Blog

Welcome to Energy Townhall, the place where IER's experts converge to provide timely analysis and commentary on all things energy. Join the conversation.

Not even China can save the wind industry Wind

Posted February 17, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

China again added more wind capacity in 2011 than did the United States: 2.6 times as much, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.[i] But even though China built an impressive 18 gigawatts of wind capacity last year, the wind industry is in the doldrums because European and American subsidies are running out.

While China may be in a growth market for erecting wind turbines, whether they produce power or not, over capacity in the wind turbine manufacturing market is affecting growth in developed countries. Over capacity in the turbine market has been caused by competition from lower-cost Chinese manufacturers, a cut-back in subsidies in European countries, and low natural gas prices in the United States where electricity producers are selecting natural gas over wind due to its lower cost and reliability.

European countries have found that they are not able to sustain the subsidies that have marked the advent of wind power in their countries. Both Germany and Spain, the two countries in Europe with the largest wind capacity, have cut their subsidies. Spain has a freeze on subsidies for all new renewable power plants. Germany will be phasing out all subsidies for renewable power by 2017.

Global Wind Capacity in 2011

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, China added 18 gigawatts of wind capacity in 2011, 44 percent of the total capacity added worldwide. The United States added 6.8 gigawatts, or 17 percent. One interesting note—the real comparison is not the installed capacity, but the amount of capacity that actually produces electricity. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2010, the United States produced almost 90 percent more wind power than China with 10 percent less wind capacity.[ii] The lower amount of wind generated electricity for China is due to the lack of integration of its wind capacity with its transmission grid. Data have shown that only about 30 percent of China’s wind units are connected to its electricity grid.

Globally in 2011, the world added an additional 41 gigawatts of wind power, bringing the worldwide wind capacity total to 238 gigawatts.  China’s total wind capacity (62.7 gigawatts) is now a third higher than that of the United States, whose wind capacity totals 46.9 gigawatts.[iii]

European countries increased their wind capacity by a total of 10.3 gigawatts in 2011 despite European governments cutting subsidies and Chinese manufacturers increasing their competition globally. Leading the European countries, Germany added 2 gigawatts, the United Kingdom added 1.3 gigawatts and Spain added 1 gigawatt in 2011. Europe’s total wind capacity is 96.6 gigawatts.

The wind industry is looking into new markets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Wind installations in Brazil increased by half in 2011, with a total wind capacity of 1.5 gigawatts. Honduras and the Dominican Republic constructed their first wind farms last year.[iv]

Source: Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Statistics 2011, February 7, 2012, http://www.gwec.net/uploads/media/GWEC-PRstats-2011_20120206_06__1_.pdf

 

Source: Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Statistics 2011, February 7, 2012, http://www.gwec.net/uploads/media/GWEC-PRstats-2011_20120206_06__1_.pdf

Wind Companies Facing an Uncertain Future

Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS), the largest turbine maker, had to cut sales forecasts twice in three months because the renewable industry is suffering from increased competition from Chinese manufacturers, lower subsidies in many countries, and low natural gas prices in the United States resulting in a global oversupply of turbines. Natural gas prices in New York, for example, dropped 32 percent in 2011 to $2.99 a million British thermal units, falling below $3 for the first time in a decade. In Europe, Germany, France, and Spain reduced their subsidies[v] and in the United States the 1603 grant program rebating 30 percent of the investment cost for qualified renewable technologies expired at the end of 2011. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, global purchases of wind turbines are expected to drop 14 percent in 2012 from 2010 levels and are not expected to surpass 2011 levels for two years.[vi]

On January 12, 2012, Vestas announced that it was cutting 2,335 positions worldwide, or 10 percent of its total workforce. The company lost 166 million Euros ($220 million) in 2011, which was four times more than analysts had estimated. The Bloomberg Wind Energy Index consisting of 64 companies fell 22 percent in 2011 due, in part, to Vestas losing 65 percent of its market value.

