“We build into our automobiles more power and greater gas consumption than we need. We use the press and radio to push the sales of more cars. We drive them hundreds of millions of miles a year in pursuit of futility.”

“With the exhaustion of our own oil wells in sight … much of our resource capital has been used up, but we still have our yacht, our stable of horses….”

– William Vogt. Road to Survival (New York: William Sloane, 1948), p. 68.

MasterResource documents the historical record behind the grand energy debate from the vantage points of business, economics, political economy, and history. What was said? When? Why? And to what effect?

One aspect of the debate has been the difference between natural market efficiency/conservation versus its political offshoot,  conservationism, defined as the belief that less usage is per se a moral good or economic necessity.…

Last week, I recognized twelve individuals associated with free-market, classical-liberal energy analysis and advocacy. Here is a second “tribute” to those who have labored against the mainstream of Malthusianism and energy statism–and now find themselves with new opportunities to formulate, summarize, and promote pro-consumer, taxpayer-neutral energy policy.

This list is in alphabetical order. It is subjective and hardly exhaustive. Other candidates (such as the present writer) could also be included–and could be in a future iteration.

ROBERT BRYCE is a force for energy realism. His highly readable, well researched books (three on energy, two on energy-related cronyism) are joined by highly effective opinion-page editorials in leading publications, such as the Wall Street Journal. A convert to the free-market beginning with his third book (from a politically correct all-of-the-above energy view), Bryce has  reached progressive audiences with a message that renewable energies are quite imperfect substitutes for dense mineral energies.…

[Editor note: Mark Krebs has been a leading advocate (see here) for free-market decision-making between natural gas and electricity in homes and places of business, challenging the ‘deep decarbonization’ push of energy interventionists to disciminate against fossil fuels at point of use. This is the first of a two-part post.]

“Grid reliability should not eclipse energy reliability; especially during weather emergencies. Yet, much of the discussion looks like more of the same rent-seeking by interests looking for rebuilding damaged electricity infrastructure with inherently unreliable wind and solar generation based ‘microgrids’.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is undertaking an in-depth review of the laws and regulations affecting electric energy. Much of that review is through a series of hearing that started last July. The objectives for this series of hearings were officially stated as follows:

Today, the nation’s electricity industry is undergoing a period of transformation due to technological innovation and market competition, creating tremendous benefits to American consumers.

“On the climate issue, RFF has become the intellectual arm of the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), just as RFF board member David Hawkins (of NRDC) desires.”

Resources for the Future (RFF) was once a much more scholarly think tank than it is today. It did not assume but evaluated and debated energy economics and related environmental issues.

On climate change, in particular, RFF has gone into the tank of alarmism–and is now a full-fledged foe of the free-market-oriented energy policies underway in the Trump Administration. In fact, RFF has become the intellectual arm of the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), just as RFF board member David Hawkins (of NRDC) desires.

Sad, sad. From its glorious beginning in the 1950s and 1960s–publishing treatises and shorter studies on resource availability–RFF went Malthusian in the 1970s, a story recounted by the late mineral economist Richard Gordon and myself elsewhere.…