” … [Alan] Krupnick pointed out that economic realities and state regulations may frustrate the administration’s efforts to boost fossil fuel production….”

So reads one highlight from the 2017 annual report of Resources for the Future (RFF), where wish and want are prone to color the opinions and technical analysis of the richly funded organization’s bevy of PhD economists.

Seen another way, do not expect key scientific and economic terms in the energy debate to appear in this annual report. Government failure–the very term that goes alongside market failure? It’s missing. Unintended consequences of government intervention? Not there. Global greening from carbon dioxide emissions/concentrations? No way. Global lukewarming re the growing gulf between model-predicted and recorded global temperatures? Not a hint of that.

RFF’s common denominator? Assume, don’t debate, fundamental questions that conflict with the funding agenda of problematic climate change.…

“Over the last year or so, I have tried to advise the progressive community that we should be open-minded about a carbon tax.”

– Greg Dotson, Center for American Progress

“The bottom line here is that the distributional effect of a carbon tax could really be anything you want, depending on how you use the revenues. We think it is shortsighted to only think of the direct effect of the tax.”

– Eric Toder, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

“[Trump] … is going to be utterly decimated in November….  Then the question is, what does that do to the Tea Party? …. Is the Tea Party really something to fear now, after a decimation in November? 

– Jerry Taylor, Niskanen Center

It is rare that one gets to follow the talk and reasoning of climate/energy alarmists/activists.…

“United States withdrawal [from the Paris accord] could become a specific excuse for countries that were hesitant to join in the first place…. The second thing is withdrawal of our financial support and technical support for other countries, particularly developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.”

– John Holdren, May 31, 2017

John Holdren is the proverbial gift-that-keeps-on-giving. He has toned down–but not repudiated–his past of exaggerated alarms. (Remember his worry about one billion climate-related deaths by 2020?)

In the wake of President’s Trump decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Kiley Korth of the Center for American Progress interviewed Obama’s former science advisor. The entire interview is reprinted below in light of the new story line from ThinkProgress that Trump’s decision was really not that important! So Holdren then versus ThinkProgress now.…

[Editor Note: On June 1, 2017, President Trump provided one of the greatest political moments in the history of the sustainability debate between Malthusianism and free-market environmentalism with this decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. His statement (and that of EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt) are reprinted below.

“Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

“The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth…. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs.”