Due to the expiration of the production tax credit in the United States at the end of this year, Iberdrola Renewables, a Spanish wind company and the second-largest U.S. wind operator, suspended work on new U.S. projects that cannot be completed in 2012.[vii] The production tax credit is worth 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced during the first 10 years of a wind farm’s operation.

Iberdrola, Spain’s largest onshore wind company, is in agreement with the country’s announcement of a temporary halt of subsidies for all new power plants using renewable energy. Presumably this is because millions of dollars in subsidies have gone to solar, which accounts for 13 percent of the cost of Spanish electricity, but only produces 3 percent of the electricity. The “tariff deficit” in Spain, the accumulated difference between what consumers pay and what it costs suppliers to deliver the subsidized electricity, is costing Spain 24 billion Euros ($31 billion) that the country cannot afford.[viii]

In the United Kingdom, 101 Tory MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year ($627 million) subsidies paid to the wind turbine industry be dramatically cut. There are more than 3,000 onshore wind turbines in Britain and at least 4,500 more turbines are expected to be constructed due to the Government’s agreement to meet legally binding targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions.[ix]Many in the U.K. also want planning laws to be tightened so there is a better chance of stopping new wind farms from being developed in order to protect the countryside.

Conclusion

With the financial crunch and countries being more fiscally responsible, wind and other high-cost, low-reliability forms of energy production are on the rocks. It is hard to see how wind generation will continue to grow rapidly without lavish financial incentives from governments.

See also The U.S. and China’s Renewable Tug of War: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/27/the-u-s-and-chinas-renewable-tug-of-war/


[i] Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Statistics 2011, February 7, 2012, http://www.gwec.net/uploads/media/GWEC-PRstats-2011_20120206_06__1_.pdf

[ii] International Energy Agency, IEA Wind 2010 Annual Report, July 2011, ISBN 0-9786383-5-2, www.iea.org

[iii] Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Statistics 2011, February 7, 2012, http://www.gwec.net/uploads/media/GWEC-PRstats-2011_20120206_06__1_.pdf

[iv] Bloomberg, Wind Power Market Rose to 41 Gigawatts in 2011, Led by China, February 7, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/wind-power-market-rose-6-percent-to-41-gigawatts-led-by-china.html

[v] Bloomberg, Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts, January 27, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-27/spain-suspends-subsidies-for-new-renewable-energy-plants.html

[vi][vi] Bloomberg, Green Energy Profit Crash Deters New CEOs, February 12, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/first-solar-to-vestas-wind-profit-crash-deters-new-ceos-energy.html

[vii] Wall Street Journal, Wind Power firms on Edge, February, 2, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577186993654897460.html

[viii] Financial Times, Iberdrola backs subsidies freeze on renewables, February 13, 2012, http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/02/13/iberdrola-backs-subsidies-freeze-on-renewables/

[ix] Telegraph, 101 Tories revolt over wind farms, February 4, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9061997/101-Tories-revolt-over-wind-farms.html

Tags: , , , ,
Author:
IER

The Obama Budget and Wind Power Wind

Posted February 16, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

In the 1970s and 1980s, the proponents of wind power claimed that renewables would be cost-competitive in a few years if they just received some subsidies for a few years. But thirty years later, renewables proponents are still clamoring for subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. Despite a trillion dollar deficit, President Obama is once again responding to the renewable promoters and asking Congress to approve his budget with billions of dollars in energy subsidies.

The President’s proposed budget would renew and extend a number of renewable subsidies including the 1603 program which pays for as much as much as 30 percent of development costs of renewable-energy projects.[i]  The budget also includes an extension of the production tax credit for the wind industry that is scheduled to expire this year.[ii] The production tax credit is worth 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced during the first 10 years of a wind farm’s operation.   In addition, the budget request would provide $95 million for developing wind energy technology.[iii]

Budget experts indicate that the production tax credit to wind producers costs U.S. taxpayers roughly $1 billion a year. U.S. taxpayers are also loaning billions of dollars directly to renewable firms through the Federal Financing Bank (a part of the U.S. Treasury). According to a study of the industry’s top 20 lenders by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the Federal Financing bank loaned more money to “clean energy” firms than any other bank in the world—a whopping $10.1 billion in 2011 alone.[iv]

If a 4-year production tax credit extension passes, as proposed in H. R. 3307, it would add another $6 billion to the $20 billion in taxpayer dollars the wind industry has received over the past 20 years. The United States borrows these funds (typically from China) and gives them, in part, to European companies that manufacture wind turbines.

