That Wright has said some commonsense things and that some of his critics have said some not commonsense things does not say anything about what policies he favors to reduce CO2 emissions. Tax on net CO2 emissions? subsidies to mimic a tax on net emissions position of US at COP? Remove subsidies that do NOT mimic the tax on net CO2 emissions?
All his statements seem slippery to me, but we'll see
Chris's nomination is very encouraging but I keep hoping that we'll see some reform on the NSF front as I understand the funding of climate research tilts strongly towards support for alarmism. I would hope Roger would be offered a role here with the goal of restoring balance. That’s assuming Roger would agree to be associated with what some would inevitably call the "Trump agenda".
I couldn't find it at first, but it is on the black bar beneath the video -- above the Spotify button on my screen. But I'm told it is not a complete transcript. Sorry about that!
The text below comes direct from Chris Wright's Liberty Energy ESG report for this year. He includes a 'Case Study' on the UK (and the EU) to show what happens if you implement bad energy policy - the last sentence is chilling....
"The UK, although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry. The results are troubling.
Primary energy consumption in the United Kingdom peaked in 2005 at 10.6 exajoules and has since declined by 28% to 7.6 exajoules in 2022! UK electricity consumption has fallen by 22% over the same period and is at levels last seen in the late 1980s.
These declines in energy consumption should not be misread as implying significant and effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They do indeed track with reductions in the UK, but not necessarily with global emissions. Elevating energy prices has two major impacts: It depresses demand from consumers due to cost, and it leads to the reshoring of energy-intensive manufacturing to locales with lower energy prices. In simpler terms, citizens are impoverished. Industry has been, and continues to be, relocated to Asia and the United States. The first factor reduces emissions by making energy less affordable to citizens, and the second does not reduce emissions as they are simply relocated. Industry relocations are likely to increase emissions, as the EU’s primary industrial fuel is natural gas, where coal dominates in Asia. Far from being an encouraging sign, consumption reductions are an indication of systemic weakness; this is an economy and society that is less and less able to change the world in accordance with its requirements.
However, the UK and European Union governments do not see it this way and have embraced these signs of policy failure as measures of success. They have set targets for further decreases in consumption. On current trajectories there is every reason to suppose that these targets will be met, as the climate policies render energy still more expensive. The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States."
Roger: The DoE is responsible of one of the biggest "frauds" in energy policy: the Levelized Cost of Electricity. The cost of all goods is controlled by supply and demand, not the cost of production. This is especially true in the case of electricity, which is the most perishable good on the planet. If electricity can't be used the instant it is generated, it normally has ZERO VALUE, because the cost of storage and the cost of transmission are both too high. Yes, some solar farms are beginning to include a token amount of battery storage because there is no market for solar power around noon on sunny summer days in Southern California and Oahu, but we will have enough trouble simply meeting the demand for batteries for electric vehicles for the next decade or two. Weather is correlated for up to 1,000 miles, so expensive transmission lines that long are needed to move excess electricity from sunny location to cloudy ones and windy locations to calm ones.
I read an interview with the owner of one of the first wind farms in Alberta, which was being decommissioned. When asked why he wasn't replacing his old turbines with new more efficient ones and taking advantage of his existing infrastructure and land, the owner simply said: No one in Albert wants to buy electricity when the wind is blowing. I'm not installing new turbines until the government guarantees me a market for the electricity they produce.
The prospect of Chris Wright at DOE and Doug Burgum at DOI provides hope for constructive and productive policy initiatives coming out of the new Administration. I've watched the video of the discussion between Roger and Chris about 3 times at Veriten. https://veriten.com/stream/cobt-se-pielke-wright/ It's excellent. Reading the Liberty Energy document "Bettering Human Lives 2024" is a real treat. I don't think that it's by chance that so much of the technical bases of the document are citations from RJP Jr. Charts on extreme event attribution and trends in damages come directly from RJP Jr.. The ten Key Takeaways on the first page of the report were all discussed by Chris and Roger in one way or another during their meeting at Veriten. I particularly like the reframing of the Netzero quest in takeaway 10: Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.
I hope that Wright at DOE provides an opportunity for Roger's work to be more impactful. Perhaps there's an Assistant Secretary job that would be a good fit.
There are two tracks with the climate crisis cult. One is macro economic... the globalist corporatist cabal led by the WEF and supported by Wall Street for different agendas. These people need the US-funded Global Order to continue. They are connected to the Regime Democrats which is 70% of the party..;.; the old liberals and the Democrat necons. Their goal is to perpetuate the continued wealth transfer from the western middle class to the top upper class... the WEF globalists for the reason that they need the working middle class to become government dependent to support global collectivism... Wall Street because of the greed of global returns at any cost. These people own the media and tech.
