Energy

The American Path to Competitive Advantage

As a global economic and financial power with military hegemon status facing increasing challenges from the East, the United States is presented with a unique opportunity to project its strength and influence. As a reigning technological leader with thriving markets and capital, the U.S. must ensure that its policies continue to adhere to its values while providing the autonomy and support structure needed to enrich its people and contribute to global flourishing. 

Permissionless Innovation 

The United States must commit to empowering its markets and innovators by advancing permissionless innovation. In the past half-century, the most impactful inventions and technologies developed on American shores have emerged from the bottom-up, as self-maximizing entrepreneurs and industrialists have competed to feed consumer demand, employ talent, and deliver goods and services needed across the world. This status quo has provided dividends for American security and strength, allowing the country to become much nimbler and more adaptive while avoiding the pitfalls of centralized command and control as practiced in China.

In allowing the unprecedented growth of the Internet through light-touch regulation for decades, the U.S. set global standards for tech and innovation. As a result, rules and regulations have emerged over time rather than been imposed by above, giving innovators the ample space and runway to develop both the hardware and software that consumers have come to rely on. We must avoid top-down regulatory approaches on AI and other technologies as they have been tried in blue states, which would only serve to stunt our growth.

By shunning the precautionary principle, which hampers far too much innovation and growth on the European continent and elsewhere, the U.S. has embraced a system that rewards risk and punishes failures through market mechanisms rather than bureaucratic mandate. This unique system, matched with deep capital markets, stable rule of law, and protection of intellectual property, has made the U.S. the ideal launching pad for creative pursuits that have created vast amounts of wealth and opportunities.

In the fields of artificial intelligence, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, financial technology, advanced manufacturing, and robotics, the U.S. can maintain its global lead over adversaries and competitors by adhering to permissionless innovation.

Energy Supremacy 

As a nation blessed with vast natural resources, the United States must continue to allow the development of energy projects of all stripes to continue to feed electricity grids, but also to power the next generation of data centers, transportation, and industry. 

Affordable and abundant energy will be a dominant force in freeing up the resources, time, and wealth for the economic and technological growth to remain competitive, as well as providing for the higher standard of living that will be demanded by the American population. For data centers and computing hubs, cheap energy will be requisite for maintaining an edge. 

While still maintaining environmental standards, removing red tape for pipelines, natural gas extraction, offshore wind, and nuclear energy will have to be viewed as an all-encompassing strategy to maintain the country’s energy supremacy and dominance. Outdated infrastructure will have to be replaced, and regulatory systems will have to be streamlined.

Freed from the global oil market fluctuations outside of American control, maximizing the energy surplus produced domestically and provided to ally nations will ensure that firms can remain competitive and keep prices low, maintaining the relative strength of the dollar as the world reserve currency and giving global investors even more reason to put their funds in the growing technology sector in the United States.

Avoiding Choosing Winners and Losers 

Though the U.S. is poised to develop technological solutions to the world, there is a growing antitrust movement in domestic politics that may harm entrepreneurial efforts to otherwise deliver value. The dominance of Big Tech has unified some elements of both right and left political coalitions intent on trimming these firms down to size, but to cut down our own domestic champions at a time of growing global competition would not be wise.

Though there are many arguments about market concentration, whether certain firms should be allowed to merge with or purchase others, or whether policies should be devised to mandate more competition by force, we should return to the dominating principle of consumer welfare as the north star for competition and antitrust policy. The mandated breakup and competition scrutiny of firms like Google, Meta, Nvidia, or OpenAI may unite certain ideological factions, but it would serve no other purpose than allowing the government to pick winners or losers for reasons beyond consumer welfare. This, in turn, would deprive startup firms of capital and opportunities aided by these companies, either directly by its investors or those who’ve transferred their skills to other firms to compete. At the same time, the U.S. should avoid costly corporate welfare schemes that may serve to prop up inefficient entities while locking out otherwise talented upstarts, not to mention throw good money after bad. 

With a strong competition policy that allows winners and losers to be decided by consumers and the market, rather than by lawmakers, attorneys, and judges, the United States can ensure a competitive field that will deliver tech innovation to benefit all consumers.

Originally published here

Trump’s actions on offshore wind energy won’t help consumers

President Donald Trump was relentless on the campaign trail in his commitment to unleash American prosperity with an energy revolution. From the oil wells of the American West to the gas pipelines of the Midwest, Trump said his administration will reverse the anti-energy policies of the Biden White House by finally letting energy explorers and entrepreneurs do what they do best. But Trump’s energy revolution may have limits after he signed an executive order freezing permits for new offshore wind projects.

Issued on his first day in office, the order halts all future wind energy leases on the offshore continental shelf and denies renewals for existing projects. It also requires the Department of the Interior to review wind energy leases nationwide, including inland.

Trump’s distaste for wind energy and its environmental effects are well-known (“they drive the whales crazy”), but this campaign against a functional source of electricity is baffling.

The current energy output of commercial wind projects off America’s shore is just 174 megawatts, enough to power about 50,000 homes, produced off the coasts of Rhode Island, Virginia and New York.

But the total capacity could be as high as 80 gigawatts on windier days according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, meaning that at least half of this could still easily travel along transmission lines to power substations on our coasts.

If we were to conservatively estimate offshore wind capacity at 25%, this would still be enough to power all households in Virginia and Maryland for one year. If this amount of electricity can be produced by coastal areas and the companies can still make a profit doing it, why shouldn’t they be free to do so?

As usual, Trump’s criticism of this industry is half-right and half-wrong.

It is true that the Biden administration directed a lot of federal subsidies toward wind projects. Trump’s executive order calls for an assessment of the “economic costs associated with the intermittent generation of electricity and the effect of subsidies” because the industry received a large boost in President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

In the Department of Government Efficiency era, arguing for taxpayer subsidies toward specific energy sources is a losing battle. But kicking wind energy to the curb is a mistake.