The “Value” of Wind Power

Despite, the U.S. government giving billions in subsidies and loans to wind and other “clean energy” firms, there are important questions we should be asking—“just how valuable are these sources of energy?” As Irish journalist Kevin Myers writes in his blog, wind power in Ireland produces electricity from only 22 percent of its capacity. So, he asks, would you spend $100,000 on a car if it meant that $78,000 of the purchase price was wasted? But, it gets worse since the car may not operate when it is needed. On a really cold day when 5,000 megawatts of wind power were needed, wind was producing under 50 megawatts—just one percent of the requirement.[v] Following on with this analogy, it will cost the consumer another $100,000 to provide a reliable car that can operate in cold weather.

Would you operate your family budget in this way? Most families could not afford that kind of luxury. If wind cannot be relied upon to provide power when needed most, then why build it in lieu of some of power that would be reliable and dependable? Why should politicians have that kind of luxury with taxpayers’ money?

Wind capacity continues to grow, but expectations for wind capacity growth in developed countries are not rosy given cut-backs and or expiring subsidies and low natural gas prices making wind even less economic despite the subsidies.  European countries, who were the first on the renewable band wagon have found that they cannot continue to afford to pay for their renewable “luxury”. There are important lessons to be learned about the dangers of choosing winners and losers in the energy marketplace from Germany’s and Spain’s experience. Spanish taxpayers have paid dearly to make their nation a global leader in renewable energy and Germany has generated some of the highest electricity rates in the world through their feed-in tariffs for renewables.

Conclusion

According to Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, the wind industry “simply cannot continue to rely on the American taxpayer. Each time it comes up to a year of expiration, they say, ‘If we just get a few more years our technology will mature and we will become more competitive.’ It’s time for them to figure out how to do that.”[vi]


[i] Bloomberg Business Week, Obama’s budget would extend treasury grants for wind, solar, February 13, 2012 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-13/obama-s-budget-would-extend-treasury-grants-for-wind-solar.html

[iii] The Hill, Obama’s budget doubles down on renewable energy, February 13, 2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/210295-obamas-budget-doubles-down-on-renewable-energy

[iv] Bloomberg, U.S. Government Arranged Most Loans for Clean Energy in 2011, January 17, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-17/u-s-government-arranged-most-loans-for-clean-energy-in-2011.html

[v] Independent, Kevin Myers: Energy policy based on renewables will win hearts but won’t protect their owners from frostbite and death due to exposure, February 7, 2012, http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-energy-policy-based-on-renewables-will-win-hearts-but-wont-protect-their-owners-from-frostbite-and-death-due-to-exposure-3012098.html

[vi] Wall Street Journal, Wind-Power Firms on Edge, February 2, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577186993654897460.html

Tags: , , ,
Author:
IER

Obama Can Give the Economy a New Lease on Life with More Permits Oil

Posted February 16, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

Gas prices are on the rise, but the Obama administration continues its policy of slow-walking drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico. Recently, Greater New Orleans, Inc. (GNO) released its monthly report on the status of oil and gas permits in the Gulf of Mexico—and the numbers help explain why gas prices are up 80% since President Obama’s inauguration.

