“Low-quality carbon offsets are undermining global decarbonisation efforts. Around 40% of existing carbon pricing schemes allow the use of offsets, most with no effective limits on quality or quantity. Recent analysis shows that fewer than 16% of more than 2,300 offset projects actually delivered the emission reductions they promised.” – Johan Rockström, (Potsdam Institute)

“Don’t get tangled up in your own underwear,” an old saying goes. Such applies to the carbon management schemes created by governmental anti-CO2 policy.

You reap what you sow. If you politicize an issue by introducing government intervention into voluntary market transactions, then expect suboptimal outcomes. Call it government failure in the attempt to address alleged market failure.

Shame that Big Green does not see itself as the problem rather than “wrong” public policies. And here we are: the Progressive Left complaining about bad climate policy decades after they themselves went political.…

“Tomlinson is angry and sarcastic. His worldview is losing intellectually, politically, and business-wise. Is it time for him to retire and happily live off his spouse’s (ill-gotten) renewable energy riches?”

The “existential crisis” climate narrative is in meltdown. Houston solar leader John Berger has resigned, his 12-year-old company (Sunnova) positioned for bankruptcy. Other solar and wind stocks are tanking, and offshore wind is out of play. Battery and EV firms are regular restructuring news.

Climate activists find themselves out of taxpayer monies. The U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency are implementing President Trump’s “none-of-government” climate policy, reversing Podesta-Biden-Harris climate alarmism and the budget-busting Inflation Reduction Act.

But there is one fossil-fuel-despising business editorialist who is wed to the Climate Industrial Complex, not to mention a multi-millionaire renewables executive (thanks to your tax money).…

Ed. Note: With yesterday’s background, Part II examines the politicization of one of Alaska’s major hydroelectric projects to reveal ulterior motives from “stakeholders” and elected officials.

“Once an RPS becomes law, the boards will be able to point to the new law in effect requiring them to adopt unreliable and expensive sources and be held harmless once things start to spiral out of control, up to and including rolling brownouts and blackouts.”

“Pumped energy storage is only necessary as a mitigating backup to the planned 100% unreliable not-so renewables. The Renewable Portfolio Standard will mandate a government-subsidized solar, wind and transmission build-out by grifters and profiteers. Wind and solar power producers should be made to pay for all infrastructure that makes them as reliable as a gas turbine.”

For environmental groups and their political carriers, the question is how to expand wind and solar power in the state, the very resources that are dilute, intermittent, fragile, expensive, and taxpayer-dependent.…

“Alaska’s ‘capitalism in transition’ requires one final piece of legislation before reaching, arguably, the point of no return: a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).”

Alaska has no shortage of recommendations from local environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) whose purpose is to implement global Malthusian degrowth.  These plans come at great cost to our future and way of life as free Alaskans.  

In March of 2022, “Alaska’s Renewable Energy Future – New Jobs, Affordable Energy” was released, a report on behalf of the Regenerative Economies Working Group – Alaska Climate Alliance / Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition. Imagining themselves as Alaska’s overlords, the study examined

the potential for 100% clean renewable energy to replace fossil fuels energy in Alaska by 2050 and its attendant benefits including more jobs, lower energy prices, higher energy security and the potential for renewable resources to support the equitable transition to hydrogen-based fuels for the aviation and maritime industry.