A month ago New York Times “Climate Forward” columnist David Gelles highlighted billionaire leftist Tom Steyer’s campaign for governor of California on the apparent platform that expensive is the new cheap. Evidently “At a moment when few politicians are speaking out about climate change…” um what? But never mind. See “Tom Steyer has thrust the issue to the center of the California governor’s race…. He says California voters’ top concern is affordability, and the fastest way to lower their bills is by embracing clean energy.” Well, that was the promise, wasn’t it. But how’s it turning out? Because if anyone still believes in that famous “evidence-based decision-making” that was all the rage a few years back as a new and more subtle way of saying “I am objective and my opponent is stupid”, the fact that California’s aggressive climate policies have made life there very expensive ought to matter.
Don’t take our word for it. Ask New York Times “Climate Forward” columnist David Gelles who, in that very same piece, wrote:
“California has historically been a climate leader in developing regulations, but it’s notoriously hard to build clean energy projects in the state and its electricity prices are among the highest in the nation.”
Also, having apparently “thrust the issue to the centre of the California governor’s race” Steyer was thrust out of it, finishing third (among 61 candidates by our count, to be sure) and missing the runoff. And so was climate change, no matter what left-wing columnists claim.
As is also true on affordability. Just because a person says something expensive will make your life more affordable doesn’t mean it will, and the press used to have at least some skepticism about pie in the sky and free beer Thursday from politicians. Used to.
Nowadays Canada’s Prime Minister can blather that a plan to spend we know not how much to double our electric grid within 24 years we know not how will save us a fortune by spending money we don’t got:
“The world is changing rapidly. The United States is upending global trade, wars are ongoing in Europe and the Middle East, artificial intelligence is scaling at speed, and climate change is intensifying. In response, Canada’s new government is focused on what we can control: building an affordable, competitive, and sustainable Canadian economy. …To that end, Canada’s new government is launching a new National Electricity Strategy. This plan will double the capacity of our grid by 2050 and supply clean, reliable, affordable power across the country for decades to come. To develop this strategy, today, we are launching consultations with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, utilities, and unions. Over the next few months, we will work together to identify the actions needed to double our grid most effectively and affordably. This transformation will not only build a more sustainable Canada, but also a more affordable Canada.”
Got that? This cliché-fest says “affordable… affordability… affordable… affordable… affordably… affordable” six times in 11 sentences. But where’s the beef? Or the scrutiny? Bloomberg reports credulously that “The overall goal is to lower energy costs for about 70% of Canadian households, the document says.” But what in our history together, “our” here meaning Canadian citizens’ and the Liberal administration, or even just the Carney version of it, justifies a belief that they know how to make things affordable? And what about this plan fits the traditional definition?
In Canada it pays to lick the boots of the powerful so “Electricity Canada”, the industry group, echoes a key government talking point in the title of their press-release response,”Proposed National Electricity Strategy brings Canada closer to becoming an energy superpower”, albeit one that imports electricity from… what’s this? The US? Fraid so. But never mind.
Instead it says, as if discovering some energy equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, that free energy will take free money: “we need to move beyond a traditional utility model when it comes to financing such large-scale projects.” Beyond it to what? A traditional massive government subsidy model. Though “give us a dollar” would be undignified so instead:
“The federal government must play a sustained role in sharing risk, lowering the cost of capital, and accelerating timelines through financing tools that reflect the long life and broad public benefits of electricity infrastructure.”
Um would “financing tools that reflect the long life” mean veeery long term at veeery low interest rate subsidies disguised as loans? Yes it would. And who is going to bear the cost of the lower-than-market rate of return? Why the beneficiaries of all this affordability. So you taxpayer-chumps get free beer Tuesday, but the bill up front.
See, the fastest way to lower our bills is by embracing clean energy at prodigious cost.
