Energy
Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation

From Michael Schellenberger
Moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin & Krysten Sinema Are Right to Oppose the Clean Energy Performance Program
Progressives are angry that moderate Democratic Senator Joe Machin has reportedly opposed the inclusion of climate-related legislation in President Joe Biden’s budget “This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package,” said Leah Stokes, a Canadian political scientist who helped write the legislation. “We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals. That’s just the reality.”
But that’s not the reality. The “Clean Energy Performance Program” is not needed to meet climate goals, and might actually undermine them.
Consider Waxman-Markey. That’s the name of the “cap and trade” climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010. It had a climate goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. Instead, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 22 percent.
Had cap and trade legislation passed in the Senate, emissions would have declined less than 22 percent, because Waxman-Markey so heavily subsidized coal and other fossil fuels. As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, “the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.”
The same thing would likely have been true for the Clean Energy Performance Program, which lock in natural gas. Consider France. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018. But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity. In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity increased.
After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016. The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.
Some pro-nuclear people supported the proposed Clean Energy Performance Program. They claimed it would have saved existing nuclear plants at risk of closure. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the closure of nuclear plants including Diablo Canyon in California, will result in nuclear energy in the U.S. declining by 17% by 2025. If the Program had passed, some pro-nuclear people believe, plants like Diablo Canyon could have been saved.
But the Clean Energy Performance Program would not have saved Diablo Canyon for the same reason it would not have saved Indian Point nuclear plant, which closed in New York, earlier this year: progressive Democratic politicians are forcing nuclear plants to close, and at a very high cost to ratepayers.
If the Clean Energy Performance Program had passed into law, Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, would simply have passed the $500 million to $1.5 billion penalty imposed by the Program onto ratepayers, along with the other billions in costs related to closing Diablo Canyon 40 years earlier than necessary. The same would have happened with Indian Point.
Where there is political support for saving nuclear plants, state legislators and governors save nuclear plants, as they did in Illinois a few weeks ago, and as they have done in Connecticut, New Jersey, and with up-state nuclear plants in New York. In other states, nuclear plants are protected from cheap natural gas by regulated electricity markets. And now, with natural gas prices rising dramatically, any nuclear plants at risk of closure for economic reasons are no longer at risk.
What threatens the continued operation of nuclear power plants, and nuclear energy in general, is the continued subsidization of renewables, which the Clean Energy Performance Program would have put on steroids. Under the program, utilities would have received $18 for each megawatt-hour of zero-emissions energy it produces between 2023 to 2030, on top of the existing $25 per megawatt-hour subsidy for wind energy.
Under such a scenario, notes energy analyst Robert Bryce, a wind energy company “could earn $43 per megawatt-hour per year for each new megawatt-hour of wind energy it sells. That’s a staggering sum given that the wholesale price of electricity in New York last year was $33 per megawatt-hour. In Texas, the wholesale price of juice was $22 per MWh.”
Manchin is joined in his opposition to the Plan by moderate Democratic Arizona Senator, Krysten Sinema, and understandably so. The legislation would cost Arizona ratepayers nearly $120 billion in additional electricity costs, according to energy analysts Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling of the American Experiment. “This would result in a 45 percent increase in electricity prices by 2031, compared to 2019 rates,” they note.
As troubling, the Clean Energy Performance Program would increase dependence on solar panels made in China by incarcerated Uighyr Muslims living in concentration camps and against whom the Chinese government is committing “genocide,” according to the U.S. State Department. New research shows that China made solar panels cheaper through the use of forced labor, heavy government subsidies, and some of the dirtiest coal in the world. The Program would have done nothing to shift production of solar panels back to the U.S.
Nor would the legislation have done anything to internalize the high cost of solar panel waste disposal. Most solar panels become hazardous waste, and create dust from heavy metals including lead, as soon as they are removed from rooftops. A major study published in Harvard Business Review earlier this year found that, when the high cost of managing toxic solar panel waste is eventually accounted for, the true cost of solar electricity will rise four-fold.
As troubling, the continued expansion of weather-dependent renewables will increase electricity costs and blackouts across the United States, as they did in California and Texas. Those renewables-driven blackouts were likely on Senator Manchin’s mind when he made his decision to oppose the Clean Energy Performance Plan. He certainly knows about the problems of renewables in Texas and California, since I discussed them directly with Manchin when I testified before his committee earlier this year.
A better approach would be for Congress to seek nuclear-focused legislation to expand nuclear from its current 19% of U.S. electricity to 50% by 2050. It should take as a model the British government’s announcement yesterday that it would put nuclear energy at the center of its climate plans. Global energy shortages triggered by the lack of wind in Europe have led nations to realize that any efforts to decarbonize electricity grids without creating blackouts must center nuclear power, not weather-dependent solar and wind.