The total amount of electricity generated by wind power in the United States was 12%. If our offshore capabilities in say, Virginia, matched those we have in the fields of Texas, which has as many as 160,000 wind turbines, that would make a noticeable difference to energy consumers.

Wind energy should be allowed to operate and compete in the free market for consumer dollars. If wind fails, let it fail. The same reasoning should be applied to all types of energy.

Trump’s executive order represents a sort of cognitive dissonance.

By questioning the contributions of wind energy, the president relies on studies mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to make this determination. These are the same reports that have stunted the construction of energy projects and even stymied entrepreneur Elon Musk’s wishes to stage rocket launches in certain areas.

For Trump to use NEPA as justification for hostility to offshore wind, while at the same time unraveling NEPA in an executive order 24 hours later, is major league mixed messaging.

Wind energy was no doubt propped by Trump’s predecessor, but that fact shouldn’t deter Trump from using every available tool to deliver lower energy prices to consumers.

Energy abundance means shunning the degrowth mentality that got us here. It means endorsing every type of energy, wind, solar, oil or nuclear, that can freely compete for our dollars. Trump should get favoritism out of the energy markets.

Originally published here

JD Vance says the EU targets US tech, but energy is also in the crosshairs

At the Paris AI Summit and Munich Security Conference earlier this month, Vice President JD Vance stunned Europeans with an unapologetic defense of American tech innovation, values, and energy dominance in the face of regulatory threats abroad.

He decried the abandonment of free speech across the continent, as well as the regulatory morass sprouting out of Brussels that chokes American tech firms with legislation such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and GDPR. But tech isn’t the only industry in the EU’s crosshairs.

European bureaucrats have busied themselves with penalizing and extracting value from US tech firms, and now they’re preparing to do the same for any American firm within European borders, using ESG and climate change as a justification for massive fines and reporting requirements.

At the same time in Germany, this weekend’s elections gave a resounding victory for conservative Friedrich Merz, who has signaled he’ll undo the subsidized energy rollback and nuclear power shutdowns that have vastly increased costs for German industries.

But while Europe reorients itself, the Trump-Vance Administration can no longer only play witness to the EU’s failed energy policies; they must actively fight back.

Energy Sanity Must Take Hold

The shuttering of nuclear power plants, mixed with restrictions on energy exploration and an overreliance on intermittent renewables make the EU a poor place for hosting data centers the West needs. Even more concerning is European policy itself, such as the EU’s creeping attempt to unlawfully enforce its “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) sustainability agenda on US energy providers and the consumers that rely on them.

While the framework of ESG has been mostly abandoned by firms in the US, thanks in large part to the election of Donald Trump and the exiting of asset manager, BlackRock, from the UN-backed Net Zero Alliance, the EU is just getting started on enforcement of its own “Green New Deal” it adopted in 2022.

Beginning in January 2025, firms are required to comply with the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), where they will be forced to disclose their environmental impacts, social and governance policies, and outline their path to committing to 2050 net-zero emissions goals set by the Paris Climate Accords.

Companies are required to disclose this information if they meet two of the following criteria: more than 250 employees, an excess of 40 million euros in net turnover, or holding above 20 million euros in total assets.

These disclosure rules are also forced on non-EU companies with turnover exceeding 150 million euros on the continent. It is estimated that over 50,000 companies will be coerced into submitting this data to European regulators.

Most remarkably, American firms subject to these EU rules will be required to disclose this data on all global operations, even with only a modest presence in the EU. And if they opt not to comply, they could be penalized as much as 5 percent of global turnover.

It’s a shocking financial shakedown of productive international firms and borders on being a sort of new-fangled European imperialism using nothing more than regulations and fines. 

This would saddle US energy giants with huge fines to operate in Europe and service European consumers, but also ding retail, pharmaceutical, computing, food, and research companies. The EU is trying to ESG disclosures and net-zero plans from US firms like Amazon, Google, Proctor & Gamble, Pfizer, and even Tesla. 

That amounts to EU bureaucrats and pencil pushers forcing costing sustainability directives on operations in Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and beyond. Vance and Team Trump should seize the available opportunity to draw a line in the sand on this behavior and challenge Europe’s ESG regime. 

How are US employers and lawmakers supposed to explain to their constituents that an intentionally complex European directive is why their lives have become mired in red tape? 

How can Trump and Vance respond?

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik has already intimated to lawmakers that he may use “trade tools” to defang the EU’s ESG compliance rules, but even more may be necessary.

As Europe has fallen behind the United States and China on technological innovation, it has supplanted its industrial capability with regulatory prowess, evident from the European Commission’s championing of digital rules that have so far hamstrung US tech firms, including the DSA, DMA, GDPR, and the incoming AI Act.

Having lost the battle to provide affordable energy and innovative tech to its citizens, the EU has contented itself to enforce costly rules internationally that will subsidize their government’s suppression of domestic industry. 

Who needs enemies when you have friends like this? 

When Americans voted at the ballot box in November of 2024, they voted overwhelmingly against the climate policies of the Biden administration and the EU’s ESG agenda. The SEC has withdrawn their previous climate-related disclosure policies. The firms that once championed the climate goals of the UN have since abandoned them. 

The EU’s own domestic companies have pressured Brussels to abandon its further ESG reach in order to boost competitiveness, and it just may happen. Negociations are ongoing to defang the CSRS and narrow its scope to ensure Europe and remain competitive.

But the Trump-Vance Administration must remain stern.

The European Union’s ESG agenda imposes heavy costs and burdens on American producers and consumers, and US leaders must put America first by opposing these rules at every step. Everyday Europeans, not just Americans, stand to benefit the most from a Trump administration that challenges the EU’s regulatory regime. 

Yaël Ossowski is the deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Carrboro’s flimsy climate lawsuit against Duke Energy

Driving past Lake Norman over Thanksgiving weekend, I was once again struck by the fact that this body of water helps power millions of homes across the region and in the state of North Carolina.

