View this email in your browser
DAILY ENERGY NEWS  | 06/25/2024
Subscribe Now

Trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet for an energy transition that isn't happening.


Wall Street Journal (6/24/23) editorial:  "Despite extravagant hype, the green-energy transition from fossil fuels isn’t happening. Achieving a meaningful shift with current policies is too costly. We need to change policy direction entirely.  Globally, we spent almost $2 trillion in 2023 to try to force an energy transition. Over the past decade, solar and wind energy use has soared to record levels. But that hasn’t reduced fossil-fuel use, which increased even more over the same period.  Studies show that when countries add more renewable energy, it does little to replace coal, gas or oil. It simply adds to energy consumption. Recent research shows that for every six units of green energy, less than one unit displaces fossil-fuel energy. The Biden administration finds that while renewable energy sources worldwide will dramatically increase up to 2050, that won’t be enough even to begin replacing fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal will all keep increasing, too...Humans have an unquenchable thirst for affordable energy. In the past 50 years, oil and coal energy use has doubled, hydro power has tripled and gas has quadrupled. The use of nuclear, solar and wind power has surged.  The current plan underpinning the green-energy transition mostly insists that pushing heavily subsidized renewables will magically make fossil fuels disappear. But such expectations are 'misleading,' as a 2019 academic study concluded. During past additions of a new energy source, the researchers found, it has been 'entirely unprecedented for these additions to cause a sustained decline in the use of established energy sources.'”

"If the managers of the California and New York public pension systems really believe it is inappropriate for companies to resist politicized shareholder proposals, then they have no business managing huge retirement systems dedicated to the fiduciary interests of current and future retirees. That they have found it appropriate to try to have it both ways, to protect those interests by resisting fossil divestment while pressuring the managements to do what the environmental Left demands, is fundamentally an exercise doomed to failure. They need to display real backbone in the face of the Left’s divestment game, and if they find themselves unable to do so, they should find a different line of work." 

 

– Ben Zycher, AEI

Big Green Inc. is running the show.


Washington Free Beacon (6/24/24) reports:  "Each time the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized regulations targeting popular home appliances—including stoves, clothes washers, refrigerators, and water heaters—over the last several months, the agency included a similar line in the announcement: The new rules were crafted with the help of recommendations from a 'wide range of stakeholders.'  According to the DOE, the stakeholders included industry partners and consumer advocacy organizations. A Washington Free Beacon review, however, shows 7 out of the 10 stakeholders whose recommendations DOE consulted are climate activist groups or left-leaning consumer groups. Those groups collectively boast substantial financial backing from grantmaking nonprofits that regularly funnel money to a wide range of progressive social and environmental initiatives.  Among the stakeholders are the Consumer Federation of America, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, National Resources Defense Council, and Consumer Reports. Those groups have received millions of dollars from nonprofits such as the Bloomberg Family Foundation, TomKat Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, and Schmidt Family Foundation...Altogether, the groups have received tens of millions of dollars from pass-through nonprofits, many of which are overseen by left-wing billionaires, such as Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Hansjorg Wyss, and Eric Schmidt, according to an Institute for Energy Research database of tax filings spanning more than a decade."

There's a reason why Rep. John Curtis is waiting until after his primary to move ahead with the PROVE IT Act.


E&E News (6/25/24) reports:  "Republican Rep. John Curtis has made a name for himself as a climate change advocate. Now, Utah voters will be weighing that record as they decide if he should be their next senator.  Curtis has consistently led in polls ahead of Tuesday’s GOP primary to succeed Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who is retiring. Curtis founded the Conservative Climate Caucus in 2021 and has led on some climate-related issues, like supporting soon-to-be-introduced legislation to measure the carbon intensity of domestically manufactured goods compared to imports.  The race could be a referendum on the salience of climate change in the Republican Party. One clean energy group, ClearPath Action, has spent $500,000 to help Curtis...Curtis has supported the Senate’s 'Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency (PROVE IT) Act,' S. 1863, which would direct the federal government to calculate the carbon intensity of certain domestically manufactured goods, with the goal of showing that they have a better emissions profile than imported competitors.  Many on the right, however, have criticized the effort, seeing it as a precursor to a carbon tariff and a backdoor to a carbon tax. Last week, the fossil-fuel-backed American Energy Alliance launched an advertising campaign, ahead of the primary, criticizing Curtis over 'PROVE IT' and accusing him of 'considering policies to make energy even more expensive.'  Staggs has made Curtis’ climate work a part of his campaign against the congressman. He’s also criticized Curtis for the support he’s receiving from Jay Faison, an entrepreneur who founded ClearPath, a clean energy advocacy organization."

ESG doublespeak.


National Review (6/24/24) reports:  "Almost every National Review reader is familiar with George Orwell’s famous assertion that 'the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’ From this, the lesson for conservatives seeking meaningful headway in a debate that reflects the politicization of everything is simple: In the struggle to bring institutions back towards political neutrality, we dare not forget that attempts at neutrality from groups on the left often don’t represent neutrality at all, but broad-brushstroke moves aimed at painting progressive dogma as normal while smearing conservatives who dissent as radicals, when in reality, the opposite is true.  An example of this came on Tuesday at Mastercard’s annual meeting, where shareholders argued for the company to change its lobbying practices and provide more transparency as to what causes it supports. Do those demands seem innocuous? Probably. The activist game, however, is frequently a subtle one, and the seemingly pro-shareholder veneer, as is so often the case, hid a decidedly anti-shareholder ask. 'Mastercard’s lack of disclosure presents reputational risk when its lobbying contradicts company public positions,' the proposal reads, the clear implication being that Mastercard needs to sever corporate partnerships in order to maintain its corporate reputation and obligations to shareholders.  And who are these dangerous entities that pose such a threat to Mastercard? Organizations such as the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF), a group of financial officers from red states working to oppose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing and stand up for doing their fiduciary duties.  'Mastercard’s support for SFOF has drawn scrutiny for ‘pandering to a handful of pro-fossil fuel US politicians’ and fueling the fight against ESG investing,' the proposal says. The only real crime that’s been committed is standing up for shareholders in the face of demands from corporate activists. For this, Mastercard is supposed to drop SFOF to stay in the good graces of ESG ideologues. What appears on the surface a mere request for transparency is actually a veiled demand to defund conservatives and red-state financial officers. The activists have made their demands to Mastercard, Wells Fargo, and other companies, but they have yet to succeed."

Energy Markets

 
WTI Crude Oil: ↓ $81.16
Natural Gas: ↓ $2.76
Gasoline: ↑ $3.47
Diesel: ↑ $3.80
Heating Oil: ↑ $252.61
Brent Crude Oil: ↓ $85.54
US Rig Count: ↓ 609

 

Donate
Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast
Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast
Connect with us on Facebook Connect with us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter
Forward to a Friend Forward to a Friend
Our mailing address is:
1155 15th Street NW
Suite 525
Washington, DC xxxxxx
Want to change how you receive these emails?
update your preferences
unsubscribe from this list