“My aim is to finish projects to offer a comprehensive, reliable foundation for future energy scholars to expand and improve upon. Many specific episodes can be studied in greater depth, and future events will require analysis.”
This week is a birthday of note for me. Looking back at a half-century of interest in energy history and public policy, I thank my lucky stars and celebrate a worldview–classical liberalism–that has held up very well over time. It is not how smart you are; it is the ability to discern between a false narrative and objective reality. And with a reliable framework to understand the world, blue-collar research was the wide-open opportunity for me. I have never looked back.
My odyssey began with an Ayn Rand novel in high school on individualism. That got me to free-market economics in college.…
Continue Reading“[Climate activists] should continue to spray paint stuff, block traffic, disrupt speeches, shows and performances, throw food and much, much more.” – Dana R. Fisher and Hajar Yazdiha (below)
Climate disobedience has quieted. The Progressive Left is in shock at the Trump Administration’s dismantlement of Deep-state Climatism. And there is little news from the UK, a hotbed of alarmism with their economy being sacrificed in return for no effect on global climate.
This was not the call from the beginning of this year. Consider “Why climate activists are becoming more radicalized (and why that’s not a bad thing)” by Dana R. Fisher and Hajar Yazdiha, which began:
… Continue ReadingIn 2024, they spray painted Stonehenge, held “die-ins,” teach-ins and other actions in front of Citibank HQ, blocked the entrance to the Department of Energy and spray-painted planes on a private airfield.
“When relevant factors are properly considered, the most cost-effective appliances are usually the cheapest to buy and maintain. Super-efficient appliances are super expensive to buy and maintain.”
On June 9, 2025, Andrew Campbell, Executive Director of the Energy Institute at the Hass School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, published the above-named article. It is subtitled and summarized by the following: “If the DOE undoes minimum energy efficiency standards, which are decades old, consumer costs will likely rise.”
This statement is simultaneously vague, inaccurate and misleading. Where should I start debunking this fallacious statement? I suppose I should start with who I am to challenge Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas. I’m an engineer and energy policy analyst with decades of experience opposing DOE’s minimum energy efficiency standards. This can be easily validated by: