People in the U.S. enjoy the idea of living comfortably and, to a great extent, they have oil and gas to thank for that.  Fossil Fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas have afforded the American citizenry a rather comfortable human existence; but the irony of pivoting to renewables is that we are squandering our wealth and hazarding future productivity.

A recent article in Forbes points out that steel and chemical industries are attempting to develop technologies to reduce CO₂ emission, but in doing so they are also seeking government assurances that policies aimed at CO₂ reductions will not undermine their current efforts and future investments. The article further asserts that these industries cannot profitably transition to “green” technology with the resources they possess – which indicates higher prices to come, potential closings of the factories, and transitioning production overseas.

The pivot to renewables such as wind and solar has already burdened the American people. The electric customer, not the utility, is the one responsible for absorbing most of the costs associated with transitioning to these new sources, bringing the estimated price tag to over $200 billion to date. Yet for all this expense we have achieved a mere 9% share of U.S. electricity generation from these green sources. Additionally, CO₂ emissions from energy in the U.S. today are higher than they were when coal produced some 50% of our electrical needs (see chart below), further indicating that our reduced dependence on coal has done little to abate the presumed catastrophe looming over our planet.

our reduced dependence on coal has done little to abate the presumed catastrophe looming over our planet

The leveraging of taxes and rate increases to fund renewable energy echoes the infamous Ponzi scheme.  The artificial marketplace that federal and state governments created has garnered the American people far too little at far too high a price; if these leaders continue to enact policies that will further increase costs of doing business for our remaining industries, we will continue to  see our jobs move overseas and once again hear that “giant sucking sound”.  

The reduction of CO₂ in the U.S. will not abate the effect of total global emissions, as other nations will continue to grow their economies utilizing fossil fuels and produce the products we Americans can’t live without. The point for us to consider is how much of a decline in our economy do we consider acceptable while we reach for an untenable goal in CO₂ reductions?  How many jobs can we lose to other countries until we reach the point where we can’t afford the products they are now producing?

The point for us to consider is how much of a decline in our economy do we consider acceptable while we reach for an untenable goal in CO₂ reductions?

Inserted are two charts for consideration: the first depicts an over 500% increase in the national debt since 2005 (which began grossly accelerating in 2008). The second depicts an increase of 4% in CO₂ emission from energy in the U.S. since 1990.

In short, government-forced spending will end us long before CO₂ will.

Perspective: The grim reality is that the American citizen has become an unsuspecting investor in a Ponzi scheme. This scheme provides constant revenue to support the many spending habits of our mayors, governors, representatives, senators, and presidents – including unsustainable climate change initiatives. Bernie Madoff and even Charles Ponzi himself would be jealous of the Federal & State Governments, as those men had to rely on the voluntary investments of people, while the various government bodies simply take the money from the people.  

James M. Spillers