I recently attended a public hearing sponsored by my state government on a state “energy plan” they are preparing. Now we all know that such plans often are used by governments to unjustifiably interfere in the choice of energy sources. I was a little surprised that 70-80 people showed up since the state had already conducted similar hearings elsewhere in the state and published previous such plans. The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) had already arranged to hold a small demonstration outside prior to the hearing. The hearing was well run, and ended only a few minutes late after about 50 people used their allotted three minutes.
At the end, I thought I was the only attendee who did not support the CIC party line. Most speakers said they were interested citizens, although some mentioned environmental organization affiliations or stated they were employees of the renewable energy industry. A representative of a small local electricity non-profit spoke and delivered carefully worded support for their pro-CIC position. After the end of the hearing, however, one attendee approached me and said that he supported my positions, so perhaps he did not speak. So my anti-CIC positions were supported by at most 2 of the 70-80 attendees. Trump was spoken of negatively several times, but the crowd was clearly trying to change state energy policies, not Federal policies.
So why is this of any importance?
Because any politician attending might well have concluded that he/she better get onboard the CIC train soon The public comments were filled with scientific and economic misrepresentations and cliches (like constant reiteration of the word “clean” when referring to renewables). Almost everything came straight out of CIC propaganda, especially the mainstream media. Renewables were always portrayed as saving money, the wave of the future, and the source of future growth, as well as being “clean.” Not a word about the many negative aspects of renewables was mentioned. Adverse outcomes in terms of higher prices and less reliability in every state and country that have tried them were never mentioned. Higher costs for much less useful output was never mentioned. The loss of birds and bats was never mentioned. The unsightly effects of wind and solar on the landscape was never discussed. The speakers fairly uniformly felt that current state Democratic Party office holders were not doing what they needed to do to promote the CIC agenda. etc.
The anti-CIC folks included at most 2 out of 70-80 attendees. So the anti-CICers “lost” still another public hearing, because only one or two showed up. Without much greater grass roots support, it is all too evident what the outcome will be, unless Trump should be reelected and pursues a much more effective anti-CIC policy than he has so far. There was not sufficient time foe one speaker to rebut each of the errors made by the pro-CIC speakers. As long as the Endangerment Finding remains on the books, the CIC is likely to win at the state level in the end. Not by accident, I think, my state has recently moved towards being a blue state after long being a red state.
The electricity market in the US has historically been monopolistic. A firm builds a power plant and strings electric lines and owns both. States then “regulate” the rates charged to homes and businesses. This has traditionally been an insiders game.
The climate change game gives state politicians a way to require alternative generating technologies like solar or wind. The electricity monopolists don’t care. It’s just another cost they can recover via state approval of higher energy prices.
A lot hinges on the non competitive monopolistic structure of the electricity market. Consumers are mostly trapped with one electricity supplier and don’t enjoy freedom to select a lower priced competitor.
70 to 80 people does not seem like many for a state meeting on energy. It suggests that the vast majority of people are not really interested. Most of the interested people are hooked by the massive publicity. They may have an undue influence on the politicians, but I bet there are a lot of people who will be opposed to higher energy bills but they have not realised yet what is going on.
See “CO2 Is Innocent” at https://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com that includes all the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere, including that which is no longer taught as it would expose the fraud of “Man Caused Global Warming” with a demo-experiment you can do for $2 if you have two “stick” thermometers common in all school science depts. or $7 if you have to buy them on the net..
I admire your attending the recent hearing in Virginia.
13 States have never adopted renewable portfolio standards that serve to require electricity providers to supply electricity from renewable technologies. This provides maximum freedom to suppliers to choose among Generating technologies.
8 more States have supposedly voluntary goals as regards renewables.
In historical perspective, electricity supply has long favored incumbent firms and their cronies. It’s a highly regulated sector that favors insiders. This insider steered economic landscape long predates the climate scam and likely has adapted to incorporate the scam.
Tariffs shield US businesses from foreign competition. They raise profits for businesses located in the US. Likewise Selling higher margin windmills and soulard can also raise profits inside the US. it’s not clear the president cares about consensual choices with the electricity market, provided there are some choices, He defends coal, because it was abused, but will not insist everyone use coal.
My speculative guess is the Administration will someday repeal the federal endangerment finding. I doubt Trump would try to prevent a state decision to define co2 as endangering. That’s not his jurisdiction.
The President pulled the US out of the international climate shenanigans which would have obliged us to give away billions for no benefit. As an economic nationalist, trump was disgusted by the Paris process.
He also has encouraged more domestic production of energy and more exporting of US energy products. This makes financial sense for the US.
The president also likes decentralizing political power among the 50 states. I am unsure he seeks to roll back clean energy products and marketing at the state level. He may defer to energy consumers and suppliers to make their own choices.
Thanks for attending and testifying, Doc, despite being massively outnumbered.
The so called clean energies may be embraced by the incumbent monopolist utility because higher priced. The so called cleans must provide a higher ROI.
This unifies the hearing against you. Yes the energy is less reliable, but the suppliers like the higher ROI owing to the inferior energy.
The electricity marketplace has long been the domain of States and of local monopolists. The climate scam gives suppliers a rationale to justify charging a premium for so called clean boutique technologies. Eco activists can bleat their support too.
They are all in cahoots, suppliers and greenies. There are lots of windmills even in republican states like Texas and indiana, because the climate game allows insiders to make even more money.
Money is a very powerful force.
You are arguing for cheaper electricity and a more reliable grid. These are laudable causes, but counter to powerful vested interests that seek higher ROIs.
The CIC includes Wall Street. And not because the money guys naively believe the earth is warming. Instead They simply believe in higher ROIs for them.
Your grossly outnumbered experience tilting at windmills sheds light on the survival of the CIC, despite your wonderful book and website.