The Gulf Permit Index shows that since November 2011, an average of only 3 deepwater permits have been issued each month.  This is a 57 percent reduction from the historical average of 7 deepwater permits each month over the past three years:

 

 

Shallow water permits, although a considerably simpler operation than deepwater, have also decreased notably.  Since November 2011, an average of 4.7 shallow water permits have been issued each month, representing a 68 percent decrease from the historical average of 14.7 new shallow water well permits each month:

No less important a measure of the impact of governmental intervention in offshore drilling is the average time it takes to approve each new permit, as well as the number of permits that ultimately receive approval.  Data from GNO and the federal government’s offshore drilling regulatory agencies shows that the approval for an offshore drilling plan now takes 31 days longer—an increase of 52 percent from the historical average of 60.6 days—and in 2011 it took 48 days longer.  That is almost 80 percent greater than the historical average:

Perhaps most telling of the reality in the Gulf is the number of permits that actually get approval.  In the year to date, an average of 23 percent of drilling plans have been approved, a 69 percent reduction from the historical average of 73.4 percent.  In 2011, the average number of approved plans was 34, which is a 53 percent decrease from the historical average.  Instead of increasing in the time since the Gulf moratorium, exploration in the Gulf is continuing on a negative trend downward:

Restricting today’s supply of oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) will have a significant impact on the United States’ future energy outlook.  According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the administration’s offshore drilling regulatory agency, the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas.  Only 2 percent of offshore areas are currently leased for production, however, and large offshore drilling projects often take years to plan and build the infrastructure to support the operation.  Considering that these significant impediments already exist, adding further layers of bureaucracy in the form of slower permitting processes and additional environmental regulations will undoubtedly factor into businesses’ decisions to operate in the Gulf.

 

Source for charts: Greater New Orleans Inc., Gulf Permit Index as of January 31, 2012, http://gnoinc.org/wp-content/uploads/GPI%2B-2012.02.02.pdf.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Author:
Robin Millican

Breaking down EPA’s Light-Duty GHG Emission Standards

Posted February 15, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

Earlier this week, IER submitted its comment on EPA’s proposed light-duty truck greenhouse gas emissions standards. As we will see, even relying on the EPA’s own analysis shows just how absurd federal intervention into energy markets has become. The debate would be funny, if it didn’t have such serious consequences in terms of economic welfare and indeed traffic fatalities.

Takeaway Messages

For those readers with a busy schedule, the following bullet points summarize the main issues raised in IER’s comment:

EPA’s proposed regulation:

  • Would force 6 million drivers out of the market, according to one estimate.
  • Would increase the price of a new car by thousands of dollars.
  • Assumes that Americans are too dumb make good decisions about fuel economy, even when those mistakes add up to billions of dollars per year.
  • Is supposed to do something about global warming, but according to EPA itself the rule would, at most, reduce global temperatures by 0.02 degrees C in the year 2100.

 From the Introduction of IER’s Comment

On December 1, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for model year 2017–2025. In other words, EPA is proposing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks.

This comment explains that EPA, and by extension NHTSA, fail to justify increasing the greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. According to EPA, the entire reason it is regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks is to reduce global warming and climate change, but EPA’s rule does not affect the pace of climate change in any meaningful way. Therefore, this rule is fatally flawed or the endangerment finding is fatally flawed.

EPA’s cost-benefit analysis for this rule is also fatally flawed. EPA’s cost-benefit analysis shows positive net benefits only because EPA omits the cost to consumers of limiting consumer choice. Instead, EPA credits forced fuel savings as a benefit. Because the rule increases the upfront cost of buying a car, the rule forces 7 million drivers out of the car market. This means that 7 million people will not be able to enjoy the fuel savings calculated by EPA because they will not be able to afford a car in the first place.

Furthermore, EPA’s cost-benefit analysis utilizes the “social cost of carbon.” The “social cost of carbon” is a metric developed to try to estimate the impact of emitting on ton of carbon dioxide. The estimates developed through EPA’s social cost of carbon analysis, however, are arbitrary and capricious. In reality, the social cost of carbon is an unsupportable metric for use in federal rulemaking. Even on its own terms, the social cost of carbon estimate is inapplicable for EPA’s analysis, because of what is called “leakage” in the climate change literature. Specifically, EPA ignores the possibility that its rule will increase greenhouse gas emissions outside of the United States, through mechanisms such as a lower world price of oil due to restricted American demand.

