"Sorry, We Can’t Sit in the Dark While You Fly Around in a Private Jet"
Indian energy analyst @VijayJayaraj_CC has written an excellent open letter to @JohnKerry. Here are some excerpts.
Let's encourage Mr. Kerry to respond.
"back in 2004, when I was supporting you to win....350 million people in India were without electricity. The U.S population in 2004 was around 292 million. So, literally, you had more people in India without electricity than the entire population of the U.S."
"India muscled its way through in its fight against energy poverty. Coal, oil, and gas together alleviated energy poverty. By 2017, India began producing surplus electricity, and by 2019 it electrified all of its villages."
"Today, we are an energy superpower, and much of the credit goes to the thousands of tireless workers at Coal India Ltd, the state electricity authorities...LPG cooking gas distributors, and various organizations involved in the extraction and refining of oil and gas products."
"Mr. Kerry, you have asked India to reduce its dependency on these life-saving fossil fuels! But your policy recommendations to my country of 1.3 billion people threaten the energy security and livelihood of my people."
"300 million in our country still live in poverty, and many more do not have uninterrupted electricity. A vast majority of my people still use unsafe, highly polluting solid cooking fuels like wood and dung and have yet to transition to clean sources like LPG."
"We’re every bit as human as you and your fellow Americans. So, why should we be starved of the same energy sources you have enjoyed for two centuries—and still do?"
"How is it okay for my people to go back into an era of power blackouts when you can fly your oil-guzzling private jet to Iceland to accept an award—and call it "[the] only choice for somebody like me.”
"Well, Mr. Kerry, I have to let you know that the only choice for India to fight against energy poverty is to use reliable, affordable fossil fuels, not unreliable, expensive, toxic wind and solar."
"But why would [you] be against 300 million people, most living in some of the poorest living standards, getting uninterrupted, affordable electricity access? Instead, you should stop promoting renewable energy as renewable and clean."
"There is no wind turbine without coal, and renewables have increased the price of electricity in every grid to which they’ve been introduced. Besides, I am sure you remember your own blackouts in California and Texas this year, thanks to renewables."
"Please...leave the developing countries alone....do not hurt us by preaching the climate gospel. Don’t force us to remain in darkness. You are talking about saving the world, yet you are asking leaders in the developing world to risk their own energy security and harm millions!"
There are too many American companies who righteously embrace any fashionable cause of the moment yet sanction China's horrific abuses of human rights. @hiattf has an excellent column about this: "Do companies really want to sponsor the Genocide Olympics?" washingtonpost.com/opinions/globa…
Examples of documented Chinese abuses "woke" corporations say nothing about:
"Arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government; forced disappearances by the government"
"torture by the government"
"politically motivated reprisal against individuals outside the country"
More examples of documented Chinese abuses "woke" corporations say nothing about:
"political prisoners"
"pervasive and intrusive technical surveillance and monitoring"
"serious restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including physical attacks"
The disastrous TX blackouts should teach us that we need power plants that are 1) reliable and 2) resilient. Reliable means: they can produce as much power as we need, when we need it. Resilient means: they can keep producing power even under adverse conditions.
One key to resilience is "on-site fuel storage"--keeping a large amount of fuel at a power plant so that it can produce power even during a supply disruption. The champions at on-site fuel storage are coal and nuclear, which can cheaply keep months of fuel on hand.
Natural gas is not usually as resilient as coal and nuclear, because natural gas is expensive to store in large quantities. Most natural gas power depends on "just in time" delivery from pipelines. If pipeline transport is disrupted, many natural gas plants will go down.
When you think "Joe Biden's climate policy," think of the 13-year-old Ethiopian girl who will have to keep spending 8 hours a day collecting dirty water for lack of reliable, low-cost fossil fuel electricity.
"The first thing Aysha picks up when she opens her eyes...is...her collection of large plastic gasoline canisters. The 13-year-old Ethiopian straps them to her camel...and begins the four-plus-hour walk to the nearest river. The water there is dirty and brown and unsanitary..."
"President Biden’s administration...is beginning to enact policies that will deny Aysha and the countless girls like her the opportunity to move from bleak, backbreaking destitution to a self-actualized life of equality and opportunity."
The House Democrats' "CLEAN Future" Act, by forcing us to depend mostly on unreliable wind and solar, would destroy our standard of living--and global emissions would still rise.
It should be rejected in favor of an *aggressive nuclear decriminalization policy*.
THREAD
The only practical way to lower global CO2 emissions is to develop low-carbon sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels. If the US, which causes <1/6 of global emissions, mandates unaffordable low-carbon sources, we'll hurt ourselves--while global CO2 emissions continue rising.
The world, especially the developing world, overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can’t come close. That’s why China and India have committed to building hundreds of new coal plants.
Embarrassing: this chart in a supposed "fact-check" of @RepDanCrenshaw by @PolitiFact falsely portrays wind subsidies as unremarkable using the bogus and dishonest metric of total subsidies, not the proper metric of per-unit subsidies.
🧵
The proper way to measure energy subsidies is: How much taxpayer money does the government pay per unit of energy? Every per-unit analysis using data from the US Energy Information Administration is clear: solar and wind get *dozens of times* more subsidies than fossil fuels.
A comprehensive analysis of federal subsidies per unit of electricity generated from 2010-2019 found that solar got 211 times more subsidies than natural gas and wind got 48 times more subsidies than natural gas.
Joe Biden's energy plan would shift us from energy production that is low-cost, high-reliability, and *America-centered* to energy production that is high-cost, low-reliability, and *China-centered*.
This would destroy, not create, millions of well-paying American jobs.
THREAD
Joe Biden says that his policies to eliminate US CO2 emissions through a largely solar- and wind-based energy system will create millions of well-paying "green jobs"--far more than will be destroyed in the fossil fuel industry.
This is impossible.
A largely solar-and wind-based energy system will necessarily destroy far more well-paying US jobs than it creates because the "green jobs" will be 1) far less productive, 2) largely in China, and 3) cause job losses in other industries via skyrocketing energy prices.