Using water from the lake to feed the towering condensers, the two nuclear reactors at McGuire Nuclear Station generate over 18 gigawatts of clean and abundant energy, adding to the impressive nuclear capacity of Duke Energy that powers nearly half of its customers’ homes in North and South Carolina.

Nationally, Duke is seen as a champion for nuclear energy and carbon-free alternatives. 

In the small Triangle town of Carrboro, however, Duke has been painted as the ultimate bogeyman, responsible for the ills and harms of climate change. A lawsuit based on this premise was filed last week in the Orange County Superior Court, accuses Duke Energy of knowingly running a decades-long “deception campaign concerning the causes and dangers posed by the climate crisis.” Carrboro seeks monetary damages in a jury trial to mitigate current and future “climate-related harms.”

The attorney filing the case on behalf of the city of Carrboro is Matthew Quinn of the tort law firm Lewis & Roberts, who also happens to be the lawyer for the pro-solar nonprofit NC Warn, the group bankrolling the case.

NC Warn, a perennial critic and antagonist of Duke Energy, has been running recent primetime television advertisements accusing the energy utility of “crushing our solar industry” and expanding its exploitation of natural gas to the detriment of North Carolina energy consumers.

The group has charged Duke with using the “tobacco industry playbook,” knowing the true harms of the products they were selling but not acknowledging such to their customers.

This case in Carrboro, funded by an outside group with a specific agenda, however remarkable, is only part of a nationwide pattern. In mostly left-leaning local courts in Honolulu, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, state attorneys general have used fraud, public nuisance and consumer protection laws to accuse select companies of covering up their role in climate change.

While other cases have targeted oil giants, refineries, and plastics manufacturers, the Carrboro case will be the first major climate-change litigation aimed at an electrical utility that is investing massively in carbon-free nuclear energy generation.

In helping the state fulfill its clean-energy plan, as established by Gov. Roy Cooper, Duke has also just recently won approval to reduce energy prices by nearly $212 million for its customers.

Added to that, it has sought regulatory approval from the NC Utilities Commission to convert its coal-powered power plants into sites for small modular reactors — nuclear reactors with a much smaller footprint and less required infrastructure to produce electricity. 

Environmental groups have, surprisingly, been opposed to this shift to nuclear energy, citing higher infrastructure costs while downplaying its reduced carbon emissions.

“There’s nothing special overall as far as we can tell with the technology,” said NC Warn executive director Jim Warren, who also called SMRs “experimental reactors.”

Despite the opposition to energy exploration from local environmental groups, it should be stated that Duke Energy has played a key role in getting North Carolina to decarbonize.

In 2023, nuclear power plants in North Carolina generated over 43 gigawatt hours of electricity, all of that at the Duke Energy nuclear stations at McGuire, near Charlotte; Harris, close to Raleigh; and Brunswick, on the southeast coast.

Nearly a third of the state’s electricity generation comes from nuclear power, and North Carolina boasts one of the lowest uses per capita of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration, a number that continues to decrease year by year.

Whatever the case against Duke Energy may have been in years past, it remains a company that must listen to its customers, follow the market, and deliver solutions that help bring our energy costs down responsibly. Its investments in nuclear energy should make us more hopeful for a carbon-free revolution.

Globally, the role of peaceful nuclear energy for fighting back against climate change and providing a better future for all of us is, thankfully, getting a second look. In our own state, we should look to do the same.

Originally published here

A North Carolina Town’s Counterproductive Legal Tactic Harming Nuclear Energy Consumers

Raleigh, NC – The town of Carrboro, North Carolina filed a major lawsuit this week in Orange County Superior Court against Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest electric utilities providers. The suit is backed by pro-solar nonprofit NC Warn, which is seeking monetary damages to address current and future climate-related harms.

“Litigation like this is less about meaningful environmental progress and more about scoring political points at the expense of energy consumers,” said Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center. “These kinds of suits have cropped up in Honolulu, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and even Australia in local, more ideological courtrooms.”

Unlike prior cases such as the Our Children’s Trust suing Montana over allegations that oil drilling threatens the well-being of future generations, this is the first major lawsuit focused on an electric utility investing heavily in clean energy technologies such as nuclear power.

The Supreme Court has declined to get involved in advancing these climate lawsuits as recently as November. 

“This effort is meant to prop up a nationally struggling solar industry and slow down the progress of nuclear energy in providing a reliable clean energy future. A cause these groups and the plaintiff in NC claim to champion” added Ossowski. “North Carolina has one of the lowest per capita natural gas usage rates, has seen energy bills reduced by $212 million in 2023, and has diversified its energy grid so fast that nuclear is one-third of the state’s portfolio. Things have never been better for North Carolinians on clean energy.” 

The Consumer Choice Center wants to see Carrboro and other municipalities prioritize collaboration over litigation that is meant to drain resources that would otherwise serve consumers. North Carolinians benefit every day from lower energy costs and innovation, and we all need more of that, not less. 

Yaël Ossowski’s analysis of climate change litigation can be reviewed in the Orange County Register, Duluth Tribune, West Australian, and the LA Daily News. He is available for media interviews and requests. 

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva.

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Climate lawyers could control the future of American energy, not consumers

When we think of American energy, we conjure up images of oil drillers, refineries, pipelines, and end products we put into our cars or the plastic products we use daily. There are millions of jobs and billions of products sourced from energy production that make our society abundant and wealthy. That’s especially true today under President Joe Biden, as production of both oil and gas for domestic use and exports has soared to record levels, making the US the premier global energy powerhouse. And that’s despite Biden’s recent temporary pause on exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Those who invest in, supply, and direct that industry are the hundreds of oil and gas firms, independent refineries, plastic manufacturers, and transportation companies. American consumers are in on it as well, supporting the industry either by providing their labor, investing their retirement funds, or being frequent customers. It is how we power the American economy, and increasingly, the world.

