“Bitter conflicts over wage differentials, a hodgepodge of subdivisional judgments regarding the proper price of coal, blatant disregard for the code proscription against selling under a fair market price, and the widespread disregard of the other injunctions against unfair trade practices produced a chaotic price structure….”

“Each price classification included several individual pries based upon the physical structure, chemical analysis, and use-value of a specific type of coal, thus generating a number of prices–at least 400,000–far beyond the ability of a decentralized code to administer.”

“The fragile structure of the coal code buckled under the weight of inordinate administrative complexity and the persistent assaults of critics within and without the industry.”

 – John Clark, Energy and the Federal Government: Fossil Fuel Policies, 1900–1946. University of Illinois Press: 1987,  pp. 266–27.

“What was FDR’s New Deal (1933–35) pertaining to energy? The real New Deal was centered on petroleum and coal. Second, it was an alliance of special business interests and power-hungry bureaucrats working against common consumers and taxpayers. Third, it was about a police state to try to enforce command-and-control edicts.”

What exactly is the ‘Green New Deal’? E&E News (November 16, 2018) described the Progressivist energy policy of forced energy decarbonization.

“In a Democratic clash on Capitol Hill, progressives are pushing an ambitious plan to wean the U.S. off fossil fuels, boost renewables and build a ‘smart’ grid,” states Hannah Northey. “The proposal, drawing inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era New Deal, is one that progressives — led by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a rising star on the left — want Democratic leaders to embrace.”…

This post reprints Section 3.2.1 of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels (Summary for Policymakers here.) This is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

This treatise from The Heartland Institute continues a tradition of offering citizens and scholars an alternative view of all issues relating to climate science and climate policy. This brief excerpt (subtitles added) will be joined in the New Year with many other excerpts on specific issues to better disseminate the major findings of this major treatise.

——————

Corporate policy makers entering the fray should be guided by two principles, both reflecting the balance of evidence at the intersection of climate science and climate economics. First, mandatory GHG programs should be rejected in favor of voluntary approaches….  Second, voluntary actions by corporations should not go beyond win-win “no regrets” initiatives. Control practices that are uneconomic penalize either consumers or stockholders and politicize the issue of corporate responsibility.”

– Robert Bradley, “Climate Alarmism and Corporate Responsibility.” Electricity Journal, August/September 2000.

Upon the election of Donald Trump, the environmental Left redoubled its effort to politicize business on the climate issue. The subtitle to an early 2017 article in Yale Climate Connections, for example, “Business Leadership on Climate Seen as Key,” read: “With expectations of a much lower federal leadership role on controlling carbon emissions, key sectors of business community seen by some as maintaining momentum.”…