Climate Change Wariors

Fighting the War on Fossil Fuels———————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Leading the war on fossil fuels are the coastal elites, mostly clustered in California and New York. The Golden State and the Empire State provide probably the best examples of the excesses of the climate change warriors. By way of full disclosure, let me state at the outset that I am not a climate change denier. I accept that we’ve had climate change throughout the history of the earth and that it sometimes causes serious problems. My mind is still open, however, with regard to what man should be doing about it. Of one thing I’m certain, though. There are some seriously misguided people who think that they can precipitously halt the use of fossil fuels without serious impact on the safety, health and comfort of millions.

In California, which would like to impose its solutions to the climate change problems on the rest of the country, if not the world, some of the forest fires which regularly ravage the state have been blamed on the state’s major utilities. The largest of these, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), is also the largest utility in the nation with over 5.5 million customers. The second largest in the state, Southern California Edison (SCE), is also second in the nation with about 5.1 customers. Lawsuits and fines against PG&E as a result of wildfires said to have been caused by its power lines have driven the giant utility into bankruptcy. Resources which PG&E used to comply with the liberal state government’s demand for renewable energy programs might better have been used for fire abatement measures to prevent its lines from sparking wildfires.

To reduce further exposure to liability while attempting to emerge from bankruptcy, PG&E, along with SCE, cut power in fire-prone areas during periods when the fire risk was high. This, of course, seriously inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of customers, particularly the sick and elderly, although probably not as much as losing their homes would have.  Also inconvenienced were the owners of all-electric vehicles, the use of which, the state promotes.

Meanwhile, in equally-liberal and green New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo continues his relentless war on carbon-based fuels. While neighboring Pennsylvania benefits from its rich shale oil and natural gas deposits made accessible by fracking technology, Mr. Cuomo denies such benefits to his state’s high tax economy by insisting such assets are evil and should remain in the ground. These, of course, are the very assets that have now made the United States energy independent and the world’s largest producer of it.

Natural gas consumption in the United States grew by over 31% in the past nine years. It is not only cleaner- burning than heating oil, it is cheaper, no small concern in the chilly northeast. But since it is a fossil fuel, the climate change warriors insist that it should remain in the ground regardless of the need. Millions of households in New York and New England depend upon natural gas to heat their homes. With growing demand, regional energy providers became rightly concerned over their ability to meet this demand. In spite of this need, state regulators blocked the construction of a $1 billion pipeline that would have provided a reliable supply of natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York and New Jersey to appease the climate change fanatics who apparently would prefer that people freeze in their homes rather than heat them with fossil fuels. Consequently, the utility that provides gas to densely-populated New York City and Long Island imposed a moratorium on activating gas connections to newly-constructed houses in the area, further constraining the already short supply of new housing.

The result was a standoff between the state and the utility which culminated in a threat BY Mr. Cuomo to pull the utility’s license if it didn’t provide gas hook-ups to all potential customers. The state, of course, won that argument. When liberals run the state, and the climate control warriors exercise undue influence in state capitols, that’s what usually happens. Their cause is sacred and damn the consequences. They seem to believe that they alone have the means of saving the planet. They won’t be satisfied until they actually control the utilities. Won’t that be a mess!

December 15, 2019

The Bloomberg Candidacy

Voters Deserve More Choices—————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is jumping into the race for the Democrat presidential nomination. He is a welcome addition because none of the other Democrat aspirants to the most powerful office on earth really should be trusted with this economy. They have little to offer the American people except greatly expanded government, much higher taxes, a spiraling national debt and a likely end to the economic growth achieved during the first three years of President Donald Trump’s term. Their main goal, moreover, seems to be the impeachment of the president, apparently because they lack, for good reason, sufficient confidence in their ability to defeat him at the poll in eleven months.

Mr. Bloomberg apparently agrees, as this was surely one of his reasons for entering the race. As the former three-term mayor of America’s largest city and the financial capital of the world, Mayor Mike has better credentials than Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The Big Apple has a population of over eight and one-half million, more that the population of 40 of our 50 states and is home to 1 out of every 38 people in the country. It has more people than some countries and a police force larger than some armies. Mayor Pete, on the other hand, presides over a mid-sized city of just over 100 thousand, known mainly as the home of the University of Notre Dame and he isn’t wildly popular among minorities there. He has also witnessed a spiraling crime rate during his watch.

Mayor Bloomberg has been described as a sane liberal but he’s actually more of a fiscal conservative, if something of a social liberal, and has identified at times as an Independent and a Republican. As mayor, he turned his city’s budget deficit into a surplus, no mean accomplishment these days. He was hard on crime, supported the police and continued to support the “stop and frisk“ policy of his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, which tamed the city’s street violence. Although the policy drastically reduced crime in minority neighborhoods, it was never popular among blacks and Hispanics and liberals who opposed profiling. Unfortunately Bloomberg has already pandered to them by apologizing, in true Joe Biden fashion, for his previous support of the policy.  Ah, well; nobody’s perfect. At 77, Bloomberg is about as old as Biden but seems and acts much younger.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F. Seib recently noted, mayors spend a lot more time actually governing than most national office-holders and successful mayors would bring a lot of hands-on experience to the job of president. Unlike the federal government, cities actually have to live within their means and get budgets approved on time. Mayors are much closer to the problems they face and more visible and accessible to their constituents, even more so than governors.

Bloomberg is very rich; reportedly the world’s 14^th richest, and this, of course, makes him part of the problem in the minds of the progressives. “Just what we need,” said one, sarcastically; “another billionaire!” But affluent Democrats seem to be getting nervous about plans by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to pay for their giveaways by soaking the rich who already pay most of the taxes. They should be attracted to a Bloomberg campaign.

Surveying the other Democrat contenders, I just can’t imagine trusting the country to any of them. I get why young people are attracted to Sanders and Warren. They promise them everything except some realistic means to pay for these things without destroying the economy. But young voters seem principally concerned with the ecological future of the planet, not so much with the country’s economic survival. Taxing the rich to pay for free stuff is, unfortunately, a good enough answer for the financially naive. But the wealth tax that Ms. Warren proposes would not just affect the wealthiest Americans. It would raise havoc with the securities markets and other investments which is where the wealthy keep their wealth. Moreover, these types of assets are also owned by millions of Americans in their retirement plans and by educational, medical and charitable institutions. And new taxes tend historically to only grow and apply to more taxpayers, notwithstanding the promises of candidates.

Bloomberg will join Mayor Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and former Vice-president Joe Biden as the voices of reason among the remaining viable candidates. But Ms. Klobuchar can’t seem to gain enough traction, Mr. Biden is a weak candidate and Mr. Buttigieg’s experience cannot compare with Mr. Bloomberg’s as mayor of what former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel characterized as one of the “nation cities”. If Democrats fail to nominate him, he can always run as an Independent. A choice next November between, say, Warren, Trump or Bloomberg would offer voters something closer to the range of choices they deserve.

December 13, 2019