Many people, including US Vice-President JD Vance, are convinced that what caused the 2026 midterm electoral disaster for Donald Trump, his party and his movement was the Iran war and resulting high energy prices. To be fair Trump and his acolytes had assiduously sown the seeds of disaster in many other ways including his narcissism, ignorance, vindictiveness and chaotic trade policies. But high energy prices were certainly a crucial part of it. Which is awkward for the gloating, victory-dancing climate alarmists because of course a critical part of their vaunted green energy transition for decades, literally decades, was to price, regulate or legislate fossil fuels out of reach. If getting only a short way in that direction doomed the GOP, imagine the disaster if you got half-way there. And if you’re not even going to try, what becomes of the Green New Deal? Well, maybe money and energy will fall from the sky. But what if they don’t?
They don’t seem in much of a mood to listen. Inside Climate News insisted that:
“Before Tuesday’s election, Republicans held more governorships and state legislative seats than Democrats, along with an advantage in state trifectas—unified control of the governor’s office and both chambers of the legislature. That advantage has disappeared, clearing the path for more climate and clean energy legislation, according to analysts and advocates…. The implications for climate and energy policy are likely to be profound, said Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, an advocacy group. ‘In the states, we had a generational political window shift to make people’s lives better, to lower costs and to lower climate pollution at the same time,’ she said in a conference call. This was the ‘affordability election’ with concerns about inflation and high energy prices, she said. Newly elected lawmakers will enter office with energy policy proposals to address voter concerns, she said. She noted that renewable energy is less expensive than fossil fuels and can be developed quickly, promising rapid benefits for consumers. The growth of electric transportation reduces greenhouse gas emissions and shields consumers from the volatility of gasoline and diesel, she said.”
“Noted” might be too strong a word even in the wacky world of the “experts” who say. Especially as these “energy policy proposals” are not to get rid of subsidies and let the market decide. They’re for government to force the pace, “bringing back key subsidies for renewables in a bid to rebalance the country’s energy future following Trump’s AI-fueled gas bonanza“, losing money on every sale but making it up on volume. What if it doesn’t work? What if you can’t spend your way to savings, tax your way to affordability, or unleash the magic of markets through the dark arts of politics?
What, indeed, if relying on “activists” to tell you how economics works is a risky strategy, as with Climate Home News election-night victory dance that:
“Activists believe the result sets the stage for renewed environmental and climate policy, even though candidates seldom mentioned those issues by name in their campaigns. They argue that any action Congress takes on voters’ top issues – soaring energy prices, undue industry influence and the surge of artificial intelligence infrastructure – will curb the upward trajectory of U.S. fossil fuel consumption that Trump has encouraged.”
Dawk. How would bringing soaring energy prices down “curb the upward trajectory” of people using the stuff? Do they really not know the demand curve slopes down? Or what the dang thing is?
As a matter of fact, Doomberg just wrote:
“The global energy behemoth that is the US natural gas industry continues its relentless growth, making a mockery of pessimistic forecasters. One struggles to properly frame the awesome scale of what is transpiring for a lay audience, but let’s try: In 2026, the US is forecast to grow natural gas production by more than the combined total output of the entire European Union (EU). In 2027, it is anticipated to do so again.”
If Democrats try with any success to curb this upward trajectory it will drive prices up not down and affordability will go up in flames and with it their polling numbers for 2028.
As for “any action Congress takes”, we hate to break the spell, but some actions will make things worse. Governments aren’t exactly batting 1.000 in any area including this one when it comes to estimating correctly what results their actions will cause, now are they, going back at least to King Croesus of Lydia or Rehoboam? Including, say, this recent business of raising energy costs and having people get mad. You have to understand that incentives matter and activists don’t appear to.
Two days later the same outfit wrote in an email subject line “Oil shock costs Trump Congress” and the related article is a masterpiece of muddle:
“With the cost of driving, heating and everything else that relies on oil and gas sky-high because of the Iran war, Americans on Tuesday expressed their anger by voting Trump’s Republicans out of a majority in both chambers of Congress, as well as at least five state governorships. While President Trump will keep his veto over domestic legislation and control of foreign policy, Democrats in Congress now have more sway over funding and powers to launch high-profile investigations into decisions by the Trump administration. These could target its cuts to overseas aid, Inflation Reduction Act green spending and attacks on climate science.”
If they’re going for witch-hunts, aka “high-profile investigations” into “attacks on climate science” it won’t do much for the tone of US politics. But what of high prices for oil and gas? A great many people on the left know so little of the economics of energy, or anything, that they don’t understand that if you make something more scarce, by any means, its price will rise. But if they did understand it, they’d think it didn’t matter because of this belief that the economics of renewables is so compelling that with massive subsidies they’ll naturally and effortlessly be cheaper:
“New Democratic governors, including in Georgia, Ohio and Texas, may use their power to speed up clean energy deployment and block energy-guzzling data centres which have emerged as a key campaign issue. Former Washington State Governor Jay Inslee told journalists the result was ‘not just a thumping, it was a Trumping’, as ‘the whole nation rises up and rejects the insane policies of a man who has increased both fossil fuel prices and is attempting to strangle Americans’ access to cleaner and cheaper sources of energy’.”
To be fair and start with what is plausible here, blocking “energy-guzzling data centres” would tend to hold down the cost of energy by restricting demand rather than by increasing supply. But fixated on government, they think Trump was “attempting to strangle Americans’ access to cleaner and cheaper sources of energy” by cutting that “Inflation Reduction Act green spending” that was necessary because these sources were not cheaper.
Nor in many cases cleaner, of course, but there’s a subject for another day. What’s for today is how the piece then gets both petty and commie:
“One country that has these technologies in abundance, and is therefore suffering less than most from the oil and gas crisis, is China. The rise of renewables and nuclear power in China since 2020 avoided fossil fuel imports worth more than $9 billion between March and August, Chloe Farand reports. In Trump terms, that’s enough to build 18 White House ballrooms.”
At least they’re now more rational about nuclear power as low-carbon generation. But spare us the ballroom nyah nyah nyah (and spare us the ballroom too, mind you.) And the fatuity of thinking China is basically a windmill superpower is again a sign of just how little they know about the economics of energy.
“They” being a term here meaning climate zealots generally. For instance Reuters cheerily wrote last year that:
“Clean power sources, which currently supply around 15% of China’s primary energy, will generate close to 75% of China’s primary energy by 2060, according to DNV’s projections.”
Aka 85% of its energy comes not from “these technologies in abundance” but um ugh coal, which alone furnishes “55% of China’s primary energy” but, Reuters perkily echoes CCP propaganda, “will generate less than 10% by 2060”. The East is Green, thanks to charts that do funny things in the future like, say, those endless Western government budget projections where the deficit remains high or even rises for the foreseeable future then the austerity fairy shows up and it plunges in ways and for reasons no one can say. Though if anything of the sort does happen, nuclear not wind and solar will drive it.
Of course like Western governments but more so, given that Chinese politics is not subject to change due to public discontent, Beijing can dump resources into renewables for propaganda purposes or due to genuine belief, make people use them, and refuse to listen if life becomes unaffordable as indeed it is doing there due to the magic of central planning.
