06-18-2018 11:55:00 AM -0700
06-17-2018 08:12:25 AM -0700
06-15-2018 09:37:33 AM -0700
06-14-2018 04:17:55 PM -0700
06-12-2018 02:13:25 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Actually, Global Warming Was in Presidential Debates

NCF Annual Report 2010 (the latest available) discusses this further:

  • NCF grantees are working to make clean energy innovation a core component of the new mainstream approach to climate policy.
  • Experts estimate that it will take annual investments on the order of $500 billion to $1.5 trillion globally to effect a transition to a clean energy economy. Most of that money will need to come from private investors and NCF grantees are engaged in a complimentary set of efforts to ensure that those investments will be made.
  • They [NCF grantees] are working to develop a more powerful advocacy community for clean energy investments.

NCF and their allies have certainly succeeded. Media now regularly report glowingly on so-called clean energy projects, activities that have as their main objective reducing carbon dioxide emissions -- or “global warming pollution,” as many journalists erroneously call it. President Barack Obama used this approach in his 2011 State of the Union address, and then in his 2012 address as well.

As a consequence, public opinion surveys now often show strong public support for “clean” energy sources such as wind turbines and solar power. By January 2011, Rasmussen, after polling in the U.S., released a document titled “Support for Renewable Energy Resources Reaches Highest Level Yet.” In July 2011, Rasmussen even found that “51% Say Government Should Force Oil Companies To Use Profits To Develop Alternative Energy.

But alternative energy is extremely expensive and relies on huge taxpayer subsidies. To use such intermittent and diffuse power sources requires that the consumer pay between three and ten times the price of power from conventional sources.

Energy independence is not a good reason for promoting new renewable energy technologies, either. Energy independence is more easily -- and much more cheaply -- attained by exploiting abundant national fossil fuel reserves, and then by spending some of the wealth created on research into potential new energy technologies.

While large direct climate change programs continue across the world as well, the child of the climate scare -- the drive for low carbon dioxide emitting energy sources -- has grown up and now threatens our energy security. With twenty-nine American states and the District of Columbia now enforcing renewable energy mandates, hundreds of billions of dollars are being squandered on wind turbines, solar power, and most biofuels.

At the same time, conventional power supplies are often neglected, thereby threatening our energy security, triggering higher energy prices, and placing millions of jobs and the economic futures of many countries at risk. Tragically, most energy companies have totally succumbed and now are feeding the fire that threatens to burn down their industries.

We can no longer allow our politicians to promote so-called green energy solutions without holding them to account for what they actually cost and for their ineffectiveness at providing the reliable base load power needed by a modern industrial society. Unless this climate policy by stealth is recognized for what it is and halted quickly, millions of people will be left hungry and freezing in the dark.