New paper finds increased CO2 or methane will have 'essentially no effect' upon global temperature or climate
Adiabatic influence the big factor
A new paper by USC Professor Emeritus of Geology, Dr. George Chilingar (with three co-authors), finds that increasing levels of the greenhouse gases CO2 & methane will have "essentially no effect" upon global temperatures or climate.
The authors utilize a one-dimensional adiabatic model of climate to demonstrate that the entire tropospheric temperature profile of the atmosphere on both Earth and Venus may be mathematically derived solely on the basis of atmospheric pressure/mass and solar activity, confirmed by observations on both planets, despite vast differences in atmospheric composition and mass/pressure on Earth and Venus. The paper corroborates the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory and thereby excludes the alternative 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory.
"The writers investigated the greenhouse effect using their adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the atmospheric pressure and solar radiation. This model allows one to analyze the global temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate warming.
Moreover, based on the adiabatic model of heat transfer, the writers showed that additional releases of CO2 and CH4 lead to cooling (and not to warming as the proponents of the conventional theory of global warming state) of the Earth’s atmosphere. The additional methane releases possess a double cooling effect: First, they intensify convection in the lower layers of troposphere; Second, the methane together with associated water vapor intercept part of the infrared solar irradiation reaching the Earth.
Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate."
Physically, an explanation of the cooling effect of the atmosphere with the high content of “greenhouse gases” is the high efficiency of the convective heat transfer from the planet’s surface to the lower stratosphere, from which this heat is rapidly dissipating into the outer space through radiation. As the greenhouse gases absorb the Earth’s heat radiation in the lower layers of troposphere, its energy transforms into the heat oscillations of the gas molecules. This, in turn, leads to expansion of the gas mixture and its rapid ascent to the stratosphere where the heat excess is lost through radiation into the outer space.
To replace these volumes of the warm air, the already cooled air descends from the upper troposphere. As a result, the global average atmospheric temperature slightly decreases. One particular consequence of it is that with an increase in the carbon dioxide and methane contents in troposphere the convective mass exchange of the atmospheric gases must substantially accelerate.
Thus, it is not out of the question that the intensification of synoptic processes in Earth troposphere (but not temperature increase) may be a result of the carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” accumulation."
The primary equation of the paper  is similar to the 'greenhouse equation' described in a recent series of posts on the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory.
The "Greenhouse Equation" calculates temperature (T) at any location from the surface to the top of the troposphere as a function of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure and radiative forcing from the Sun only, and without any radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Note the pressure (P) divided by 2 in the greenhouse equation is the pressure at the center of mass of the atmosphere (after density correction), where the temperature and height are equal to the equilibrium temperature with the Sun and ERL respectively.
The primary differences between Chilingar et al equation  and the 'greenhouse equation' are:
1. Chilingar et al introduce a correction for solar insolation based on the Earth's precession angle of 23.44 degrees
2. Chilingar et al assume an Earth surface temperature of 288K or 15C, whereas the HS 'greenhouse equation' only assumes the equilibrium temperature of the Earth with the Sun (255K or -18C) & atmospheric mass/pressure to derive the surface temperature, as well as that of the entire troposphere, replicating the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere.
An upcoming post will join the mathematics of these two equations to explain the entire temperature profile of the atmosphere from the surface to the edge of space at 100+ km geopotential altitude, without incorporating 'radiative forcing' from CO2.
Do Increasing Contents of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Cause Global Warming?
G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. F. Khilyuk, M. Liu
In the Earth atmosphere, methane gradually converts into carbon dioxide which, according to the conventional anthropogenic theory of global warming, is the main driver of global climate change. The authors investigated the greenhouse effect of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using their tested adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the atmospheric pressure and solar activity. This model allows one to analyze the global temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate
The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time
It’s been over a month since I wrote an update on “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time,” so it’s time to check in on it again. For those not following this, the fraud in question is the world temperature data tampering fraud, by which the keepers of historical world temperature records adjust temperatures in earlier years downwards in order to create or enhance warming trends and support the narrative of catastrophic global warming. The principal perpetrators of the fraud are U.S. government employees in the agency known as NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
Readers of the previous articles know that NOAA has been caught red-handed over and over adjusting earlier temperatures downward. They uniformly provide no explanation beyond something like “our homogenization algorithm is working appropriately,” refuse to give any details, and expunge the earlier raw data to make it as hard as possible for anyone to prove the fraud.