The second is the woke ideology practitioners. For them they lack God and life-meaning and have adopted climate crisis as pushed into the mush noggins during their campus experience by malcontent radical 3rd wave postmodernist radical professors and administrators.
And you see we are fighting the war on two fronts, and amazingly appear to be winning.
However the enemy is well armed with cats and rage... and more time on their hands because of 4B... and they are also loaded with cash and still control the corporate media and tech. So it we must keep up the good fight.
In as much as you considered 'character' as a determitave variable for those voting for president, and what I understood as a preference for Harris using that metric, does the nomination of Chris Write as energy secretary mitigate your (likely) disappointment with the election results?
I tend not to get too excited or disappointed by elections. I'm a policy guy and good policy is good policy regardless who gets elected, the politics just change the boundary conditions! Wright is a smart choice and a good guy. Whether that translates into effectiveness in energy policy depends upon a lot more than that, but from where I sit, the possibilities for more pragmatic and sensible policy increased with this appointment.
This response is exactly what I would have expected - it is one reason why I have such great respect for you!
BTW - I am a CU alum having grown up in Boulder (my family moved there in 1965 when I was 10), and at CU I earned my BA in biology in 1978 and a PhD in pharmacology (UCHSC) in 1988. I started my MD degree at UCHSC in '88 but finished in Syracuse. I read The Honest Broker several years after it was published and have been promoting it to colleagues & friends ever since. You make me proud to be a Buff!
With respect to coach Sanders, I was skeptical when he was hired, but I am obviously happy with his work so far - and not just the W-L record but also with the overall message that is projected by the coach & the team.
That Wright has said some commonsense things and that some of his critics have said some not commonsense things does not say anything about what policies he favors to reduce CO2 emissions. Tax on net CO2 emissions? subsidies to mimic a tax on net emissions position of US at COP? Remove subsidies that do NOT mimic the tax on net CO2 emissions?
All his statements seem slippery to me, but we'll see
Chris's nomination is very encouraging but I keep hoping that we'll see some reform on the NSF front as I understand the funding of climate research tilts strongly towards support for alarmism. I would hope Roger would be offered a role here with the goal of restoring balance. That’s assuming Roger would agree to be associated with what some would inevitably call the "Trump agenda".
My head must be in the clouds as I don't see the transcript within the link.
I couldn't find it at first, but it is on the black bar beneath the video -- above the Spotify button on my screen. But I'm told it is not a complete transcript. Sorry about that!
Sounds like the “Adult” has entered the room.
The text below comes direct from Chris Wright's Liberty Energy ESG report for this year. He includes a 'Case Study' on the UK (and the EU) to show what happens if you implement bad energy policy - the last sentence is chilling....
"The UK, although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry. The results are troubling.
Primary energy consumption in the United Kingdom peaked in 2005 at 10.6 exajoules and has since declined by 28% to 7.6 exajoules in 2022! UK electricity consumption has fallen by 22% over the same period and is at levels last seen in the late 1980s.
These declines in energy consumption should not be misread as implying significant and effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They do indeed track with reductions in the UK, but not necessarily with global emissions. Elevating energy prices has two major impacts: It depresses demand from consumers due to cost, and it leads to the reshoring of energy-intensive manufacturing to locales with lower energy prices. In simpler terms, citizens are impoverished. Industry has been, and continues to be, relocated to Asia and the United States. The first factor reduces emissions by making energy less affordable to citizens, and the second does not reduce emissions as they are simply relocated. Industry relocations are likely to increase emissions, as the EU’s primary industrial fuel is natural gas, where coal dominates in Asia. Far from being an encouraging sign, consumption reductions are an indication of systemic weakness; this is an economy and society that is less and less able to change the world in accordance with its requirements.
However, the UK and European Union governments do not see it this way and have embraced these signs of policy failure as measures of success. They have set targets for further decreases in consumption. On current trajectories there is every reason to suppose that these targets will be met, as the climate policies render energy still more expensive. The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States."
Roger: The DoE is responsible of one of the biggest "frauds" in energy policy: the Levelized Cost of Electricity. The cost of all goods is controlled by supply and demand, not the cost of production. This is especially true in the case of electricity, which is the most perishable good on the planet. If electricity can't be used the instant it is generated, it normally has ZERO VALUE, because the cost of storage and the cost of transmission are both too high. Yes, some solar farms are beginning to include a token amount of battery storage because there is no market for solar power around noon on sunny summer days in Southern California and Oahu, but we will have enough trouble simply meeting the demand for batteries for electric vehicles for the next decade or two. Weather is correlated for up to 1,000 miles, so expensive transmission lines that long are needed to move excess electricity from sunny location to cloudy ones and windy locations to calm ones.
