“With each passing decade, this record-breaking monument to big international science looks less and less like a cathedral—and more like a mausoleum.” — Scientific American

The 35-nation International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, advertised as “the way to new energy,” has hit another snag. “The world’s biggest fusion experiment,” Bloomberg reported, “faces new delays and potentially billions of dollars in extra costs after defective pieces and broken supply chains disrupted the reactor’s construction in southern France.”

It was bad news at the 32nd annual meeting of the ITER, with a bland press release describing activity but little else. “Council Members reaffirmed their strong belief in the value of the ITER mission and resolved to work together to find timely solutions to facilitate ITER’s success.”[1]

The week before the meeting, Scientific American exposed problems in the article, “World’s Largest Fusion Project Is in Big Trouble, New Documents Reveal.”…

“Shell, ExxonMobil, and other companies should defeat these frivolous lawsuits against fossil fuels, which are more a complaint against high-energy civilization than the defendants. The plaintiffs should be ordered to pay all court costs, as well as the opportunity cost for the company having to litigate rather than find energy for the masses.”

A DeSmog piece by Matthew Green, “Lost Decade: How Shell Downplayed Early Warnings Over Climate Change,” reports on a smoking gun that is more like a broken, discarded water pistol.

“Newly discovered documents from the 1970s and early ’80s show that Shell knew more about the ‘greenhouse effect’ than it let on in public,” reads the subtitle. The article continues:

A confidential October 1989 Shell publication titled “SCENARIOS 1989 – 2010” outlines a high-emissions “global mercantilism” scenario in which average global temperatures rise by “considerably more” than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“People who pride themselves on their ‘complexity’ and deride others for being ‘simplistic’ should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth. – Thomas Sowell

Imagine a self-described classical liberal that cannot define classical liberalism (a real free market) in their area of specialty. Imagine a self-described “directionalist” who cannot define the end-state. And imagine this person telling me, as her critic, “I will not dance to your tune.”

Political Economy 101 deals with the difference between a free market and governmental intervention. For months, I have begged this person to get to the essence of electricity policy, only to be rebuffed as ignorant and out of step. Meanwhile, this person traffics in hidden assumptions, deep jargon, rhetorical flourishes, and technicalities intended to obscure the fundamental questions.…

“If local government stops destructive intervention emanating from above, so be it. Free-market advocates have noted the advantages of local, decentralized government to this end.”

“Are you just interested in private property rights to help Energy Leviathan? Does your standard also oppose mandatory open access, gas-appliance bans, and other violations of liberty in the name of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation?”

Should neighbors and local government work to nix government-enabled projects on private land, particularly a project that harms the locals as taxpayers and ratepayers; and harms the neighbors with lower property values and nuisances. Giberson says: No matter; private property rights shield all. I say: citizens and neighbors and local government have every right to try to stop Energy Leviathan.

———————–

———————–

Michael Giberson and I have debated the issue in Round One.…