Numerous examples of NOAA’s pervasive and unexplained adjustments have been published on websites including ICECAP, RealScience, NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat, WattsUpWithThat and others. And numerous independent researchers have done a lot to thwart NOAA’s data deletion efforts by archiving earlier versions of the data.
You can’t follow this issue at all without knowing that there are very credible and thoroughly demonstrated instances of pervasive data tampering by NOAA. You also can’t follow this issue at all without knowing that there are several other independent data sets, most notably the two satellite data sets of UAH and RSS covering the period 1979 to present, that do not show the warming that the NOAA data shows.
And yet, with this background, NOAA keeps putting out press releases, more or less monthly, trumpeting alleged new high temperature records, and supposed “news” outlets pick up the releases and put out stories with one scary headline after another, never mentioning that other data sets do not show the same records or warming, and never mentioning that serious and thoroughly-proved allegations of data tampering have been made against NOAA and never refuted.
Not meaning to pick specifically on Bloomberg News, but their website front page has made a point for several months of having a global warming scare headline up there at nearly all times. For example, today there is “World Breaks Temperature Records As Climate Summit Nears.” (“Global land and sea surface temperatures from January through June were 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, the highest since recordings started in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a report.”) Yesterday it was “Monster El Nino Makes Record Hot Year Look Inevitable.” (“This has been the hottest start to a year by far, according to data released today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”) Or try June 18, “This Year Is Headed For The Hottest On Record, By A Long Shot.” (“Last month was the hottest May on record, and the past five months were the warmest start to a year on record, according to new data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”) Or April 17: “Global Temperature Records Just Got Crushed Again.” (“March was the hottest month on record, and the past three months were the warmest start to a year on record, according to new data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”) Notice that every time the source is specifically NOAA, without any mention of other data sets that do not show the same thing, nor any mention of the well-established allegations of data tampering against NOAA. Pathetic.
Believe me, Bloomberg is not the only one. To give just a couple of examples, here is NBC News from yesterday, “Another Month, Another Global Heat Record Broken.” (“Off-the-charts heat is “getting to be a monthly thing,” said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. June was the fourth month of 2015 that set a record, she said.”) Or the New York Times from March 18, “Winter Sets Global Heat Record Despite US East’s Big Chill.” (“Federal [NOAA] records show that this winter and the first two months of 2015 were the hottest on record globally, with a chilly U.S. East sticking out like a cold thumb in a toastier world.”) Always NOAA and only NOAA. Never any mention of other data sets or what they show. Never any mention of known NOAA data tampering.
A website called NoTricksZone has a good roundup today comparing the latest NOAA data showing supposed “records” with data from the other independent (and also more accurate) satellite data sets. It’s just as you’d expect:
NOAA claims that the global surface temperature reached a new all-time record high with an anomaly +0.88°C – the warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880! However measurements taken by satellite Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) show that although June 2015 indeed was a warm month at +0.39°C, it was only the 4th warmest June ever, and more than 30 other earlier months have seen greater positive anomalies [in records going back to 1979] Satellite data (revised) [also data going back to 1979] taken by the University of Alabama in Huntsville UAH show that the June 2015 temperature anomaly was +0.31°C, a warm month but not the hottest June ever as three other June months were as warm or warmer. Moreover plots of the RSS and UAH data continue to show that global temperatures have been flat for now close to 20 years.
