Mel Brooks, in his classic comedy The Producers, schemed to make money by over-subscribing shares in a sure-to-fail play. Unfortunately for his character, the play became a smash hit, and all the investors wanted their payouts. Since he had sold well over 100% of the interest in the play, he was in a bit of a pickle.

And so it is with natural gas. Clean, easy to use, abundant—natural gas is everyone’s choice for our energy transition away from oil and coal for power generation, industry, homes, and now transportation. Enter oilman-turned-wind-promoter T. Boone Pickens, with a proposal to move U.S. heavy trucks strongly toward natural gas fuel (as compressed natural gas, or CNG). And to enable the offset, the electricity that is currently generated by such gas (about a 21% market share of power generation, according to the Energy Information Administration’s Annuel Energy Outlook 2009, Table 8) would be supplied by new wind farms, built mostly in the Plains States.…

Ed. Note: A Hall of Shame business memo turns 28 years old today. Dated December 12, 1997, it was written by Enron lobbyist John Palmisano in the afterglow of the Kyoto Protocol agreement.

“This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!” (-John Palmisano, Enron lobbyist)

Global green planners back in the 1990s were euphoric that somehow, someway, the world had embarked on an irreversible course of climate control (and thus industrial and land-use control). But the Kyoto Protocol predictably failed, and with the Paris climate accord of 2015 teetering (COP30), the momentum has shifted toward climate and energy realism.

Palmisano’s on-the-ground 1997 memo cites the benefits for first-mover ‘green’ Enron. Enron, in fact, had no less than six profit centers tied to pricing carbon dioxide (CO2)–and seven if CO2 were capped and traded.…

Ed. Note: How did a major energy trade association/ lobbying group come to support climate alarm and forced energy transformation, reversing its prior position? The story gets back to an ex-Enron executive who imported Enron’s political capitalism model to the electricity industry, to flip the script.

“Breaking ranks with others in the electric-power industry, [James “Jim” Rogers in 1988] supported legislation putting caps on sulfur-dioxide emissions. ‘Some of my guys thought I was drinking the environmental Kool-Aid,’ he said later. ‘But I said, “Let’s shape this, let’s make some money”.’” (Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2018)

“I made money on sulfur [dioxide], and I’ll make money on carbon [dioxide].” (Bloomberg Businessweek, June 3, 2010)

“The Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing the electric power industry,” a recent New York Times article stated, “said that if without a federal role in regulating greenhouse gases, states and cities could ‘attempt to fill that perceived void through increased regulatory requirements that could vary significantly from one jurisdiction to the next.’”…

“I’ve yet to meet a blue-collar worker at a cleantech conference, nor have I met one at cleantech dinner tables. The industry needs to ditch its self-righteous virtue signaling and stop relying on handouts.” (- a Cleantech veteran, below)

“Is this really the climate movement’s next chapter?” asked Stephen Lacey, cofounder and executive editor of Latitude Media, a publication “covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.”

If so, it will end in nothing more than further alienating voters. The progressive approach to climate mobilization has largely failed to build durable coalitions and policies. The election of Trump clearly showed that kitchen table issues matter most. We are in an extraordinary moment where people are struggling to pay their energy bills — and this is the answer? I agree with Michael Liebreich that we need a deep, pragmatic climate reset.