The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. (A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real science and political science.) [emphasis, links added]
Lobbyists are paid to represent their clients’ economic interests or political agendas. The public consists of citizens, businesses, and the military.
Lobbyists are professionals who spend most of their time soliciting legislators on their client’s behalf. See this interesting new book about lobbyists.
The obvious question is: “Who is balancing out this one-sided influence by competently and aggressively representing the public’s interests on energy policies (and other important issues)? The unfortunate answer is almost no one.
The result of this striking imbalance is that most energy policies are essentially written by lobbyists — which means they are permeated with benefits for their clients and then conveyed with carefully orchestrated marketing propaganda.
To keep their control, lobbyists full well know that they must maintain the impression that their self-serving policies are actually in the public interest — so they leave no stone unturned to creatively maintain that illusion.
Despite lobbyists’ carefully massaged messages, it is totally accidental if any parts of their policies actually happen to be advantageous to the public.
A classic example of this is the well-known “All of the Above” energy mantra.
This is saying that ALL energy sources should not only be allowed on the Grid but should also be supported. On the surface (especially to non-technical parties) it sounds reasonable, as who wouldn’t be in favor of investigating alternative energy options?
However, allowing an energy source on the Grid is a privilege, not an entitlement! Sound energy policies (i.e., those that would actually benefit the public) would ensure that the only energy alternatives that are permitted on the Grid would be those that have scientific proof that they are a net societal benefit.
Phrased another way, that means the only alternative energy sources that should be approved and supported are those that are: a) reliable, b) low cost, and c) environmentally friendly. [Note: Wind and solar are none of these!]
How do we do that? Well, it’s certainly not by taking a salesperson’s (lobbyist’s) word about their product! We assess the real qualifications of proposed alternative energy sources by conducting a scientific assessment.
A key problem with the “All of the Above” policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part… Why? Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.
To avoid that exposé, they devised a clever end-run around the facts: no scientific assessment is needed if all options are pre-approved as acceptable!
If we buy the lobbyists’ energy mantra, we accept everything. These marketers have cleverly switched the focus from the actual merits of alternative energy sources, to such subjective intangibles as energy “diversity” and “security”…
On the surface, the “All of the Above” slogan sounds innocent enough and even has a ring of reasonableness to it. But, of course, that is the lobbyists’ raison d’etre: to subtly get preferential treatment for third-rate energy sources that otherwise would fall by the wayside.
We need to do some critical thinking about lobbyists’ sales pitches. In this example: does an “All of the Above” policy make sense?
#1 – When we include ALL options, that would mean that unreliable alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
#2 – When we include ALL options, that would mean very expensive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
#3 – When we include ALL options, that would mean environmentally destructive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
Do ANY of those make sense? How do we advance our economy and our society, by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous alternative power sources on the Grid?
This is a 100% predictable result when political science replaces real Science.
Who benefits from an “All of the Above” energy policy? It certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, most businesses, the military, or the environment.
Major beneficiaries would be foreign conglomerates that supply us with inferior energy sources, our enemies who are anxious to see our Grid and economy crippled, plus China to whom we will owe an even larger debt.
There is a BETTER path and one that is in the public’s best interest…
An “All of the Sensible” energy slogan would go a LONG way towards putting some balance in the energy policy fight, plus it would send the message that citizens, businesses, and the environment are a top priority for legislators.
What are our “sensible” energy choices? Well, that is exactly the conversation we should be having — but are not.
I would posit that “sensible” alternative electrical energy sources are those that are proven to have a net societal benefit — so let the discussion begin!
Top photo by José Matute on Unsplash
Read more at Critically Thinking
One positive step would be eliminating subsidies, which “pick winners’, distort markets, disadvantage competitors, encourage non-optimal choices and arguably increase societal cost
Recall a major selling point for rooftop solar – if you have an excess you can sell it to the electric company? Not any more.
Per the Sydney Morning Herald, (May 16, 2024), Ausgrid will charge the solar owner for power added to the grid between 10 AM and 3 PM.
Another failed idea for weather dependent generation.