When it comes to the alleged green energy transition and its flood of cheap power and paradisaically green, lucrative and fulfilling jobs, those with even fairly short historical memories will recall that the “Green New Deal” legislative package was meant to do for the US economy what Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had supposedly done in the 1930s. Those of us who think the main achievement of the “New Deal” was to extend a sharp recession into a decade-long depression through a massive set of taxes and regulations driven by inane economic theory, for instance plowing crops under to fight hunger under the AAA, didn’t even find that claim appealing. But others sure did, and with about as much to show for it.

As Wikipedia put it, after tracing uses of the term back to 2007:

“The 2019 United States congressional resolution Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal introduced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey advocated a ‘just transition’, counteracting previous systemic injustices that had disproportionally hurt vulnerable communities. A ‘just transition’ relies on increasing social and economic equity and access to opportunity which are crucial components of the Green New Deal and principles of environmental and social justice.”

For these hyper adherents to Thomas Sowell’s “unconstrained vision”, just saving the planet isn’t enough. You also have to save the economy, eliminate injustice and after lunch world peace.

In Canada, where we pride ourselves so fiercely on our “elbows up” independence from the United States that we call our system of socialized medicine brought in back in 1966 “Medicare” after um uh the American program from 1964, there are calls for “A Green New Deal for Canadian Sovereignty“ which appears to be the US version with maple syrup:

“This will allow us to quickly transition from an economy excessively reliant on serving the United States and based on exploitation and the burning of fossil fuels, to one that is more self-reliant, driven by dignified work, clean renewable energy, more equitable and with efficient public services for all.”

Oh. Just that? Who knew giving up oil and gas in a cold northern country could fix government health care? Well, Greenpeace Canada, for one, with their 2019 infographic that includes “Create a plan for 1 million good green jobs” (shades of Mole from Pogo exclaiming “A plan! You’re right! I’ll need a plan!”). And with this one, wait, you also get “Indigenous rights” and “proportional representation” and “BETTER LIFE FOR ALL” and “Build clean industries”. Oh and “Grant personhood protections to forests and bodies of water.” And interfaith harmony and a guy in a wheelchair and all that there.

Mind you, the bit where you “Build clean industries” still appears to face a few minor hurdles, like building clean industries. And why just 1 million good green jobs? Why not 5 million, or 53 million, or 628 billion? Since climate transition enthusiasts don’t do practical well.

For instance Canary Media just launched a publication “California Wire” dedicated to telling you the transition that failed in California worked in California:

“I’m launching this newsletter at an intriguing moment in California politics. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom – who everyone knows is eyeing a run for the White House – has one last chance to show his true colors on energy and climate change. Rising electricity costs are a major issue in California, and Newsom must decide by the end of this month whether to sign a host of bills that could help cut utility rates while also advancing the state’s clean energy transition. What message does he want to send to Californians and the rest of the country?”

Dude, he already “sent a message” that this GND is pie in the sky and energy gets more expensive not less. And not because he hid his “true colors on energy and climate change” but because he waved them in everyone’s face while shouting about the subject. So now all he needs to do is wave his pen? Yup:

“a few bills on his desk now could at least start the long slog of reforms that experts say will help make power more affordable.”

Oh wait. Experts say. But long slog? Help make it more affordable? Why the Dickens isn’t it already more affordable since these kinds of people keep telling us wind and solar are now cheaper than oil and gas, and let’s not even mention coal, and Newsom’s true colours are wind and solar?

Indeed, he calls for:

“a precursor to setting up regulations that could steer them [utilities] toward prioritizing lower-cost solutions over expensive grid upgrades.”

Talk about leaping into verbiage. And also error, since if alternative energy is a “lower-cost” solution they shouldn’t need prodding from a wise and benevolent state, and if they’re not, you’re just making things worse by persisting in your delusion.

It’s typical of this kind of thinking, where reality is all in the mind. As the Manhattan Contrarian commented acidly back in August:

“I often write about the musings of people who conjure in their minds imaginary scenarios of perfection that are inconsistent with anything that can be achieved in the real world. The most important example is a socialist economic system of perfect justice and fairness. Another example is an energy system that produces always-available electricity in infinite amounts from the intermittent wind and sun.”

But with the Green New Deal, you get both. And everything else. And it’s all so easy.

So the author basically dismisses California’s energy problems as “crises beyond his control” but now “virtual power plants” might save the day if only Newsom weren’t the captive of sinister vested interests, namely “politically powerful investor-owned utilities”.