NoTricksZone then has the following comment from meteorologist Joe d’Aleo:
“The problem is that the same staff responsible for creating the reports about the climate . . . and running some of the greenhouse models that project the scary scenarios . . . are also responsible for the databases that validate the forecasts. . . . There is a lot of control available for modelers to predict a desired result, and data source inconsistencies allow NOAA to be creative – and the result is a hybrid of data and models (with their adjustments like TOA, infilling and homogenization) to show whatever the puppet-masters in government require. It may be that some really believe in their science and work hard to mine the data, achieving a form of bias confirmation. In other cases it is ideologically or politically driven or a matter of job security.”
Also at NoTricksZone from a couple of weeks ago (July 7) is the latest discovery of yet another example of widespread NOAA data tampering. A guy named Michael Brakey is an energy consultant in Maine, and for his job had reason to archive older temperatures to keep track of how his home efficiency solutions were working. To his amazement, on repeated visits to NOAA’s website to collect data, he found that older temperatures had been systematically altered downward:
In early 2015, I revisited the NOAA website and updated my HDD [heating degree day] and cooling degree-day (CDD) data for a local television presentation. Here I was shocked to discover that NOAA had not only rewritten Maine climate history for a second time in the last 18 months, but with all the tinkering they also screwed up southern interior Maine averages.
There’s lots more detail at the link, including additional discovery of massive data tampering with archived temperatures in Ohio and Tennessee. The tampering is always in the same direction — earlier temperatures get cooler, thus enhancing warming trends, and making the latest data look like a “record.”
Brakey asked NOAA to explain, and got this:
“…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”
Replacing actual, observed temperatures in Maine with observations from “neighboring Canada” supposedly brings the value “more in line with what was observed at the time”? It couldn’t be more preposterous. Bloomberg, NBC, New York Times, and the rest of you: do you realize the extent to which you are getting scammed? Or are you part of the scam? It’s just beyond belief.
Chicago Archdiocese new EPA effort is misguided and destructive, Greenpeace co-founder says
In mid-July, the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese announced it was launching a formal project with the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency to promote global warming awareness.
Chicago’s new Archbishop Blaise Cupich was ready to answer those raising questions about the church-state partnership. “Those who do not think religious organizations should have an opinion on climate change misunderstand the purpose of the former and the moral dimensions of the latter,” Cupich said at a Chicago press conference with EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy.
But the archdiocese’s new awareness of energy issues has nothing to do with mistaking the purpose of the Church, according to Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace.
“A lot of world leaders are taking a measurement of what people are thinking, and they all want to be the hero on this one,” Moore said in a phone interview with Watchdog Arena.
“Of course, that’s fairly natural for religion to do, because they’re always trying to save souls.”
The Chicago Archdiocese is the first in the nation to establish a benchmarking effort to record and evaluate the archdiocese’s energy usage in its 2700 church, school, residential and administration buildings.
Moore, who holds a PhD in ecology from the University of British Columbia, says many see the climate change movement as a form of religion, but for him, it has more to do with pointing to the “original sin.”
“What they’re basically saying is that we are the enemies of the Earth and the environment, and therefore we should do everything we can to make it seem as though we are not really here,” he said.
Shortly after Pope Francis released his encyclical on climate change earlier this year, Cupich re-emphasized the Holy Father’s concern that global warming would eventually devastate the Earth.
“The Holy Father urges us to stop the steady march to a warmer planet that will change sea levels and crop growing patterns, parch fields and promote famine, and lead to human misery on a scale yet unimagined,” he said.
Cupich said Pope Francis wanted to reduce the use of fossil fuels, rely more on renewable energy sources and re-think over-cooled and over-heated homes and workplaces.
Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986 and has since become a global warming skeptic, said such suggestions create within the minds of the Catholic faithful “a self-defeating guilt trip.”
“You’re afraid you’re going to kill your kids and grandchildren by running your SUV, and you feel guilty for doing it,” Moore said. “The reasoning appeals to those two human motivators – guilt and fear – and for some reason, there’s always been somebody standing on the street corner with a sign saying, ‘the end is nigh.’”