All of that is being put to the test in the wake of a growing legal movement to sever consumers’ connections to energy firms for their alleged role in advancing anthropogenic climate change.

In left-leaning cities like Honolulu, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, judges are being asked to litigate massive lawsuits brought by top-tier climate lawyers against oil and gas companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and others, with claims that energy firms used “deceptive marketing” to advertise their oil and gas products without significant warnings about the climate impact.

The looming question that has so far slowed these claims is whether local courts are the appropriate venue to decide whether the energy industry will be saddled with the blame for climate change, or if the issue is consequential enough that it deserves a fair trial in federal court.

The Supreme Court has thus far booted similar cases back to district courts and denied any from reaching its docket, but one recent filing may change the game.

In the case filed by the city of Honolulu against Sunoco and other firms, the Supreme Court last month was asked for the first time to assess the merits of whether the case should even proceed, rather than just its court jurisdiction. If and when the Supreme Court issues an opinion, it would also either boost or sink the other major case brought by California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta last fall, currently awaiting further action in San Francisco.

How courts in San Francisco and Hawaii would decide on climate change litigation is predictable, but the Supreme Court’s evaluation would be a toss-up. The ramifications for American energy, especially for the consumers who depend on it, can’t be overstated.

While most American people are optimistic about renewable energy from solar and wind, over 68% of them still believe that progress should happen in tandem with fossil fuels, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. And these cases could determine whether that status quo continues.

As such, the future of the American energy industry is not in the hands of shareholders, consumers, or even politicians, but rather a tiny group of well-funded and overstaffed legal firms supporting environmental groups that manifest these lawsuits across the country in friendly jurisdictions.

Many of the legal theories underpinning these cases are being shepherded through law schools, such as the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia or the Environment and Energy State Impact Center at NYU. Each of these programs train law students in how to advance climate change litigation and generate briefs for state attorneys general. No surprise, the effort has been buoyed by philanthropist support from billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Allied environmental nonprofits  take that work even further, lobbying state attorneys general and even providing high-dollar grants and awards to those offices that embark on climate change litigation.

As Americans, we’re very familiar with lawsuits, lawyers, and cases we’re all supposed to care about. What makes the latest spat of climate change lawsuits so consequential, however, is that any ruling would have an immediate effect on how we power and fuel our lives.

Without affordable or ready climate solutions, many of us would be left shouldering extra costs based on the whims of a few judges and activist lawyers in small, left-leaning districts. That price is too high.

We desperately need technological innovation to solve climate change, and that won’t be found in a California or Hawaii courtroom. We can only hope that some sharp judicial minds will feel the same way.

Originally published here

Kommt mit nachhaltigen Flugkraftstoffen das nächste Energiedebakel?

Von Fred Roeder, Geschäftsführer des Consumer Choice Center

Auf der Suche nach grüneren Himmeln stehen Regulierungsbehörden weltweit vor der Herausforderung, Flugkraftstoffe nachhaltiger zu gestalten. Die Europäische Union (EU) hat mit ihrer ReFuelEU-Gesetzgebung eine Vorreiterrolle übernommen, die eine schrittweise Erhöhung des Einsatzes von nachhaltigen Flugkraftstoffen (SAFs) vorschreibt. Der Weg zur nachhaltigen Luftfahrt ist jedoch nicht ohne Hürden, da SAFs derzeit drei bis viermal teurer sind als konventionelles Kerosin. Darüber hinaus fügt die potenzielle Erhöhung der Verbraucherpreise eine weitere Ebene der Komplexität zu der bereits komplizierten Debatte hinzu. Wenn jetzt nich aufgepasst wird, kann es nach Energiepreisschocks durch Russlands Krieg in der Ukraine und dem hausgemachten Atomausstieg noch zu einem Flugpreishammer kommen.

Im November 2023 hat der EU-Rat die Initiative ‘ReFuelEU Aviation’ verabschiedet, einen wichtigen Bestandteil des ‘Fit for 55’-Pakets, das darauf abzielt, den CO2-Fußabdruck des Luftverkehrssektors zu reduzieren. Die Gesetzgebung schreibt vor, dass Lieferanten von Flugkraftstoffen einen Mindestanteil nachhaltiger Flugkraftstoffe (SAFs) in ihren Produkten einschließen müssen, beginnend mit 2% im Jahr 2025 und bis 2050 auf 70% ansteigend. Auch synthetische Kraftstoffe sind erforderlich, mit einem zunehmenden Anteil. Das Gesetz zielt darauf ab, den Luftverkehr an die Klimaziele der EU anzupassen und Probleme wie geringe Verfügbarkeit und hohe Preise bei der Entwicklung von SAFs anzugehen. Die Verordnung soll am 1. Januar 2024 in Kraft treten, wobei bestimmte Bestimmungen ab 2025 gelten.

Eine zentrale Sorge in diesem Diskurs ist die Notwendigkeit eines globalen Ansatzes, anstatt protektionistischen Maßnahmen nachzugeben. Der Einsatz von SAFs sollte über Grenzen hinweggehen und Zusammenarbeit zwischen Nationen, Regulierungsbehörden und anderen Interessengruppen fördern. Während die EU auf strenge Standards drängt, muss sie auch historische Vorbehalte überwinden und Technologieneutralität akzeptieren.

Ein bemerkenswerter Aspekt dieser Herausforderung ist die Rolle von aus Palmöl gewonnenen SAFs, insbesondere in Südostasien. Die protektionistische Haltung der EU gegenüber Biotreibstoffen aus dieser Region bedarf einer Überprüfung. Palmöl-Derivate stellen eine geeignete und günstigere Rohstoffquelle für SAFs dar. Exporteure aus Südostasien und Westafrika haben das Potenzial, durch die Bereitstellung eines kontinuierlichen Angebots dieser Abfallprodukte die Emissionen der Luftfahrt zu reduzieren.