Environmental Progress and I met with British lawmakers in 2019 to advocate for a greater focus on nuclear. At the time, many British energy analysts, as well as ostensibly pro-nuclear climate activists, Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, were telling the public that their nation did not need more nuclear, as Britain could simply rely more on wind energy, and natural gas. Now, electricity prices are skyrocketing and factories are closing in Britain, due to a bad year for wind.
It was a strange experience to be alone in Britain, without support from supposedly pro-nuclear Britons, in urging lawmakers to build more nuclear plants, but I was similarly alone in many other parts of the world, and got on with the task. Happily, one year later, former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights joined me in advocating for nuclear, and quickly forced the government to agree to a nuclear build-out.
Today, in the U.S., there is a growing grassroots movement for nuclear energy, one which saved nuclear plants, twice, in Illinois, and other states, and is gearing up to save Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Doing so will require a new governor, since the current one, Gavin Newsom, made closing the plant a feature of his sales pitch to powerful environmental groups, including Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Fund which are, like Newsom himself, heavily funded by natural gas and renewable energy companies that stand to benefit from the Diablo’s destruction.
Leadership at the national level will need to come from Senators Manchin and Sinema. While a significant amount of electricity policy is determined by the states, the Senate can play a constructive role in maintaining the reliability, resiliency, affordability, I testified to Senator Manchin and other committee members. Senator Sinema is from Arizona, a state with the largest nuclear plant in the U.S., Palo Verde, and which is a model of how to make electricity both low in emissions, and in costs.
With the Clean Energy Performance Program now apparently dead, the Congress, led by Manchin and Sinema, should take policy action to not only keep operating the nuclear plants that have been critical to preventing power outages in recent years, but also expand them.
About Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,”Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress.
He is author of the best-selling new book, Apocalypse Never (Harper Collins June 30, 2020), which has received strong praise from scientists and scholars. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” wrote climate scientist Tom Wigley. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” says historian Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger rescues with science and lived experience a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart.”
Additional Reading:
Why Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Falling Apart
China Made Solar Cheap With Coal, Subsidies, And “Slave” Labor — Not Efficiency
Energy
Quebecers starting to understand the need for Canadian pipelines

From the Canadian Energy Centre
Q&A with Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst with the Montreal Economic Institute
A new poll from Angus Reid shows significant support from people in Quebec for Canada to build sea-to-sea oil and gas pipelines.
Gabriel Giguère, a senior policy analyst with the Montreal Economic Institute, says it’s support like he has never seen before.
Here’s what he had to say.
CEC: Where does Quebec get its energy from?
Giguère: Quebec’s electricity comes from local hydroelectric power, while oil and gas primarily come from Canada and the United States. This is a major shift from 2005, when oil was sourced from Algeria, the UK, Norway, Mexico and Venezuela and only a small amount from Canada. Today, it’s almost entirely from Canada and the United States.
CEC: How would an oil pipeline from Alberta benefit the people of Quebec?
Giguère: It’s clear it will help Canadians diversify their trading partners. A pipeline will also create jobs, benefiting Quebec workers.
Quebec is a part of Canada, and unity is essential. The good news is we all seem to agree on that. According to the latest poll from Angus Reid, it’s unanimous. There is broad support for new pipelines to expand our trade relationships.
The United States has been a strong trading partner, but there is ongoing uncertainty that has made diversification essential. We all know that investors don’t like uncertainty. To achieve certainty, we need the right infrastructure to be able to diversify.
In Quebec, twice as many people support a new pipeline than oppose it. I don’t remember having data like that before.
This is a clear and significant shift, especially for the oil and gas sector, which is one of Canada’s most vital economic sectors. This is very good news.
CEC: What has changed that is making Quebecers more supportive of a project like this?
Giguère: I believe the tariff threat was the spark. People are now starting to understand that our trade relationship with the United States isn’t what it once was. It’s as simple as that.
We need to diversify our trading partners. The million-dollar question is: how? I don’t think It’s possible without a pipeline. I believe Quebecers are starting to understand that.
There is the pipeline, but I strongly believe that GNL Quebec [proposed LNG project in the Saguenay Region to transport Alberta natural gas to Europe] could have even stronger public support, as it offers a direct way to diversify our trading partners. This wouldn’t only benefit our European allies but would open doors to other countries also.
CEC: What do you see happening next?
Giguère: It will depend on political leadership in Quebec. When we are talking about pipelines here, the discussion always circles back to Energy East, which was scrapped because there was “no social acceptability.” Nobody can say that today.
