From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. 

“CO2 is not the threat but the friend, as are fossil fuels that make an unsafe world safe and pleasant for billions of people despite the forces of Statism and … elitist climate policy.”

Climate alarmists live in a self-righteous bubble where humankind is the scoundrel. Nature is optimal and fragile; anthropogenic change cannot be good, even toward greening, warming, and moistening. Think about that nonpolluting trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

To the Church of Climate, there cannot be any debate against the narrative of alarm–or pushback against forced energy transformation. The opposition is evil against the common good, defined so vaguely as to preclude real human betterment. So psychological explanations emerge.

Consider this post on LinkedIn by self-described PR specialist Tanya P. (since deleted or I am blocked):

There’s something I have noticed when I engage with climate change deniers on LinkedIn. I have noticed that fossil fuels has, for them, become about identity… and one kind of identity in particular: hypermasculinity.

The analogy to nicotine and tobacco then comes in, despite what James Hansen had to say about the specious comparison. [1]

This is the same kind of strategy that was used by Big Tobacco to sell toxic products and ideologies to men, even as cigarette smoking killed men by the 100s of 1000s. Big Tobacco understood: if you can make something about *identity* then it is nearly impossible to dislodge that belief, uproot the bad habit or argue any counter perspective.

“This is, in a nutshell, how effective propaganda works,” Tanya concludes. Continuing into psychoanalysis:

I have noted a deeply emotional reaction among deniers. There is a kind of almost religious fervour in some climate change denial arguments. Deniers, conspiracy theorists have, at times, almost seemed to wind their entire personalities up with …the decomposing plants and animals that humanity has burned for a scant 150 years to create our present disaster and climate emergency.

It’s all a conspiracy in her mind.

As a veteran marketer who ran large-scale international communication and persuasion campaigns, I do understand why this sort of transformation happens within people. Oil and gas companies have constructed very sophisticated disinformation campaigns that have equated fossil fuels with masculinity and toughness.

In so doing, fossil fuel companies have enlisted, activated and outraged these fringe surrogates by the 10s of 1000s, witting, unwitting or witless, to do the work of these sophisticated fossil-fuel propaganda campaigns.

She probes deeper into her (imaginary) foes:

These climate change denial activists identify deeply and almost spiritually with the dirty and destructive burning of decomposing plants and animals that make up fossil fuels. These deniers will debase themselves to fight for oil and gas even when it hurts them economically, and socially. Tragically, I see it every day.

I do not know who she is describing, and I know myself and a hundred others in the fight against the Climate Industrial Complex. We are quite the opposite. She should engage with us to shock her simplistic belief; CO2/climate optimists are intellectually grounded and open-minded.

She ends:

Deniers been enlisted and activated by powerful interests, most of these advocates/dupes fully unaware that they’ve become puppets on strings held by powerful interests. These useful, credulous surrogates wrap themselves in the supposed masculine mantle of fossil fuel advocacy, all the while not realizing how weak, feeble and depressing their activities appear to the wider world. It would be deeply sad and heartbreaking if it weren’t so destructive.

One can only turn the tables on Tanya and the many like her who fantasize about the problem and the enemy. CO2 is not the threat but the friend, as are fossil fuels that make an unsafe world safe and pleasant for billions of people despite the forces of Statism and … elitist climate policy.

[1] “Let’s be clear: the frequent comparison of the fossil fuel and tobacco industries is nonsense. Fossil fuels are a valuable energy source that has done yeomen service for humankind.” – James Hansen, June 1, 2021.

By Gordon Tomb

Gov. Josh Shapiro’s proposal to cap electricity prices could, perversely, lead to higher customer bills and a greater risk of blackouts, according to America’s Power, a trade organization of coal-fired power plants.

Following negotiations with the governor, power grid operator PJM Interconnection submitted a plan to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to restrict prices for two years—a period that would extend, coincidentally or not, beyond Shapiro’s 2026 reelection campaign. On April 22, FERC approved the settlement.

As usual, the governor ran a premature victory lap. Shapiro called a $14.7 billion boost in electricity costs last year the “largest unjust wealth transfer in the history of U.S. energy markets.” The price cap would provide nearly $22 billion in savings, the governor claimed.

However, the higher prices at last year’s PJM auction resulted from the rising demand for electricity and a shortage of producers willing to offer new supplies. The auctions are intended to replicate a market where prices rise and fall with the differential between supply and demand.

In a protest filed with FERC, America’s Power stated the PJM “proposal to appease Gov. Shapiro may superficially sound attractive as a way to help consumers during tumultuous economic times, but that is merely its aura, not its reality.” The trade group raises the specter of “catastrophic consequences” from PJM’s “game of reliability Russian roulette.”

America’s Power may sound hyperbolic. But in the context of more than 200 deaths in Texas from blackouts due to a lack of reliable generation and fuel, lawmakers must take the trade group’s cautionary words seriously.

Other organizations have issued the same warning.

“The governor’s proposal is dangerous because it numbs the market to price signals, which is how investment in new generation capacity is directed,” said David Taylor, CEO of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association. “In doing so, he would damage an already compromised electricity market, further undermine grid reliability, and potentially get people killed when the power goes out.”

Overseeing the electricity transmission across 13 states, PJM has issued multiple warnings of power shortages in the region within the next few years. Those warnings result partly from the forced closure of coal-fired plants by regulations and wind and solar subsidies augmenting the market. Instead of attracting new energy sources, the price cap would accelerate the shutdowns of highly reliable coal-fired plants that can keep months of fuel supplies on-site for emergencies, according to America’s Power.

Because their operations are weather-dependent, wind turbines and solar panels cannot match the reliability of units fueled by coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. As more reliable facilities retire, most new proposals to PJM call for new generation from wind and solar operators.

PJM, said America’s Power, has sacrificed its role as a market manager in yielding to Gov. Shapiro’s complaint: “PJM, disappointingly bowing under the weight of state-imposed political pressure rather than standing up to protect market integrity and reliability, submitted a proposal that may lead to catastrophic consequences.”

Let’s be clear: The negotiated price cap does not save money; it only limits cost increases.

“Rates will continue to rise even under this agreement,” said state Sen. Joe Pittman.

In other words, Shapiro’s intervention will likely prolong the period of rising prices. If the governor continues his war on reliability with carbon taxes and enhanced subsidies for unreliable energy sources, the gap between demand and supply will increase prices even further.

The lack of new reliable generation could force PJM to use expensive “reliability must-run” agreements. These agreements enable plants shutting down for economic reasons to continue to run by compensating them at relatively high prices, according to America’s Power.

In short, bad state policies limit electricity supply and drive up your utility bills. The PJM settlement will exacerbate this problem.

Power shortages are of particular concern in winter or summer when extreme temperatures pose significant risks to people. In addition, price spikes are more likely during cold spells when home-heating demands compete with power plants for natural gas. During a January polar vortex, coal plants potentially avoided as much as $1.4 billion in increased costs and provided more than 40 percent of the additional energy needed to warm homes and businesses, America’s Power claimed.

The FERC-approved Shapiro–PJM settlement boils down to one question: What good are lower prices if there is no electricity when it’s most needed?

This commentary was first published at DV Journal on April 28th, 2025.

Gordon Tomb is a senior advisor with the CO2 Coalition.