Die gleichen Stimmen, die sich für den Ausstieg aus fossilen Brennstoffen aussprechen, sind baer historisch gegen die Verwendung von Palmöl. Die Herangehensweise der EU an Palmöl als Rohstoff für SAFs scheint widersprüchlich zu sein und unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit einer nuancierteren und kohärenteren Strategie. Wenn SAFs Erfolg haben sollen, müssen politische Entscheidungsträger Umweltziele mit dem Potenzial innovativer Rohstoffe in Einklang bringen.

Ein Vergleich mit der Energiepolitik Deutschlands, die in ihrem Eifer, zu dekarbonisieren und auf Kernenergie zu verzichten, zu unbeabsichtigten Konsequenzen wie vermehrtem Kohlegebrauch und höheren Strompreisen führte, sollte die EU zur Vorsicht mahnen. Das richtige Gleichgewichts ist entscheidend, um sicherzustellen, dass Nachhaltigkeitsziele nicht unbeabsichtigt zu nachteiligen wirtschaftlichen und Umwelt-auswirkungen führen.

Zusammenfassend erfordert der Weg zu bezahlbaren und nachhaltigen Flugkraftstoffen eine kollaborative und globale Anstrengung. Die EU muss jede protektionistische Sichtweise auf aus Palmöl gewonnene SAFs aufgeben und einen ausgewogeneren Ansatz verfolgen. Während die Luftfahrtindustrie Schritte in Richtung einer grüneren Zukunft unternimmt, müssen politische Entscheidungsträger, Regulierungsbehörden und Aktivisten alte Mantras ablegen und pragmatische Lösungen über ideologische Debatten stellen. Wenn nachhaltige Flugkraftstoffe jemals eine wirtschaftlich tragfähige Massenmarktalternative werden sollen, sind kluge und pragmatische Ansätze erforderlich.

UNE RENAISSANCE NUCLÉAIRE EN EUROPE

Il est temps que nous reconnaissions le rôle vital de l’énergie nucléaire et que nous la défendions en tant que force du bien dans notre monde.

Pendant des décennies, les fruits de la révolution du gaz de schiste, ainsi que leur nouveau statut de premier exportateur net de gaz naturel au monde, ont démontré que les consommateurs américains bénéficiaient d’une énergie abondante.

Mais alors que les effets de la pandémie, des pénuries de la chaîne d’approvisionnement, la guerre en Ukraine et l’augmentation des dépenses publiques ont fait place à une hausse de l’inflation, tous les regards se sont soudain tournés vers les factures des services publics. En 2021, les Américains ont dépensé jusqu‘à 25% de plus en énergie que l’année précédente.

Le problème pour les consommateurs d’énergie est continuellement aggravé par les engagements politiques visant à « tout électrifier », notamment les subventions massives pour les véhicules électriques, les pompes à chaleur domestiques et les panneaux solaires dans la poursuite d’un avenir neutre en carbone.

Aujourd’hui, les politiques des Etats accélèrent ce processus, puisqu’au moins 22 Etats – plus Porto Rico et Washington, D.C. – se sont engagés à produire de l’électricité 100% zéro carbone d’ici à 2050.

Mais plutôt que de subventionner nos objectifs politiques en matière de climat avec des panneaux solaires, des batteries et des éoliennes fabriqués à l’étranger, pourquoi ne pas nous tourner vers la nouvelle génération d’une technologie sûre, qui est déjà la source d’électricité la plus dense et la plus exempte de carbone au monde ? Et s’il était temps de défendre à nouveau l’énergie ?

Le même défi se présente notamment pour l’Europe, qui a été trop ambigüe sur le nucléaire. L’Union européenne a même débattu de la question du nucléaire étant vert ou non, bien que nous sachions depuis longtemps qu’il est considéré comme une énergie verte.

Les investisseurs dans le secteur de l’énergie, les clients et même les politiciens écologistes ont toutes les raisons de vouloir se tourner vers le nucléaire. L’énergie nucléaire est sûre, propre et fiable. Elle ne produit pas d’émissions et crée des dizaines de milliers d’emplois de qualité, sur plusieurs générations. Ce n’est pas pour rien que les centrales nucléaires disposent de plus grands parkings que les éoliennes ou les parcs solaires.

Cela dit, l’énergie nucléaire traditionnelle se heurte à plusieurs obstacles. Les préoccupations en matière d’environnement et de radiations sont invoquées, bien que de nouvelles innovations telles que les combustibles tolérants aux accidents aient réduit les risques. Les restrictions réglementaires et les autorisations peuvent retarder les approbations et les renouvellements jusqu’à une décennie. Plus important encore, les projets nucléaires nécessitent beaucoup de main-d’œuvre et de capitaux, ce qui met à l’épreuve les limites financières des investisseurs privés et des services publics, qui puisent dans les subventions pour rester à flot.

Mais l’ère des tours de refroidissement en béton brutal et du contrôle étatique hautement centralisé comme seules caractéristiques de l’énergie nucléaire est peut-être déjà révolue.

La technologie de l’énergie nucléaire de la prochaine génération – telle que les petits réacteurs modulaires (SMR) – peut partager la fission de l’atome avec son prédécesseur, mais sa forme moderne est tout à fait différente.

Les SMR peuvent être aussi petits qu’un véhicule utilitaire sport, mais ils produisent néanmoins beaucoup de mégawatts d’énergie. Ils peuvent fournir plus rapidement et de manière plus fiable de l’énergie au réseau électrique ou à l’industrie et, dans certains cas, le combustible usé peut être réutilisé. Les SMR pourraient devenir la principale source d’énergie sans carbone pour une grande usine de fabrication qui emploierait des milliers de personnes et soulagerait les réseaux résidentiels.

