Croplands, habitats, taxes, family budgets, safety sacrificed to enrich a politically connected few?
CFACT science and policy advisor H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute reports that the EPA (and other federal agencies) skew the real cost-benefit numbers in promoting massive regulations. One example: While the Obama Clean Power Plan might have saved 21,000 lives (as the EPA claimed), the rules would also also resulted in from 102,500 to 164,000 early deaths. The HONEST Act hopes to correct these discrepancies.
“At a certain point—and California seems to have reached it already—new solar PV does nothing to satisfy new peak net demand.”
Must life in the future be "poor, nasty, brutish and short?"
CFACT Senior Policy Analyst Paul Driessen explains how life without fossil fuels will not be the utopian adventure that advocates for banning them claim. For starters, there would be no more wind turbines or solar arrays because fossil fuels are needed to construct, transport, and install them. Worse, the rest of the world will laugh as we turn backwards to the dark ages.
To function, power grids require demand to exactly match supply, which is an enormous problem for variable wind and solar power.
Australia’s electricity shortages should be a warning sign to the U.S. to avoid relying too heavily on green energy sources like wind and solar while mass exporting natural gas. CFACT is in Australia for the "ECOCITIES World Summit" and the Down Under premiere of "Climate Hustle."
Nuclear provides the cleanest power, yet environmental groups will soon petition South Carolina regulators to shut down partially-completed reactors in an attempt to boost subsidies for inefficient wind and solar.
The New York Times trumpeted the high number of people servicing and installing solar panels. The job numbers actually underscore how wasteful, inefficient and unproductive solar power actually is.
An offshore wind farm in Rhode Island went online Monday, but building it cost $150,000 for every household powered.
$15 trillion price tag to theoretically limit future global warming.
According to CFACT Senior Policy Analyst Paul Driessen, a modern billionaires' club of left-wing radicals is funding fake conservative groups to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to try to shift public support away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy to wind and solar -- all the while their companies are receiving hundreds of millions in subsidies from the federal government for their inferior energy products. Had these billionaires actually cared about the poor, they could have used that money to stimulate economies and create jobs that would put food on tables across the U.S. and around the world.
Japan tried to move forward with solar and wind energy, but found it to be expensive and unreliable. Thus, Japan has turned to coal: a source they believe to be much more dependable, and one with which they hope to get over 30% of their electricity by 2040."
A prototype solar roadway in Idaho was supposed to represent a possible green energy future, but technical issues have exposed just how far off the technology is from prime time.
Yety another new "study" promises global disasters of biblical proportions if the U.S. does not unilaterally stop using fossil fuels (and indeed, must subsidize fossil fuels in India and China). But CFACT Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen exposes the buffoonery of the so-called Expert Market report - the latest in a long series of computer-driven fake reports that are crafted solely with the intent to frighten people into submission and never matching predictions with actual recorded data.