For these reasons, EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles using the Clean Air Act.

Consumers Massively Dumb?

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the paternalism underlying the EPA’s position is how thoroughly it relies on massive consumer error. It’s true, standard economic theory allows a role for government intervention to correct “market failures” arising from the negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions. However, that’s not what EPA’s case focuses on. Instead, depending on the parameters, anywhere from 56 to 73 percent of EPA’s claimed “net benefits” from its rule, derive from EPA’s assumption that motorists irrationally fail to understand how much money they could save by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles.

For example, in the year 2040 alone, EPA’s analysis estimates that American car buyers—in the absence of the farsighted rule on light-duty trucks—will miss out on $104 billion in savings they could have reaped, had they paid higher sticker prices for vehicles that would get better fuel economy. In contrast, EPA’s estimate for the total gains from avoided climate change damages as well as other factors (such as reduced macroeconomic volatility from reduced reliance on oil imports), might yield as little as $29 billion in the year 2040, in the scenario where the “social cost of carbon” is relatively low.

The reader should not be fooled that EPA is promulgating this rule in order to combat climate-change damages. When trying to justify the higher sticker prices its methods will impose on vehicle buyers, EPA’s analysis rests primarily (again, 56 to 73 percent, depending on the other assumptions) on the view that it will be directly doing these buyers a favor, by making them buy more fuel efficient cars that will pay for themselves.

EPA Rule Will Lead to More Traffic Fatalities

Besides the generic harm to consumers coming from government intervention, a specific consequence of the new rule will be increased traffic fatalities, relative to what the trend otherwise would have been. EPA’s analysis (from which it derived estimates of the impact on vehicle prices) assumed that all other vehicle attributes would be held constant, and that the increased cost of production (to meet the higher fuel economy standard) would be passed entirely on to the final buyer.

However, in reality what will happen is that in the new equilibrium, manufacturers will produce vehicles that are lighter than otherwise would have been the case, and hence they will not need to be as expensive as EPA assumes. In other words, in practice consumers will not choose to have the full brunt of the new rule show up merely in higher sticker prices, but they will spread the pain around to other dimensions, such as vehicle safety.

As we document in the comment (pp. 14-15), estimates of excess traffic fatalities attributable to the introduction of CAFE standards in the 1970s range from 42,000 to 125,000 deaths.

But At Least the Rule Will Halt Climate Change, Right?

The most alarming and yet humorous piece of IER’s comments revolves around EPA’s own discussion of the rule’s effect on climate change. Here is EPA making the case for its rule:

The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated by 2100 to be reduced by 3.29 to 3.68 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0076 to 0.0184 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.074–0.166 cm, based on a range of climate sensitivities.

Yes, you read that right: EPA itself suggests that the upper range of the likely impact of the proposed rule will slow global warming by less than 2 hundredths of a degree Celsius…by the year 2100. It is for this social goal (as well as the free money EPA will give to ignorant consumers who can’t calculate fuel savings on their own) that justifies—again, according to EPA’s own numbers—imposing aggregate costs on vehicle buyers of $36 billion in the year 2030 alone (to pick just one year’s figure).

Conclusion

As a cursory examination of IER’s formal comment shows, the proponents of government intervention into the energy sector simply cannot make a decent case, when they are asked to come up with actual numbers. As IER’s analysis of EPA’s own table shows, the only way to ensure that the purported benefits of the rule exceed the admitted costs is to invoke massive and systematic consumer irrationality. The innocent layperson may have thought that looming climate change damages would be enough, but that isn’t the case for the lower range of sensitivity estimates, again as EPA’s own table shows.

Rather than imposing new regulations that will stifle manufacturing sector and lead to a higher rate of traffic deaths, the government would be better advised to remove other interventions and let the market work.