Par exemple, le développeur de SMR X-energy collabore avec le géant de la chimie Dow pour installer une centrale nucléaire SMR avancée sur le site de fabrication de Dow à Seadrift, au Texas. Le projet de Dow vise à fournir à son site de Seadrift de l’électricité et de la vapeur industrielle sûres, fiables et sans émissions de carbone, alors que les actifs existants en matière d’énergie et de vapeur approchent la fin de leur durée de vie.

Le projet dépend de l’obtention de divers examens et approbations, car les entreprises comme Dow doivent respecter des délais stricts pour assurer la poursuite de l’exploitation de son site. X-energy a d’abord lancé les activités de pré-demande de la NRC pour son réacteur Xe-100 en 2018.

Si nous souhaitons fournir de l’énergie à grande échelle et à faible coût à des millions de consommateurs d’énergie, le rythme de création de petits réacteurs nucléaires, tel que le président Macron a annoncé que la France en construirait, doit être étendu à d’autres pays européens.

Il existe des solutions simples qui pourraient nous faire gagner du temps. Chaque Etat dont la licence nucléaire expire devrait envisager de soutenir la prolongation de la durée de vie des centrales. Les Etats dotés de lois antinucléaires devraient revoir leurs implications. Dans la mesure du possible, les Etats devraient inclure les technologies nucléaires et de fusion dans les définitions des « énergies propres », comme la Caroline du Nord semble prête à le faire. La NRC devrait poursuivre ses efforts constants pour réduire les charges réglementaires afin d’accélérer les examens et les autorisations pour les nouvelles centrales nucléaires, tout en continuant à se concentrer sur la sécurité.

Plutôt que de fermer les centrales au charbon sans alternative, les Etats européens devraient rapidement permettre aux promoteurs de projets expérimentés de convertir ces installations en centrales nucléaires.

Cela représenterait des milliards d’euros d’économies pour les consommateurs d’énergie, des centaines de milliers d’emplois bien rémunérés et des possibilités illimitées pour les innovateurs de mettre en œuvre la prochaine génération de technologies nucléaires, tant au niveau national qu’au niveau mondial.

Les politiciens et les régulateurs ont créé le paradigme d’un monde sans émissions de gaz à effet de serre. L’énergie nucléaire permettra d’atteindre cet objectif et apportera la prospérité, la résilience et la durabilité qui nous permettront de rester indépendants sur le plan énergétique.

Il est temps que nous reconnaissions le rôle vital de l’énergie nucléaire et que nous la défendions en tant que force du bien dans notre monde.

Originally published here

Navigating the Future: Insights from COP28 in Dubai

Exciting times are underway at COP28 in Dubai, where global leaders are converging to address pressing environmental concerns and chart a sustainable course for our planet. As discussions unfold, it’s crucial to delve into the key consumer concerns that will shape the future of our world. Join me as we explore the hot topics dominating the agenda and their potential impact on our lives.

Nuclear Power Renaissance: A Game-Changer for Global Energy Prices?

The spotlight at COP28 is firmly on nuclear power, with 22 nations pledging to triple their nuclear power output by 2050. This signals a potential nuclear power renaissance, raising questions about its role as a game-changer for global energy prices. As we look towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future, nuclear power’s resurgence could play a pivotal role in meeting our growing energy demands.

As the momentum builds at COP28, it’s unfortunate that some nations, including Germany, are not part of the coalition pledging to triple nuclear power output. Nevertheless, the global community’s collective efforts at the conference showcase a commitment to tackling the pressing challenges that lie ahead. The decisions made and discussions held in Dubai have the potential to shape our environmental trajectory, paving the way for a more sustainable and resilient future.

Modern Agriculture & Genetic Engineering: Sustaining a Growing World Population

Amid concerns about food security and a burgeoning global population, modern agriculture and genetic engineering take center stage. Can these innovations sustainably feed the world, or do they present ethical and environmental challenges? COP28 provides a platform to discuss the intersection of technology, agriculture, and the imperative to ensure food security for all.

My colleague Bill Wirtz writes, “While the organic community’s resistance to genetically modified crops may often be ideological, the advantages of genetic modification have become apparent in those jurisdictions where it can legally be deployed in food production. Gene-editing allows for crops to absorb 30% more carbon dioxide without ill effects on them, makes wheat safe for people suffering from celiac disease, creates allergy-free peanuts, and produces drought-resistant rice in India. Overall, gene-edited crops grow more efficiently with less resource use (such as water), thus accelerating the speed with which agricultural efficiency advances.”

While COP28 in Dubai addresses a multitude of environmental concerns, the debate around meat consumption is a prominent and contentious topic. Advocates for restricting meat consumption argue that it is a necessary step in mitigating climate change and promoting sustainability. However, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) presents a counter-narrative, emphasizing the vital role of meat, eggs, and milk in providing essential nutrients that are not easily obtained from plant-based sources. The FAO asserts, “Meat, eggs, and milk offer crucial sources of much-needed nutrients which cannot easily be obtained from plant-based foods.” This statement underscores the nutritional significance of animal products, particularly in preventing damaging nutrient deficiencies that persist even in higher-income countries.

Critics of the movement to limit meat consumption point to the FAO’s data, challenging the widely propagated notion that livestock, particularly cows, are disproportionately contributing to climate change. The FAO’s publicly available data contradicts the notion that livestock is solely an environmental burden, revealing that they account for 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Simultaneously, livestock plays a pivotal role in providing sustenance, contributing 30% of global protein and nearly 20% of calories consumed worldwide. It is essential to consider these nuanced perspectives in the ongoing discourse, recognizing the complex interplay between dietary choices, environmental impact, and global nutrition needs. 

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF): Hype or Hope for Eco-Friendly Aviation?

