Republican Energy Policies Lack Foresight

dead republican elephantOne of the first things House Republicans did after their party took control of the U.S. Senate in the 2014 elections was to pass legislation authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Congressional Republicans remain fixated on approving the pipeline despite the fact that the recent drop in oil prices threatens the economic viability of the Canadian tar sands oil industry that wants to use it. The House bill to authorize the pipeline failed in the Senate, which is still under Democratic control until the newly elected senators are sworn in. But Republicans vowed to get it approved after they take control in January.

Another way Republican politicians have shown their affection for fossil fuel energy is by voicing their opposition to President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The plan’s goal is to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants by an estimated 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This would be accomplished primarily by getting power plants to shift from burning coal to natural gas, which is cheaper and burns much cleaner. U.S. power plants account for nearly 40 percent of the nation’s CO2 emissions and the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 levels have risen to their highest levels in the last 800,000 years, primarily from humans burning fossil fuels for energy. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this has contributed to the recent phenomenon of global warming, and the resultant ongoing climate changes. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report for 2014 recently confirmed that the effects of human-caused climate change are widespread and serious, already affecting every aspect of human life.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a first draft of the Clean Power Plan in June of 2014. It proposed state-by-state carbon emissions rate reduction targets, and offered a flexible framework under which states may meet those targets. Republicans have denounced the plan as a “war on coal”, despite the fact that public opinion polls show most Americans support Obama’s initiative. Also, more than 200 U.S. companies signed a letter supporting the EPA’s proposals, and Native American tribes with reservations near coal-fired power plants have expressed their support too.

Arizona Republicans have been especially critical of the Clean Power Plan because it calls for their state to achieve at least a 52 percent reduction in power plant CO2 emissions by 2030. They say that’s unfair because it’s a higher percentage reduction than almost every other state in the country. They’ve also been sympathetic to claims by local power company officials that it would be “impossible” for them to switch to burning natural gas as quickly as the draft plan requires, even though several gas pipelines already crisscross the state.

It seems, unfortunately, that Arizona Republicans and some of the local power companies have no intention of working on plans to switch from coal to natural gas as soon as possible, and are determined to resist the EPA. They will argue that it’s a matter of cost, or a violation of states’ rights, but I suspect that many of them still don’t believe that human-caused climate change is a reality.

On the national level, if Congressional Republicans really want to improve the economy by authorizing pipelines, they should show some foresight and pass legislation to promote the construction of pipelines that can supply natural gas to power plants.


On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring a review of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

On October 10 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The proposal must go through the federal government’s public rulemaking process.

On June 1, 2018, Republican President Donald Trump announced he had instructed U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to “prepare immediate steps” to keep unprofitable coal-fired and nuclear energy plants from closing. A broad coalition of environmental and business groups responded that it was illegal and would force consumers to pay more for electricity.

On April 19, 2019, a federal judge in Montana ruled that the Trump administration had violated the law when it arbitrarily removed Pres. Obama’s moratorium on coal mining on public lands.

Are Fossil Fuels Morally Praiseworthy?


Alex Epstein, the president and founder of a for-profit think-tank called the Center for Industrial Progress, claims he’s seeking to bring about a “new industrial revolution.” The manifesto on his organization’s website claims that, “For the last 40 years, so-called environmentalists have held back industrial progress around the world.”

Epstein also wrote a book titled the The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels wherein he claimed that all recent human progress is the result of the availability of cheap energy generated by fossil fuels. He backs up his theory with statistics showing how the quality of life for people across the globe has dramatically improved in the last couple of centuries – all because economies were powered by fossil fuels.

His clever argument is flawed, however, because he didn’t factor in all of the external costs created by the production of fossil fuel energy. They include respiratory and heart diseases, cancer, mercury contamination in lake waters,  acidification of the oceans, depletion and contamination of groundwater aquifers, mountaintop removals, coal miner deaths, crude oil spills, poisonous coal ash spills, destruction of wildlife habitat, and wars in the Middle East. And, of course, there are the enormous problems being caused by climate change.

The environmental regulations that are being imposed by the federal government on the companies that generate energy from fossil fuels are an attempt to internalize these costs by requiring these companies to include them in their retail energy prices, thereby making the prices more accurate and our energy markets more efficient. Therefore, complaints that enactment of these regulations would raise energy prices aren’t true, because these costs are already spread throughout the nation’s economy, instead of being internalized in fossil fuel energy prices – as they should be.


Belief in Creationism is Irrational

Does God look like a hairy old white man?

I am bewildered when I hear people say they believe in a supreme God, the creator of all things, because they think the natural world is too complex to be the result of evolution.

Physicists tell us the size of the observable universe is about 46 billion light-years in radius. They estimate there are at least 100 to 200 billion galaxies in our universe, and maybe as many as 500 billion, each with hundreds of billions of stars. And they estimate there are 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in our galaxy alone. The number of habitable planets in our entire universe is estimated to be 50 sextillion. (I don’t know how many a sextillion is, but it’s a lot.) Furthermore, some scientists have speculated that our universe is just one of a set of parallel universes, collectively called the multiverse.

Considering that the Earth is a tiny part of all of this, I find it very difficult to believe there’s a supreme god who looks, thinks or acts like a male human. For a supreme being to exist it would have to know everything that’s happening all of the time and continuously make an infinite number of simultaneous and interrelated decisions – which would amount to no real decisions at all. It would have to be everywhere all of the time, an integral part of everything and everyone, completely incorporated into all of existence, and couldn’t be a separate consciousness.

People who believe in creationism, also called intelligent design, don’t seem to understand how physics and evolution work. The natural world is a place of constant variation and change. The self-regulating invisible hand of “survival of the fittest” determines which life forms successfully reproduce. The life forms that exist today are the ones that have succeeded. Yes, some species are amazingly unique. But that’s because they had to evolve that way, or they wouldn’t exist.

The process of evolution applies to planetary ecosystems too. Our planet is hospitable to life, but most of the planets in the cosmos aren’t, and there’s no guarantee the environment on Earth will continue to be favorable. Human caused climate change threatens our continued existence, and there’s no god that will fix it for us.

Page 3 of 5
1 2 3 4 5