Pirate's Cove

Well, this is a rather new line of cult talking points

Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

It is impossible to forecast how the war in Ukraine is going to end: current events are fast-moving. Given the inhumanity of it all, it is important to consider the resulting uncertainty and implications for the entire world.

Uncertainty about the global ramifications of the war clearly has driven world prices of liquified natural gas (LNG) dramatically higher over the past several months. These price increases have not hurt Russia: In fact, they have helped to finance its war effort. Rapidly climbing LNG and oil prices, however, have, hurt much of the rest of the world, as supplies of LNG have been gobbled up swiftly by the highest bidders with the largest appetites. Those most hurt by all this live in other developed and developing nations all around the world. And even in many European countries and the United States, those with limited means already are suffering.

So what can be done?  Any first-year student of economics knows that increasing supplies from all non-Russian sources of energy could work over time, especially in concert with efforts to reduce demand. These are good ideas, of course, but the devil is in the details.  There are at least two distinct options:

Can you guess which one they want?

Option 1: Invest in opening untapped supplies of petroleum and natural gas, drill for more of both, operate existing distribution infrastructure at its fullest capacity, and build more as quickly as possible; or

Option 2: Two complementary parts, here: (a) invest in expanding diverse and decentralized non-fossil energy systems; and (b) invest in R&D on new technologies that can smooth the demand-side transition to using electricity, technologies such as electric vehicles.

Unsurprisingly, option 2 is their choice.

Putin’s war has pushed world energy markets to inflection points. It has created a perhaps once in a generation opportunity to reorganize and transform global markets toward renewables and thereby reduce the world’s dependence on fossil energy from countries with leadership antithetical to democracy (not just Russia). Investing aggressively in energy option 2 would reduce the political power of major fossil fuel exporting nations with authoritarian leaders. Why? Because rapid transition to Option 2 undermines the ability of autocrats to maintain their extraordinary market clench over supplies of scarce and essential commodities. Such a transition would undermine their access to money from the rest of the world – money they use to fund inhumane oppression at home and unlawful and immoral extracurricular aggression abroad.

You know, Gary Yohe, the article writer, sorta has a point. Conservatives have for decades stated that the U.S. needs to wean itself from oil from those types of countries and develop our own fossil fueled sources, which are in abundance. Nothing says we can’t do that while also looking towards non-fossil fuels, including nuclear, doing the R&D to make sources like solar, wind, and hydro more effective and reduce costs, along with deploying it. An all of the above agenda.

Shrinking such gains derived from formidable market power would strengthen the hand of democracy – not by making democracy work better (it will always be messy), but by diminishing the use of fossil fuel energy to bankroll wars and hold energy-needy countries hostage. Constraining dictators’ and autocrats’ power over energy issues can help both to forward democratic principles and to help propel progress toward a cleaner and more healthy global environment.

Kumbaya, baby! The funny part here is that these same people yammering about Democracy! want to force their agenda on everyone else, with government mandating it, regardless of what the citizens want. There’s a name for that type of governmental agenda.