Moore, who said he left Greenpeace when his fellow directors abandoned science and plunged into social activism, warned, “We are really doing a disservice by teaching people that fossil fuels are evil. Fossil fuels are, in fact, the largest solar storage of energy there is on the earth.”
Fossil fuels originated in plants and plankton, which grew by photosynthesis in the sea and on the land, and are now buried deep in the earth, Moore said. “They are 100 percent organic, they were created by solar energy, so they were renewable at the time, and now they’re the largest storage batteries on the earth.”
Cupich said Pope Francis is concerned that abuse of the environment will adversely affect the poor, who are the most vulnerable.
“They suffer most from the degradation of the earth – they are the least protected from the increasingly violent swings of nature caused by global warming,” the the archbishop said. “The poor have the greatest exposure to air pollution, droughts, unsafe drinking water and the spread of diseases.”
“I’ll tell you what’s worse on the poor – not having any energy to heat their homes,” Moore said in response to the archbishop’s comments. “To hold that position is either extreme naiveté or it’s not caring about what happens.”
Moore, who this week released with Prager University several short videos about his experience with Greenpeace and alternative perspectives on carbon emissions, said in contrast to the Pope’s warnings, he thinks the best is yet to come concerning the world’s energy use.
“The idea that we are enemies of the earth is a terrible thing to tell our children, because we are from the Earth, we evolved with the rest of life,” he said. “Personally, I’m extremely optimistic about the evolution of our consciousness on this subject.”
Americans May Now Be Forced to Use Dishwashers That Don’t Clean Dishes
By Daniel Mitchell
When writing about the burden of regulation, I often share big numbers about aggregate cost, job losses, time wasted, and foregone growth.
But I sometimes wonder if such data is effective in the battle for good policy.
Maybe it’s better, at least in some cases, to focus on regulations that affect quality of life for regular people. Lots of ordinary citizens, for instance, are irked that they’re now forced to use inferior light bulbs, substandard toilets, and inadequate washing machines because of regulatory silliness from Washington.
And it looks like we’ll now be forced to use dishwashers that don’t clean dishes thanks to proposed regulations that will reduce water use (which is in addition to a 2012 regulation that already restricted water use).
The Hill reports on the Nanny State’s latest salvo in the war against modern civilization.
“The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers is accusing the Department of Energy (DOE) of a politically motivated drive to increase dishwasher efficiency standards, which are so bad that they would cause consumers to re-wash dishes, erasing any efficiency gains. Rob McAver, the group’s head lobbyist, said regulators are going too far and the new rules will allow only 3.1 gallons to be used to wash each load of dishes. … They then ran standard tests with food stuck to dishes. ‘They found some stuff that was pretty disgusting,’ McAver said. … ‘The poor performance that would result would totally undercut and go backwards in terms of energy and water use, because of the need for running the dishwasher again, or pre-rinsing or hand-washing, which uses a lot of water,’ he said.”
Great, another bone-headed step by the government that will make life less enjoyable.
I’m already one of those people who rinse my dishes before putting them in the dishwasher because I hate the idea that they won’t be fully clean afterwards.
So I can only imagine how bad it will be if this absurd example of red tape is imposed and I have to buy a new dishwasher.
I guess I’ll just keep my fingers crossed that my current dishwasher doesn’t break down.
Especially since the rules make new dishwashers more expensive.
“Ernest Istook, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, wrote in a Washington Times piece that complying with the 2012 rule, based on DOE estimates, added roughly $44 to the cost of each machine. ‘Now their 2015 proposal will add another $99 to the price tag, even by DOE’s own admission,’ he wrote.”
Julie Borowski has the right assessment. Her column for Freedom Works is from 2012, but it’s very appropriate still today.
“Are you disappointed in every shower head that you purchase? Does your toilet have trouble flushing? Have you noticed that your dishes are still dirty after the dishwasher cycle is completed? … Some of us may be quick to blame the manufacturer of these home appliances. But the manufacturers are just abiding by the costly regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy.”
