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.…

Ed. Note: Today’s post concludes a three-part lookback at Lee R. Raymond (1938–2026), the no-nonsense value-creator at Exxon Mobil (also see Part I and Part II).

The large, ever-growing list of climate “deniers” at Desmog Blog documents a growing consensus against climate exaggeration and “green” energy inferiority. MasterResource has long documented this “backfire” at this Progressive Left, anti-fossil-fuel UK website.

The energy and climate views of Lee R. Raymond are presented by DeSmog below. Read and decide for yourself; was Exxon/Exxon-Mobil’s leader (1993–2005) correct in his time and today? Many scientific, economic, and political trends, in fact, are moving in the direction that his thinking would support.

Credentials

• Honorary Doctor of Laws, University of Minnesota (May 16, 2011).¹
• PhD, chemical engineering, University of Minnesota (1963).²
• BSc, chemical engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison (1960).

Ed note: The following repost of “BP’s Fall From Grace“(December 2010) by Kevin Mooney is testament to the energy realism of Exxon’s Lee Raymond over the image-over-substance approach of John Browne of BP and Ken Lay of Enron. The lesson is clear: false causes and political correctness result in wasted resources and ecological loss. Part III tomorrow (Part I was yesterday) concludes this week’s tribute to the top integrated oil major leader of his generation.

Once simply called British Petroleum, BP transformed its corporate identity into an international ‘green energy’ company with a sunburst logo and the tag line “Beyond Petroleum.” Environmental groups applauded when BP’s CEO gave credence to alarmist global warming assertions. Little did they know that the company’s rhetorical overtures to green causes deflected attention away from its reckless and irresponsible practices that jeopardized worker health and safety and ultimately resulted in death and devastation in the Gulf of Mexico.…

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.