given the extensive role of government intervention in energy markets (remember, for example, the 1970s energy crisis?). We are not a public relations firm but one based on classical liberalism, better known today as libertarianism.”
Former Obama advisor and Democratic operative David Axelrod recently tweeted: “Donald Trump cites energy analysis from The Institute for Energy Research, notorious as the climate change-denying arm of the oil industry.” In fact, Trump cited an IER-sponsored study that predicted that legalizing energy production on federal domains could result in a half-million well-paying jobs annually and economic benefits of more than $100 billion annually.
What was the study that Trump cited and Axelrod decried?…
“Tesla is redefining ‘too big to fail’ as ‘politically correct, so bail’.”
I publish a monthly post at Forbes.com, Political Energy. My fellow scholars Michael Lynch and Alex Epstein also have columns at Forbes. All of our contributions offer the energy community and policy makers an alternative to the current government energy planning mentality.
My most recent post, “Investors Confront Tesla’s Energy Fantasy,” has just been published. Some quotations follow:
“Musk’s various ventures have received almost $5 billion worth of government assistance. Nevada recently chimed in with $1.3 billion to incentivize Tesla to build its “gigafactory” — a new battery producing facility — near Reno.”
“Elon Musk retorts that his subsidies pale in comparison to those given to the oil and gas companies.