“… the doctrine of ‘social responsibility’ involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.” (- Milton Friedman, 1970)

Lisa Sachs, director of the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment, is all-in with climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. No debate allowed about fundamental premises, despite my best efforts to persuade her otherwise.

Today, she is tangled up in the subjectivity and contradictions of “socially responsible” investing. Business is the process of winning profits and avoiding losses, with distractions such as “socially responsible” minimized. Yes, ethical norms should be respected, as Milton Friedman clearly stated in his seminal essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits.” But business is not government or a charity.…

“One wonders if Shell, trying to greenwash best it can, is happy to see the climate outliers within its ranks leave. The company should at least inform employees about the moral case for fossil fuels—past, present, and future—as explained by Alex Epstein to his world audience.”

Richard Plant, self-described “sustainability champion … born at 326.42 ppm,” was obviously working at the wrong company–an oil and gas company, Shell. Shell was not the problem–it has rightly pulled back from the bad economics of wind and solar. Tried and failed, just as happened at Exxon. And at BP, no longer “beyond petroleum.”

Plant describes himself as “an experienced procurement professional … [with] over two decades of experience in global supply chain and category management roles, most of which I’ve spent at Shell.”…

Solar is hardly an infant industry, as documented here and here. And ‘Big Oil’ tried to make it economic a half century ago–and failed. A six-year-old article, “How Big Oil Of The Past Helped Launch The Solar Industry Of Today, by Andrea Hsu tells the story, one that is pertinent today given the bust of the industry (see tomorrow’s post). She begins:

Renewable energy has gotten so cheap that even oil giant Exxon Mobil, which reported $20.8 billion in earnings in 2018, is getting in on the savings. Over the next couple of years, Exxon Mobil will begin purchasing wind and solar power in West Texas, part of a 12-year agreement signed late last year with the Danish energy company Orsted. The plan is to use cheap, clean electricity to power Exxon Mobil’s expanding operations in the Permian Basin, one of the world’s most productive oil fields.

“IER/AEA have thousands of individual donors, reflecting the intellectual case for a free market and the goodness of civil society. This is a proud fact.”

A Mother Jones article from 15 years read: “Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.” And number 12 of the “dirty dozen” was the educational nonprofit Institute of Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance.

IER/AEA would surely make the list today–and be ranked higher. This is a badge of honor. The message of classical liberalism applied to energy remains strong and consistent. Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Energy resource efficiency matters. Respect for the energy decisions of voluntarily consenting adults matter.

Here is the piece by Josh Harkinson from December 5, 2009, verbatim, with my critical comments.…