Tags: , , , ,
Author:
Robert Murphy

North Dakota’s Oil Production Increases by 55% In One Year Oil

Posted February 11, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources has announced the oil production numbers for 2011 and the results are pretty stunning. Oil production in North Dakota jumped by 55 percent from December 2010 to December 2011. Total oil production for  2011 was 35 percent higher than 2010.

As we have previously explained, North Dakota’s rapid oil production increase means that North Dakota’s oil production will soon pass California. In fact, if North Dakota’s production has increased at all since December, North Dakota is likely now the 3rd largest oil producing state. Amazingly, if North Dakota’s production increases in 2012 as much as it did in 2011, then by next year North Dakota’s oil production could surpass Alaska’s.

This rapid increase once again demonstrates the importance and the promise of hydraulic fracturing. For years, geologists knew there were oil resources in the Bakken formation in North Dakota, but they didn’t know how to unlock the oil from the rock. Hydraulic fracturing combined with directional drilling has radically changed oil production in North Dakota by allowing oil production where it was not possible just a few years ago. In fact, oil production in North Dakota has more than tripled over the last 5 years.

 

Tags: , , ,
Author:
Daniel Simmons

The Real Anti-Energy Agenda: The NYT’s Joe Nocera Finds It Out Oil

Posted February 10, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

Anti-energy environmental groups, ensconced in Washington, DC, have a vastly different agenda from the one embraced by the great majority of consumers, voters, and taxpayers in North America.

Instead of working to create prosperity and greater wealth for a better environment, far too many special-interest groups are working to artificially restrain natural marketplace economics. Witness the intense opposition of groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to a shovel-ready trans-national oil pipeline that sellers and buyers have executed contracts to build.

Nocera Looks at Keystone

New York Times editorialist Joe Nocera recently looked under the hood of the opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline project, which would transport Canadian oil sands from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries. And here is what he wrote in the Times:

As it turns out, the environmental movement doesn’t just want to shut down Keystone.  Its real goal, as I discovered when I spoke recently to Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, is much bigger. “The effort to stop Keystone is part of a broader effort to stop the expansion of the tar sands,” Brune said.  “It is based on choking off the ability to find markets for tar sands oil.”

Nocera calls out such a mentality as destructive and futile.

This is a ludicrous goal. If it were to succeed, it would be deeply damaging to the national interest of both Canada and the United States.  But it has no chance of succeeding.  Energy is the single most important industry in Canada. Three-quarters of the Canadian public agree with the Harper government’s diversification strategy. China’s “thirst” for oil is hardly going to be deterred by the Sierra Club. And the Harper government views the continued development of the tar sands as a national strategic priority.

It is a sign of desperation that Keystone XL has become a cause célèbre for the critics of modern industrial society and requisite dense energy (oil, gas, and coal). One could only wish that the same effort was being directed against a much bigger problem: industrial wind turbines that both leave taxpayers poorer and pristine environs compromised.

Malthusian Gloom

Limits-to-growth environmentalists wish to impose artificial restraints on economic growth and trade to save us from ourselves. This has been dogma for decades. Consider this statement from 1977 written by current Obama science advisor John Holdren along with Paul Ehrlich, “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.” They continued, “This effort must be largely political.”

Holdren appears to be keeping a very low profile at the White House. But in the past he (and Paul and Anne Ehrlich) paid homage to the gloomy worldview of Thomas Robert Malthus, who centuries ago saw “misery or vice” for man in a world of insufficient means.

“We find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp,” the three wrote back in 1977. “We hold this view not because we believe the world to be running out of materials in an absolute sense, but rather because the barriers to continued material growth, in the form of problems of economics, logistics, management, and environmental impact, are so formidable.”

Well, now we find so-called environmentalists creating the very barriers to expanding resources that they once predicted would occur naturally.

Kudos to Joe Nocera for taking a fresh look at this buffoonery in his column. Let it be a wakeup call to the foes of North American energy in a world that will use our energy whether domestic politics allows it or not.

Tags: ,
Author:
Robert Bradley