With the aviation industry under scrutiny for its environmental impact, Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) emerge as a potential solution. But are they merely hype, or can they genuinely make aviation more affordable and eco-friendly? The path to sustainable aviation is not without hurdles, as SAFs currently remain three to four times more expensive than conventional kerosene. Moreover, the potential increase in consumer prices adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate debate. I wrote in Parliament Magazine, “the journey towards affordable and sustainable aviation fuels demands a collaborative and global effort. The EU must abandon any protectionist views on palm oil-derived SAFs and embrace a more balanced approach. As the aviation industry takes strides toward a greener future, policymakers, regulators, and activists must shed old mantras and prioritize pragmatic solutions over ideological debates. If sustainable jet fuels should ever become an economically viable mass-market alternative, smart and pragmatic approaches are needed.” The discussions at COP28 aim to unravel the promise and potential challenges of transitioning to sustainable aviation fuels.

Prosperity without Fossil Fuels: A Global Conundrum

One of the burning questions at COP28 is whether it’s possible to create more prosperity without relying on fossil fuels. As nations grapple with the need to decarbonize their economies, striking a balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability becomes paramount. Market openness will produce cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant energy in the medium to long term. The history of advancement has shown that such revolutions cannot be planned, and timelines cannot and should not be clearly defined. Just as there was no timetable for how long the car would take to replace the horse-drawn carriage or email to replace the letter, there will be no timetable to make Switzerland pollution-free; consumers, not self-described natural monopolies, can make that change.

My colleague Yael Ossowski writes, “Data from 2022 shows oil and gas represented nearly 70 percent of American energy consumption, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports global consumption of liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) will remain high for the next decade.”

In the pursuit of sustainable energy, the concept of technology neutrality needs to take center stage at COP28. How important is it in ensuring energy security, and what role does it play in fostering a diverse and resilient energy landscape? As nations navigate the transition to cleaner energy sources, finding the right balance and embracing a neutral stance towards technology becomes a crucial aspect of the discussions.

Stay tuned for updates as we navigate the intricate landscape of COP28!

Legal attacks on fossil fuels will only make us poorer

Nearly half of all US states have pledged to go totally carbon-free by at least 2050.

While many states and the federal government are pushing and subsidizing entrepreneurs to scale up carbon-free alternatives to fossil fuels such as nuclear energy, wind, and solar – other states are hoping to reach their goals by seemingly suing oil and gas companies into extinction.

Though American consumers have been the primary customers for fossil fuel companies, several Democratic state attorneys generals have staged elaborate lawsuits hoping to legally pin climate change on a handful of companies.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has been at the forefront, but he’s had plenty of support and funding along the way, including from key law firms across the country and the billionaire former New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

Though our judicial system is supposed to be immune from political agendas, these third-parties target certain industries and corporations for litigation, hoping to tip the balance in prominent cases being heard across the country.

This trend is so troubling that the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability held ahearing in September to evaluate this threat. But missing from that congressional discussion about deep-pocketed, heavily coordinated movements to influence legal action was the subject of climate litigation.

In September, the largest climate change lawsuit was filed by the state of California against five major oil companies and associates, alleging public deception about climate risks associated with fossil fuels.

With an economy twice that of Russia, California becomes not just the biggest U.S. state to sue energy companies, but the largest economy to do so. California has thrown its weight around before, suing auto manufacturers over greenhouse emissions and legally banning the sale of new combustion-powered vehicles by 2035.

California’s vendetta against oil and gas may seem impractical, but the fact that 17 states followed their lead on the eventual gas-powered car ban shows that “as California goes, so goes the nation” is more than just a saying.

Nonetheless, California faces the same uphill battle as its unsuccessful auto industry lawsuit. One environmental law professor at Yale University told the Wall Street Journal, “the entire modern economy relies on the oil industry, and it could be hard to pin liability solely on companies.”

The lawsuit itself, however, will do nothing to promote climate progress. In fact, it will only add to consumer burdens, should they be successful. Gas prices are already disproportionately high in California, at 55 percent higher than the national average. But worse yet is the protracted, multi-million-dollar campaign waged by third parties to pressure energy producers and persuade the public they’ve been deceived.

Deep-pocketed private donors have persuaded organizations and attorneys to take up climate litigation, pouring millions into institutions like the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) who aggressively encourage state and local governments to sue energy producers. Allies like the Rockefeller Family Fund not only help funnel money to CCI – about $10 million, in fact – but also host legal forums and initiate climate ligation support among elected officials.

Senator Ted Cruz and U.S. Representative James Comer raised these concerns, pointing out the chief law firm litigating climate lawsuits, Sher Edling, is essentially paid to target energy companies. Rather than implementing contingency fees, “the lawsuits are being funded, tax-free, by wealthy liberals via dark money pass-through funds.”

Beyond that, billionaire Michael Bloomberg has put legal muscle behind the movement, seeding the NYU School of Law’s Environment and Energy State Impact Center with $6 million to offer lawyers as “Special Assistant Attorneys General.” These attorneys, embedded at the state level, provide more legal horsepower to pursue climate suits.

Most recently, a congressional ethics probe was opened on Ann Carlson, unconfirmed acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), for her extreme agenda and prior partnership with Sher Edling. The members allege she was involved in coordinating the law firm’s efforts to pursue climate litigation and worked to raise money through dark money funds to support that work.

This public campaign to vilify energy producers ignores the reality that we rely on fossil fuels and need them to lead America’s energy transition, as they have for years now.

Data from 2022 shows oil and gas represented nearly 70 percent of American energy consumption, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports global consumption of liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) will remain high for the next decade.

Despite this, these lawsuits target energy producers in hopes of shrinking the role of American oil and gas development and starving consumers of affordable energy sources, even if there are no ready replacements.

The public relations and legal war against energy producers is the wrong path for real change –  a mistake only amplified by dark money and partisan networks to encourage more climate lawsuits. It’s time we pursue common sense solutions, rather than misleading the public with disingenuous lawsuits that won’t combat climate change, and won’t make our lives any better.

