“A reliable worldview, respect for data, and humility in the face of the unknown allow older writings to have longevity and relevance. I believe that the above summary has held up well as the climate debate enters its fourth decade. I predict that fossil fuels will outlive and overcome the current attack just as was done back in the 1970s.”
In 2003, I published a booklet for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, Climate Alarmism Reconsidered. Written 15 years after James Hansen’s climate-scare testimony, and 16 years before Joe Biden’s ‘climate day‘ yesterday, I present the summary bullets of that study.
The ten points follow:
…• The energy sustainability issues of resource depletion, reliability (security) and pollution have been effectively addressed by market entrepreneurship, technology, and, in the absence of private property rights, measured regulation.
“Though big businesses and local governments–especially those that want to build more solar and wind farms–will spend millions on lobbyists to overcome opposition to their handouts, those in charge of Texas’ purse strings may decide that this is the time to draw them a little tighter.”
Wind has dominated Texas’ renewable energy landscape for the last 20 years. However, solar is making a concerted effort to catch up. Utility-scale solar capacity almost doubled in 2020, topping 8,000 gigawatt hours.
Texas, which already leads the nation in wind capacity, is moving up the ranks of U.S. states in terms in solar capacity. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, Texas ranked third in 2019, with enough generation installed on solar farms to power 642,199 homes (abstracting from solar’s intermittency).
Favorable press releases are one thing.…
The mainstream energy intelligentsia (MEI) has had it wrong for many decades. Today, it is climate change and the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels (really dense mineral energies). A half century ago (1971 would begin the problems with natural gas shortages and Nixon’s price control order that included petroleum), it was the same under a different rationale.
…“Ford called for zero oil imports by 1985. Instead, we imported five million barrels a day then. In 2006, imports will average almost 14 million barrels a day. Had we achieved everything Ford proposed, the price of oil today would be $20 a barrel, not $60, the polar ice caps might not be melting, the polar bear might still have a chance, and our children would have a future.”
– Dr. Phillip Verleger (2007).