BIC Alliance President & COO Thomas Brinkso
Dear friends,
Perhaps you heard this or something like it recently: "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change," U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted earlier this year. Bless her heart. But she isn't alone. Using fear tactics is commonplace in the progressive war on hydrocarbons.
Prior to making this statement, when directly faced with criticism for making erroneous statements, the same representative infamously replied, "I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think there are a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right." Is it really possible to be morally right when you have the facts wrong?
I will give Rep. Ocasio-Cortez the benefit of the doubt and presume that, although she is factually incorrect and the world won't end in 12 years, she means to take a moral position that global warming is an important issue to her and her progressive constituency. Still, in recent polls by both Yale and Gallup, global warming did not rank in the 10 most important voting issues among all registered voters. The top three issues in both polls were those directly or indirectly related to our pocketbooks: the economy, healthcare and immigration.
Some in our political system are adept in taking a moral high ground by insisting on the elimination of fossil fuels. Today, "fossil fuel" has become such a dirty word that even fossil fuel companies feel compelled to apologize for their products. This should not be the case. Over many decades, fossil fuels have made more progress for humanity than almost any other single discovery. I highly recommend the 2016 book "Fueling Freedom" to prove this point. "Fueling Freedom" makes an unapologetic case for fossil fuels, turning around progressives' protestations to prove that if fossil fuel energy is supplanted by "green" alternatives for political reasons, humanity will take a giant step backward and the planet will be less safe, less clean and less free.
Further, I don't know anyone in the energy market who doesn't want clean air and water for their children and their children's children. I am proud to live in a country that has put such a focus on preserving and maintaining our environment. In 2017 (latest data available), U.S. carbon output dropped by 0.5 percent, while Europeans saw their output increase by 1.5 percent.
Think of all the immigration issues we have around the globe today. While energy is certainly not the only factor, people tend to immigrate to countries with cheaper, more plentiful energy. It's a significant part of what makes the destination country's economy more attractive.
I'm not kidding myself that hydrocarbons are perfect. We live in a broken world. We make human errors, and there are occasionally accidents that injure the environment and/ or people. Still, we make cheap energy and plastics so people can enjoy purified water, medicine, warm houses, and refrigerated produce and meat. There will be tradeoffs no matter our energy source. The tradeoff for cheap energy is a huge factual and moral net-plus. Supporting responsible hydrocarbon development is both factually defensible and morally right. We should be proud of this, and we should continue to strive for improvements in efficiencies and minimization of impact.
Today, according to the Manhattan Institute, hydrocarbons collectively supply 84 percent of the world's energy of all forms -- power, transportation, etc. Wind, solar and batteries -- the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons -- provide about 2 percent of the world's energy (after $2 trillion in cumulative global spending). Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety and portability. To completely replace hydrocarbons over the next 20 years, global renewable energy production would have to increase at least 90-fold.
Consider the following: Spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines or solar panels will, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh). An equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh. That constitutes about 600-percent more electricity for the same capital spent on primary energy-producing hardware. And unlike renewables, shale doesn't require government investment, as it is funded instead by the best kind of investment for the public: private investment that costs us nothing as taxpaying citizens.
Still, the "Green New Deal" would impose a 10-year deadline for meeting "100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources" and in the same 10 years to "upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and build new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification." The sponsors offered no estimate of cost for the bill, but a study by the American Action Forum put the cost of the bill at $94.4 trillion. That is over $600,000 per U.S. household, or almost 15 times what the U.S. government generates in annual revenue. Keep in mind this is a bill that garnered 103 congressional sponsors -- all democrats but one independent.
In late March, in what Democrats called a "stunt," Republicans called for an early vote on the resolution. One would think that sponsors would be delighted to have it come to a vote. That is the goal of every bill, right? To become a law?
All Democrats voted "present" or against the bill, resulting in a 57-0 defeat. If it's so great, then why vote present? Clearly, the political stunt was not the act of calling the bill to a vote. The vote efficiently killed poorly proposed legislation. No one, not even the sponsors, were willing to vote for it.
As Texas Railroad Commissioner Ryan Sitton said, while it is easy to throw out a wish list and call it "bold ideas," leaders also have to think about the implications of the ideas. We own the implementation, not just the message.
Throughout the debate on climate change, progressives have tried to mislead the American people about where industry and conservatives stand on the issue. To be sure, conserving our environment is part of the core of being a decent human being, but don't expect the progressives to end their war on hydrocarbons merely because the Green New Deal got zero votes.
At BIC Alliance, we strive to be at the forefront of ensuring not only those in the energy sector but also those in our community and our government get to know the positive things going on in the energy and industrial sectors. In this issue, we feature interviews with Stephen Goff, site manager, LyondellBasell Bayport Complex; Eric Fishman, president, SAFER Systems; Kyle Lehne, vice president of business development, Sun Coast; and Edward Diaz, sales and marketing manager, Evosite.
We also present a wide array of articles on topics important to your business, such as digital technology for managing scaffolding projects, connections between safety culture and financials, and programs that drive excellence to the frontline.
I hope you find a number of articles and data points that help you see and communicate the benefits of hydrocarbons to our industry a nd the world at large. We at BIC are always looking for ways to align factual correctness with the moral good.
tbrinsko@bicalliance.com