Originally published here

Réaffirmer la neutralité suisse: le cas de l’énergie

À l’étranger, on caricature souvent la Suisse par sa seule neutralité. Cette description devrait nous interroger, car elle reflète sans doute plus qu’une simple philosophie de relations internationales.

Cette neutralité transparaît dans notre relation à la politique. La population suisse voit ses hommes politiques comme les garants d’un cadre général et non comme des sauveurs qui permettront de réorienter la nation dans la bonne direction. Vue de l’extérieur, la politique suisse est moins conflictuelle, plus tournée vers la discussion et la recherche de solutions. 

Toutefois, il y a des sujets qui semblent échapper à ce principe. C’est notamment le cas de la politique énergétique, qui est devenue un sujet passionnel. Il y a des pro et des antinucléaires, des pro et des antisolaires, sans parler des éoliennes, qui détruisent le paysage ou sauvent la planète. Choisis ton camp, camarade!

La neutralité énergétique devrait être la solution que nous devrions défendre collectivement au niveau politique. Ce principe repose sur la flexibilité et l’acceptation des différentes solutions possibles, afin de maintenir un approvisionnement en énergie fiable et durable tout en préservant l’environnement. La diversification des sources d’énergie est capitale pour garantir notre prospérité.

Cependant, ces dernières années, la politique énergétique suisse a pris un tournant controversé avec la mise en œuvre de la politique énergétique 2050, qui est en rupture avec l’histoire de notre pays.

Read the full text here

A Nuclear Renaissance Is the Best Path Forward

For decades, the fruits of the fracking revolution, plus our newly minted status as the world’s top net exporter of natural gas, demonstrated that American consumers were swimming in bountiful energy.

But as the pandemic effects of supply chain shortages, the war in Ukraine, and higher government spending gave way to inflation hikes, suddenly all eyes were on utility bills. In 2021, Americans spent as much as 25% more on energy than in the previous year.

Compounding that problem for energy consumers are political pledges aimed at the “electrification of everything,” including massive subsidies for electric vehicles, home heat pumps, and solar panels in pursuit of a carbon neutral future.

Now state policies are accelerating that, as at least 22 states — plus Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. — have committed to either 100% carbon-free electricity generation or “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.

But rather than subsidize our way toward political climate goals with foreign-made solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines, what if we looked to the new generation of a safe technology that is already the densest and carbon-free source of electricity in the world? What if it’s time to once again champion nuclear energy?

Energy investors, customers, and even green politicians should have every reason to love the atom. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and reliable for decades. It produces no emissions and produces tens of thousands of good jobs for generations. There’s a reason nuclear plants have larger parking lots than wind turbines or solar farms.

At least three states — Illinois, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — currently generate over 50% of their electricity needs from nuclear power, making them effectively carbon neutral and an ideal hub for energy-intensive industry. 

Even green warrior California Gov. Gavin Newson was forced to rethink the closing of Diablo Canyon in the face of aggressive climate goals, giving the state’s only nuclear plant a lifeline. Other states are reconsidering nuclear energy as their licenses head toward their expiration date.

That said, traditional nuclear energy faces several obstacles. Environmental and radiation concerns are invoked, though new innovations like accident-tolerant fuels have lessened the risk. Regulatory restrictions and permitting can delay approvals and renewals for up to a decade. Most importantly, nuclear projects are significantly labor and capital intensive, testing the financial limits of private investors and utilities who dip into subsidies to stay afloat.

But the age of the brutalist concrete cooling towers and highly centralized state control as the only features of nuclear power may already be over.

Next-generation nuclear energy technology — such as small modular reactors — may share the splitting of the atom with its predecessor, but its modern form is anything but.

SMRs can be as small as an SUV but still produce plenty of megawatts of energy. They can more quickly and reliably deliver power to the electric grid or industry, and in some cases, the spent fuel can be reused. SMRs could become the main carbon-free power source for a large manufacturing facility that would employ thousands of people and keep the load off residential grids. 

For example, SMR developer X-energy is collaborating with chemical giant Dow to install  an advanced SMR nuclear plant at Dow’s manufacturing site in Seadrift, Texas. The Dow project is focused on providing its Seadrift site with safe, reliable, zero carbon emissions power and industrial steam as existing energy and steam assets near their end-of-life.

The project is contingent upon delivering on various reviews and approvals, as companies like Dow must follow strict timeframes to ensure continued operation of its site. X-energy first initiated NRC pre-application activities for their Xe-100 reactor in 2018.

Only one small modular reactor design, made by Oregon-based NuScale, has been certified by the National Regulatory Commission, which released its final rulemaking after a decade-long application process.

If we want to deliver energy at scale and at a low cost for millions of energy consumers, that pace will have to move to a warp speed timeline.

There are simple solutions that could save us time. Every state with an expiring nuclear license should consider supporting plant life extensions. States with anti-nuclear statutes should rethink their implications. Where possible, states should include nuclear and fusion technology within “clean energy” definitions, as North Carolina seems poised to do. The NRC should continue its steadfast efforts in reducing regulatory burdens to fast-track reviews and permits for new nuclear while still keeping a laser focus on safety.

Rather than closing coal plants without alternatives, states should quickly allow experienced project proponents to convert those facilities into nuclear stations. The US Department of Energy estimates that over 80% of the country’s existing coal plants could be cheaply converted into SMRs or advanced nuclear reactors, saving up to 35% in infrastructure costs while reducing emissions for decades. Roadmaps already exist to convert coal plant jobs to next-generation nuclear jobs.

This would represent billions in savings to energy customers, hundreds of thousands more good-paying jobs, and unlimited opportunities for innovators to unleash the next generation of nuclear power technology both domestically and as a global export.

Politicians and regulators have created the paradigm of a net zero world. Nuclear energy will enable that and provide prosperity, resilience, and sustainability that will keep us energy independent. 

It’s time we recognize nuclear energy’s vital role and champion it as a force for good in our world.

Originally published here

en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org