Last month, our friends over at the Heartland Institute published a front-page lead story in the April, 2009 edition of Environment & Climate News. Alyssia Carducci’s “Palin Energy Plan Receives High Praise” begins:

“Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has announced an ambitious plan to produce half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Palin’s plan, which empowers local municipalities to identify and develop the most cost-efficient renewable power sources available to them, won immediate praise from environmental groups, consumer groups, and industry.”

This article is yet more evidence that the inexplicable conservative love affair with Sarah Palin remains unrequited—at least, when it comes to economic policy in general and energy policy in particular. But Republicans, as the kids might say, “She’s just not that into you.” Let’s examine the litany of problems with Plain’s approach to energy.…

Editor note: The wealth of free-market capitalism creates a robust civil society, where nonprofits and foundations can support the causes of their choosing, many of which might not be viable otherwise. The problem is where philanthropy goes political against the free society and human betterment. Jane Shaw Stroup at her blog Jane Takes on History takes a look at good money going in negative directions, even violating original intent.

You’ve probably heard that Henry Ford II resigned from the board of the Ford Foundation because it had veered far away from its donor’s intent.  In his 1976 resignation letter, Ford (grandson of Henry Ford Sr.) wrote:

In effect, the foundation is a creature of capitalism—a statement that, I’m sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy.

“Many full-time climate activists like Mark Trexler need to get real jobs in the private sector producing goods and services that people want rather than engaging in wealth redistribution and net resource loss. A sea change is upon us….”

Mark Trexler of the (alarmist) Climate Risk Red Team (see appendix below) has compiled a list of Trump-related action items for a consumer-first, America-first approach to climate and energy policy. Trexler, worried about Trump, published this useful list that can now be compared to the Trump executive orders flowing from Washington, DC:

While I’d heard a lot about the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” blueprint for a second Trump Administration, I’ve never seen a simple listing of specific things being proposed. Note this is just a partial list, is limited to climate change, and is just one of a number of such lists being developed.

“In all, a New York Times analysis … counts nearly 100 environmental rules officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back under Mr. Trump. More than a dozen other potential rollbacks remained in progress by the end but were not finalized by the end of the administration’s term.” (- Coral Davenport. NYT)

With Trump 47 just ahead, a look back at Trump 45 energy and environmental policies is timely. This stocktaking by the New York Times (Coral Davenport, “The Trump Administration Rolled Back More than 100 Environmental Rules,” January 22, 2021) counted 98 rollbacks that were completed, with 14 in process.

“Over four years, the Trump administration dismantled major climate policies and rolled back many more rules governing clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals,” Davenport began.

In all, a New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources, counts nearly 100 environmental rules officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back under Mr.