by Yves here. I’m preserving the original OilPrice headline since it invokes one of the themes of a new pro-fossil-fuels messaging campaign, that migrating to cleaner energy sources is contrary to energy security. It’s not hard to see that message hitting home with a lot of voters, particularly ones that live in suburbs or other area with poor public transportation, or in parts of the world where there’s not enough sun for rooftop solar to be anything more than a secondary power source.One reason the oil, specifically Shell messaging will strike home at least in Europe is the respite from super high energy prices came largely from government subsidies. Those will be reduced or even gone next winter. Bearing the full higher energy cost will make many consumers want relief, climate change
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
New Economics Foundation writes Sharing the carbon pie with a frequent flyer levy
Peter Radford writes The eclipse part wo
Matias Vernengo writes The Argentina of Javier Milei
Joel Eissenberg writes On student loans
Yves here. I’m preserving the original OilPrice headline since it invokes one of the themes of a new pro-fossil-fuels messaging campaign, that migrating to cleaner energy sources is contrary to energy security. It’s not hard to see that message hitting home with a lot of voters, particularly ones that live in suburbs or other area with poor public transportation, or in parts of the world where there’s not enough sun for rooftop solar to be anything more than a secondary power source.One reason the oil, specifically Shell messaging will strike home at least in Europe is the respite from super high energy prices came largely from government subsidies. Those will be reduced or even gone next winter. Bearing the full higher energy cost will make many consumers want relief, climate change impact be damned. Of course, the obvious expedient of rolling back sanctions on Russia is off the table.
But another, more broadly applicable reason is the lack of adequate planning for changing the mix of energy sources. Too many things are done in an uncoordinated manner at a low level, too often the result of the lobbying of various green energy interest, as opposed to a look at the merits. In addition, any adequate program would have a point of view on what sort of living, schooling, and community arrangements we should be moving towards. But the US seems not to tolerate planning controls much more stringent than zoning. Too many Green New Deal types treat important issues like grid adequacy and meeting base load needs as problems that will solve themselves. The “too much vision, too little technical plans” orientation of a lot of energy transition advocates is enough to make ordinary citizens worry about where this is all going, which then enables Big Oil to play on security fears.
Naked Capitalism
Energy Transition Advocates Get A Reality Check
Iriva Slav, OIlprice