[Editor note: This recent post by Lea Giotto of Energy in Depth expounds on the controversial, sputtering involvement of the Niskanen Center and the Colorado climate lawsuit. Her title: “Contradictions Mount as Lawyer for Colorado Climate Lawsuits Struggles to Defend His Role.” For more on the policy shift of Niskanen founder Jerry Taylor from libertarian to climate/energy statism, see here.]
————————–
When David Bookbinder signed up to help Colorado municipalities sue the energy industry for the impacts of global warming, he claimed his purpose was not about climate change. But when he recently attempted to defend his role with those climate lawsuits, the Niskanen Center attorney not only contradicted himself, but may have undermined the broader climate litigation campaign.
Bookbinder – who was previously a climate-focused attorney with the Sierra Club – took an unconventional approach in his latest defense of climate litigation: he penned a guest commentary for the Federalist Society, an organization that has provided a forum for many who express skepticism about the validity of these cases.
…” It is difficult not to conclude that the 2008 oil price spike was a bubble, reflecting momentum trading spurred on, in part, by belief in the peak oil theory.”
“The misinterpretation of high oil prices as driven by geological scarcity instead of transient problems exactly mirrors the mistakes of the 1970s, suggesting that some, at least, never learn from history.”
Suggestions that the oil price will soon reach $150 or more need to be considered carefully, coming from respectable sources (in some cases), and given that the market saw such an elevation a decade ago, with the price of Brent crude reaching $144 per barrel on July 3, 2008.
The popular thinking is that oil prices collapsed shortly thereafter from the financial crisis. And crude oil regained three-digit levels for a couple of years before shale oil production soared and sent prices tumbling in 2014.
…” … [Alan] Krupnick pointed out that economic realities and state regulations may frustrate the administration’s efforts to boost fossil fuel production….”
So reads one highlight from the 2017 annual report of Resources for the Future (RFF), where wish and want are prone to color the opinions and technical analysis of the richly funded organization’s bevy of PhD economists.
Seen another way, do not expect key scientific and economic terms in the energy debate to appear in this annual report. Government failure–the very term that goes alongside market failure? It’s missing. Unintended consequences of government intervention? Not there. Global greening from carbon dioxide emissions/concentrations? No way. Global lukewarming re the growing gulf between model-predicted and recorded global temperatures? Not a hint of that.
RFF’s common denominator? Assume, don’t debate, fundamental questions that conflict with the funding agenda of problematic climate change.
…