It’s not possible to tell me there’s no social acceptability when you have twice as many people who want a pipeline than those who don’t. There is clearly social acceptability.
The real issue is heavy regulation, such as the Impact Assessment Act. To be clear, I’m not saying we should not have any environmental impact assessment, but we need to make sure that the current regulatory framework allows the construction of big energy infrastructure projects.
Political leaders need to recognize that diversifying our trading partners is their responsibility and requires facilitating the projects to make that possible.
Daily Caller
Trump’s Energy Secretary Wasting No Time In Declaring End To Biden’s War On Coal

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By David Blackmon
It seems safe to predict that Chris Wright is going to be a consistent newsmaker for the duration of his time as the nation’s secretary of Energy. Wright has never shied away from public controversy related to energy and climate policies, and this past week brought a good example.
During an interview with Bloomberg on Wednesday, Wright talked about the “all of the above” energy source philosophy he shares with President Donald Trump, and emphasized that, when he says “all” energy sources, that is exactly what he means. In a direct 180-degree turn from the war on the nation’s domestic coal industry mounted by both Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, Wright told Bloomberg’s hosts the time has come to halt the closing of coal-fired power plants in the United States.
“Coal has been essential to the United States’ energy system for over 100 years,” Wright said. “It’s been the largest source of global electricity for nearly 100 years, and it will be for decades to come, so we need to be realistic about that.”
Wright pointed out that the U.S. under both Biden and Obama was on a path to shrink the coal power generation sector, an action he says has “made electricity more expensive and our grid less stable.” The Trump agenda to reindustrialize the American economy and end the shipping of the country’s heavy industries overseas to China and India depends on a growing abundance of reliable, affordable, 24/7 power generation that can only be provided by natural gas, coal, and less affordably, nuclear.
Admitting that a resurgence in the growth of coal power is unlikely, Wright adds “the best we can hope for in the short term is to stop the closure of coal power plants. No one has won by that action.” This could also include allowing regional grid managers to permit the reactivation of mothballed coal plants, but, at least in the near term, is unlikely to see permits issued for new, greenfield coal plants.
Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America’s Power, told me in an email that “Secretary Wright is correct that affordable, reliable, and secure energy should be the goal, and coal can deliver on all of those fronts. Energy demand is skyrocketing, and shutting down coal plants before replacement sources can be brought online would be a disaster for the American power grid and the economy.”
Pointing to Trump’s executive order declaring a national energy emergency, Bloodworth urged EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to move to rewrite heavy-handed Biden-era regulations that have led to the premature closing of a large number of coal plants, diminishing grid stability in the process. “We look forward to continuing to work with the Trump Administration to ensure coal can continue to support our country’s growing energy needs for years and years to come,” she added.
Michelle Manook, CEO of the global trade group FutureCoal, points out that the U.S. is home to an unrivaled abundance of coal resources, and that advanced technologies are now capable of removing 99% of real pollutants in modern power plants. “The question for US policymakers and the nation’s value chain, with its still 400 years of reserves, is this: Will you lead the modernization and reindustrialization of this critical resource?” she told me.
For Wright, reindustrialization of the U.S. economy is the key driver of the need for more power generation from every source.
“The goal is just affordable, reliable, secure energy from wherever that comes from,” he told Bloomberg, noting that solar (but, interestingly, not wind) will also have a role in power generation into the future.
“We’re not going to go down the road of Germany,” Wright added. “They spent a half a trillion dollars, they more than doubled their price of electricity, they actually shrunk the total amount of electricity the country produces by about 20% – and their industry is fleeing the country. That’s the path the United States was starting to go down, but that’s the wrong path.”
It’s a new day in American power generation. Coal is in, wind is out and reindustrialization is the goal. Climate alarmists will scream disaster, but for millions of others, it’s all a long-awaited breath of fresh air.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
-
COVID-1914 hours ago
‘They lied to us’: Wife of 53-year-old who died hours after receiving Remdesivir speaks out
-
COVID-1915 hours ago
Media failing to cover ‘powerful testimony’ of people injured by COVID vaccines
-
COVID-1918 hours ago
USAID directed over $200 million to gain of function research leading up to SARS-CoV outbreak
-
International16 hours ago
Shocking images appear to show FBI agent with gun drawn raiding bedroom of J6 protester’s baby
-
espionage60 mins ago
Head of JFK assassination files task force: ‘I believe there were two shooters’
-
Business2 hours ago
Mike Benz Exposes How USAID Funds State-Sponsored Hit Pieces to Crush Political Opponents
-
Business2 days ago
Carney must tell Canadians how much “changing” the carbon tax will cost
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Is Our Five-Year Nightmare Finally Over?