What’s really frustrating is that these regulations reduce the quality of life without even reducing water usage.
“… it has only led to people hacking their shower heads to remove the intrusion that is blocking water flow in order to have a more relaxing shower that actually gets them clean. There is no proof that the water restrictions have actually saved water because many people just end up taking longer showers than they otherwise would.”
Amen. Every so often I wind up at a hotel with restricted-flow showerheads and it’s a hassle because I probably spend twice as long in the shower.
Not to mention problems government has created elsewhere in bathrooms.
“… water restrictions are also the reason that our toilets have trouble flushing. Many of us have become accustomed to flushing the toilet multiple times before the toilet bowl is clear. The 1992 Energy Policy Act states that all toilets sold in the United States use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. These water restrictions are the reason why we have to use plungers far more often than we used to.”
I won’t torment readers with a TMI moment, but I will say that I now routinely flush at the halfway point when seated on a toilet. And even that doesn’t necessarily preclude a third flush at the end of the process.
The only good news is that this gives me a daily reminder that government has far too much power to micro-manage our lives.
Cheap Power or "Clean" Energy? India’s $200 Billion Dilemma
A weak link lurks in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s push for an unprecedented $200 billion expansion of clean energy: cash-starved state electricity distributors.
The retailers have racked up more than 2.5 trillion rupees ($39 billion) of losses partly because they’re forced to sell below cost to keep energy affordable, Power Ministry data show. Reliant on loans and subsidies, their scope to embrace solar and wind over cheaper, dirtier coal-fired supplies is in question.
That leaves Modi juggling the needs of India’s 750 million poor, his clean-energy ambitions, and pressure to pledge emissions curbs at a United Nations global warming summit in December. For billionaires such as SoftBank Group Corp.’s Masayoshi Son who have vowed major solar investment in India since Modi took office last year, distribution poses a key risk.
“Most distribution companies are a big question mark,” said Sunil Jain, chief executive officer at New Delhi-based Hero Future Energies, which runs 260 megawatts of renewable plants. “We’ve raised the issue of distributors’ health with the government many times. We face the risk of delayed payments.”
Modi’s objective is 175 gigawatts of green energy capacity by 2022, up from about 37 gigawatts, at an estimated cost of $200 billion -- more than the size of Vietnam’s economy. SoftBank, Adani Enterprises Ltd., Reliance Power Ltd., SunEdison Inc. and Trina Solar Ltd. are among those planning investment.
The premier’s push has helped spur rallies in renewable energy companies, such as wind turbine maker Suzlon Energy Ltd., which has risen 48 percent this year, compared with a 1 percent gain in the S&P BSE Sensex index.
Son’s $20 billion venture with Bharti Enterprises Pvt. and Foxconn Technology Group will seek potential sites in sun-baked Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh states.
Yet those regions, together with Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, suffered distribution losses of about 540 billion rupees in the year through March 2013 alone, a report by government-controlled Power Finance Corp. shows.
These four states also account for a significant chunk of India’s solar goals -- such as 30 percent of a national 40-gigawatt target for rooftop panels by 2022, according to India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.
Rajasthan’s state power transmission utility, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., underscores the challenge ahead.
“We’re getting conventional power at 3 rupees a unit,” said its Operations Director R.P. Barwar. “There’s no point paying almost double that rate for solar.”
Barwar said the utility won’t purchase renewable energy beyond the amount required by regulators, adding electricity generators will have to look for other customers.
Half of Tamil Nadu’s 8,000-megawatt wind capacity is curtailed partly because distributors can’t afford it, according to ReNew Power Ventures Pvt. Chief Executive Sumant Sinha.
Such examples show why successful renewable projects will have to encompass sales to private companies -- as captive providers or over the open market -- as well as to utilities to be successful, consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers India said.
“The renewable target can’t be based on sales to utilities alone,” said Sambitosh Mohapatra, a partner at the consultancy. “And investors do realize that.”