I read an interview with the owner of one of the first wind farms in Alberta, which was being decommissioned. When asked why he wasn't replacing his old turbines with new more efficient ones and taking advantage of his existing infrastructure and land, the owner simply said: No one in Albert wants to buy electricity when the wind is blowing. I'm not installing new turbines until the government guarantees me a market for the electricity they produce.
The prospect of Chris Wright at DOE and Doug Burgum at DOI provides hope for constructive and productive policy initiatives coming out of the new Administration. I've watched the video of the discussion between Roger and Chris about 3 times at Veriten. https://veriten.com/stream/cobt-se-pielke-wright/ It's excellent. Reading the Liberty Energy document "Bettering Human Lives 2024" is a real treat. I don't think that it's by chance that so much of the technical bases of the document are citations from RJP Jr. Charts on extreme event attribution and trends in damages come directly from RJP Jr.. The ten Key Takeaways on the first page of the report were all discussed by Chris and Roger in one way or another during their meeting at Veriten. I particularly like the reframing of the Netzero quest in takeaway 10: Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.
I hope that Wright at DOE provides an opportunity for Roger's work to be more impactful. Perhaps there's an Assistant Secretary job that would be a good fit.
Everyone agrees that the climate changes so isn't it time to get back to calling it Global Warming
Oh wow, an energy secretary that is pro-energy. More unique than rare
What a radical idea! Put a man who knows something about energy in charge of the Department of Energy? Who'd a thunk it!!!
There are two tracks with the climate crisis cult. One is macro economic... the globalist corporatist cabal led by the WEF and supported by Wall Street for different agendas. These people need the US-funded Global Order to continue. They are connected to the Regime Democrats which is 70% of the party..;.; the old liberals and the Democrat necons. Their goal is to perpetuate the continued wealth transfer from the western middle class to the top upper class... the WEF globalists for the reason that they need the working middle class to become government dependent to support global collectivism... Wall Street because of the greed of global returns at any cost. These people own the media and tech.
The second is the woke ideology practitioners. For them they lack God and life-meaning and have adopted climate crisis as pushed into the mush noggins during their campus experience by malcontent radical 3rd wave postmodernist radical professors and administrators.
And you see we are fighting the war on two fronts, and amazingly appear to be winning.
However the enemy is well armed with cats and rage... and more time on their hands because of 4B... and they are also loaded with cash and still control the corporate media and tech. So it we must keep up the good fight.
Two concerns: will he prioritize fossil fuels over other forms of energy generation?
What policy conclusions does he draw from acknowledging that climate change is real?
Getting criticized by the right people is not a policy
Doomberg nailed this as well
I like to cross post on both of these sites
https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/in-praise-of-chris-wright?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Well said Roger. Chris Wright will be the most educated & knowledgeable individual to fill the post of Energy Secretary for a very long time!
He does not adhere to the alarmist narrative and therefore will be mercilessly attacked.
Just as you are constantly attacked Roger.
The climate/insane have no interest interest in reasoned debate, they don’t even know what that is.
I hope Trump steamrolls this and other appointments thru, the only hope of energy and climate sanity the USA and the world can see.
Sure is great that the democrats didn’t win that election, right now we would be looking at Piltdown Mann as Energy Secretary.
Imagine that possibility for a moment.
'Piltdown Mann'
That's a great allusion, very appropriate as to that early 20th Century fraud.
In as much as you considered 'character' as a determitave variable for those voting for president, and what I understood as a preference for Harris using that metric, does the nomination of Chris Write as energy secretary mitigate your (likely) disappointment with the election results?
I tend not to get too excited or disappointed by elections. I'm a policy guy and good policy is good policy regardless who gets elected, the politics just change the boundary conditions! Wright is a smart choice and a good guy. Whether that translates into effectiveness in energy policy depends upon a lot more than that, but from where I sit, the possibilities for more pragmatic and sensible policy increased with this appointment.
This response is exactly what I would have expected - it is one reason why I have such great respect for you!
BTW - I am a CU alum having grown up in Boulder (my family moved there in 1965 when I was 10), and at CU I earned my BA in biology in 1978 and a PhD in pharmacology (UCHSC) in 1988. I started my MD degree at UCHSC in '88 but finished in Syracuse. I read The Honest Broker several years after it was published and have been promoting it to colleagues & friends ever since. You make me proud to be a Buff!
With respect to coach Sanders, I was skeptical when he was hired, but I am obviously happy with his work so far - and not just the W-L record but also with the overall message that is projected by the coach & the team.