Aha. There’s the problem. It’s a capitalist plot.

All we need is more verbiage. Thus in Heatmap Jeva Lange confesses that:

“Why ‘Clean Is Cheap, Cheap Is Clean’ Isn’t Breaking Through/ New polling by Heatmap and Embold Research shows where one of climate advocates’ favorite arguments for renewables is falling short.”

To which some might say it’s because consumers aren’t fools and they know a high power bill when they see it. Ah but nay, since cheap is the new expensive or something. Thus another Heatmap item features Robinson Meyer interviewing “Amanda Levin, head of climate science and policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council”, who insists that:

“we need to build a lot of energy fast, and we want to build it clean, as well. And that is going to take quite a bit of money up front. Even if wind and solar are some of the cheapest, lowest cost options over the life of their investment, when looking at something more simplistic, like a levelized cost of energy, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have large upfront costs that need to then be recovered from someone.”

So they’re cheaply expensive or expensively cheap or something. But the main point is they’re cheap even if they’re expensive. Thus Lange’s Heatmap piece confidently asserts that:

“For years, the clean energy industry has treated the fact that renewables are the cheapest form of new electricity as its messaging trump card. This argument has the advantage of being true. Yes, there is nuance, room for debate, and always the possibility that things could change dramatically in the future. But this summer, the investment bank Lazard reconfirmed what the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the International Renewable Energy Agency — and plenty of other independent analyses — had found before it: that wind and solar energy are, on the whole, cheaper than fossil fuels.”

So why are energy bills highest in jurisdictions that bought this argument? They don’t say. Instead it’s time for experts to say. Apparently the dopey skeptics “believe that advocates for wind and solar energy exaggerate how cheap the sources have become (a mere 17% disagreed).” And it gets worse:

“Even for those in the middle who are ‘persuadable’ on climate change (as opposed to the ‘persuadeds,’ who describe themselves as ‘alarmed’ about it), an affordability argument doesn’t land cleanly — 62% believed the claims are exaggerated compared to 24%. In fact, a majority of all voters — 55% — told us that wind and solar are only cost-competitive with oil and gas because of subsidies, even as 75% acknowledge that oil and gas companies get government help lowering costs, too.”

So a majority of voters have caught on. However a bright light shines on the mental horizon:

“as clean energy advocates look ahead to what to try the next time, our polling offers a cautionary note: The messenger, not just the message, needs a tweak. Independent scientists and researchers were the only group trusted by a majority of voters (63%), and even then, skeptics remained difficult to break through with, as less than a third putting their trust in any messenger at all.”

Right. So the fact that you all kept saying something that wasn’t true has led people to distrust it even though you still say it’s true, so you need to get someone they do trust to say it as well. As if “experts say” in a headline still prompted mass credulity not catcalls.

Oh, and another Canary Media item explains that:

“Last winter, Massachusetts became the first state to require major utilities to offer a lower seasonal rate for all the electricity used by households with heat pumps, highly efficient systems that can both heat and cool spaces and are essential to weaning buildings off fossil-fueled furnaces. The reduced rates saved these residents more than $37 million in total.”

And now they’re going to lower winter rates even further because the technology’s so cheap it needs huge breaks:

“Accelerating heat pump adoption is a major element of Massachusetts’ plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Their cost, however, has been a persistent barrier. Rebates and low-interest loans exist to help pay for the equipment up front, but the cost of operating an electric heat source as power prices soar has kept many homeowners from making the switch. Heat pump rates address this obstacle.”

So is it cheaper or isn’t it? As we’ve quoted P.J. O’Rourke before, past a certain point, complexity is fraud. And surely we’re there when you read that:

“This season’s lower prices are the result of a regulatory order telling National Grid and Unitil to change the way they calculate their heat pump rates.”

Not the actual cost. Just how they calculate it, dictated by bureaucrats not markets. And stand by for more jiggery-pokery because:

“Heat pump rates are not a permanent solution for matching energy prices to grid demand. The logic behind them holds only as long as the grid’s peak demand days are in the summer. Grid operator Independent System Operator New England predicts the region will shift to winter peaks within the next 10 years.”

Whereupon alternative energy will get still cheaper, and power bills still higher even if subsidies conceal it by shielding the end users of politically-preferred power. As when California gives some customers a “climate credit” on their electricity bills, shifted to summer not because they went down but to buy public support for a bad system.