Another approach, practiced by wind specialist Mytrah Group, is to operate across a number of states to diversify distribution risk. Mytrah’s business is spread over six states.
India remains reliant on coal, which fires about 60 percent of its power generation capacity. While Modi is trying initiatives such as dollar-linked solar contracts to cut costs and woo investment, India has yet to allow higher distribution charges so utilities can afford more renewable supplies.
“Many of these utilities have no ability to buy cheaper conventional power,” said Debasish Mishra, a senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. in Mumbai. “It raises questions whether they would buy costlier renewable power.”
What’s Wrong With the Senate Energy Bill?
The Senate is attempting to move forward with allegedly non-controversial legislation, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, which, according to proponents, contains no “poison pills.”
But for anyone who wants to swallow a strong dose of government intervention and anti-market energy policy, this bill is chock-full of poison pills.
Like the last two major energy bills passed in 2005 and 2007, a few good provisions do not outweigh the abundance of bad policies that waste taxpayer dollars, restrict energy choice and distort markets.
Reforming old laws and breaking down government-imposed barriers to make energy markets more innovative and competitive takes energy policy in the right direction, but the Energy Policy Modernization Act largely perpetuates the status quo of the government thinking it knows best, by picking winners and losers.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
The legislation provides taxpayer-funded subsidies generating renewable energy and efficiency retrofits at schools and at non-profit organizations, and for improving energy efficiency for state and tribal buildings.
Not only are these programs duplicative of state efforts, but they are also wasteful and distort the choices that families, businesses, schools, and state and local governments can make on their own.
American families and businesses have many different needs. A one-size-fits-all regulation or subsidy to artificially elevate the importance of energy efficiency is not only wasting taxpayer dollars, but skewing consumer preferences and the market at large.
Businesses and families make energy-saving investments when it makes sense for them to do so, and as a result, energy use per dollar of Gross Domestic Product has fallen dramatically.
The paternalistic view of federal intervention in energy efficiency ignores the trade-offs, budget constraints and payback periods that families and investors face, as well as the preferences they hold.
Similarly, politicians should not think that if they play puppet master using taxpayer dollars, the market pieces will fall into place.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act contains an array of programs such as:
Taxpayer money to train the next generation of workers
Grant money for projects eligible for electricity grid modernization
Government-provided incentives for hydroelectric production
Research demonstration projects for geothermal energy and hydrokinetic energy
Expands authority for government money for biopower and bioheat systems
A low-interest loan program for industrial bioheat systems
Amends and reauthorizes a program to make methane hydrates a commercially viable source of energy
Recycling critical minerals
Promotes commercialization of carbon capture and sequestration as an objective of the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy
These programs perpetuate the same, tired thinking in Washington that the market works like baking a cake.
If you sprinkle a few government programs here, some taxpayer-provided incentives there, and add in handouts for jobs training programs, you’ll have a viable new product that generates wealth and opportunity when all is said and done.
And politicians get to say: we built that, which certainly doesn’t hurt come election time.
Not only is this not the role of government and an ill-informed idea of what drives growth and prosperity, but the government-can-make-markets line of thinking backfires, wasting taxpayer money and trapping labor and capital in unproductive places, driving up prices.
Government programs that promote specific technologies or attempt to drive investment distort the market by dictating where investments flow, taking labor and capital away from potentially more promising endeavors.
At best, the programs may provide some subsidized production and jobs, which politicians can point to as a positive, but it is not the recipe for a sustainable industry and a thriving economy.
Nor does it show how those resources could have been more productive in other sectors of the economy.
The Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 would be an extension of everything that’s wrong with energy policy in the United States because it continues the mindset of government intervention over the energy economy.
To increase energy production, create jobs and grow the economy, Congress should pass reforms that open access to markets, eliminate favoritism for any energy sources and create a regulatory pathway that allows innovative, competitive technologies to flourish, many of which already have bipartisan support.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here