Saturday, November 19, 2016
Trump and Energy Policy: What to Expect?
Heartland Institute has published a blog entry by me on what the election of Donald Trump might mean for energy policy. The entire staff of Unforeseen Contingencies agrees that the original post on Heartland's site is worth reading, in our unbiased opinion. But the bottom line is this...with a bit of extra on Clinton.
Under Trump energy production is likely to increase, i.e. much less likely to become a bottleneck for the economy. In particular, natural gas production should thrive, which is important from the standpoint of alleviating the economic stagnation that has hurt so many in this country, lower income Americans in particular. It also is crucially important from the standpoint of the environment. Since Clinton proposed effectively banning hydraulic fracturing, this would have ended the shale gas revolution. She also favored enormous subsidies to billionaire Tom Steyer and other cronies to install half a billion wasteful solar panels.
We are extremely fortunate to have dodged that deadly bullet. It's worth noting here that the World Bank's Synthesis Report on Climate finds that economic development is the primary tool for dealing with climate change. Imposing enormous costs by imposing "green" energy solves neither economic nor environmental problems. (Spain's green energy program doubled the price of energy, increased unemployment because of the increase in expenses for business, and still managed to increased the production of greenhouse gases.)
On energy, at least, the election of Donald Trump is a wonderful thing. Read the Heartland piece.
Under Trump energy production is likely to increase, i.e. much less likely to become a bottleneck for the economy. In particular, natural gas production should thrive, which is important from the standpoint of alleviating the economic stagnation that has hurt so many in this country, lower income Americans in particular. It also is crucially important from the standpoint of the environment. Since Clinton proposed effectively banning hydraulic fracturing, this would have ended the shale gas revolution. She also favored enormous subsidies to billionaire Tom Steyer and other cronies to install half a billion wasteful solar panels.
We are extremely fortunate to have dodged that deadly bullet. It's worth noting here that the World Bank's Synthesis Report on Climate finds that economic development is the primary tool for dealing with climate change. Imposing enormous costs by imposing "green" energy solves neither economic nor environmental problems. (Spain's green energy program doubled the price of energy, increased unemployment because of the increase in expenses for business, and still managed to increased the production of greenhouse gases.)
On energy, at least, the election of Donald Trump is a wonderful thing. Read the Heartland piece.
