Online:
Visits:
Stories:
Profile image
By Master Resource (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Reset at Resources for the Future? (latest fundraising pitch hints at intellectual diversity)

Wednesday, December 21, 2016 0:17
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

“The Obama Administration brought out the worst in RFF in the last eight years. Will the Trump era of new energy/climate thinking be intellectually respected and debated under RFF’s new president, Richard Newell? One can only hope that RFF does not become Fortress RFF.”

“RFF’s blockade against critics of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation is a sad case of intellectual back-of-the-bus, separate-water-fountain discrimination.”

Maybe it is only because they have to.

The Trump era is bringing free market energy/environmental ideas to the center of political power. And there is evidence, at least on paper, that the once-centrist, now-Left Resources for the Future (RFF) is rethinking their relevance and role in the intellectual debate. Nowhere is this more relevant than with RFF’s bread-and-butter bête noir, the green greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

As an historian of energy thought, I have spent a lot of time studying the output of RFF. In fact, I might know more about the history of the organization than their own staffers. Here are some of my posts on RFF at MasterResource:

Taylor at RFF: Don’t Assume the Problem, Debate It (why price carbon dioxide?)

An Open Request to Resources for the Future (RFF)

RFF: Going Malthusian in the 1970s (precursor to climate alarmism)

RFF Goes Nice on Renewables: Revisiting a 1999 Paper and Its Criticism

I have, I believe, all of the books and studies from the first decades of the organization, and I have kept an eye on them since. Paul Portney (a great guy personally by the way) brought the institution Left under all the funding opportunities back in the 1990s. To me, all pretense of objectivity died the day that David Hawkins, director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, joined RFF’s board. That was on Portney’s watch.

RFF’s New (Trump-era) Pitch

Leaders and policies change. Uncertainty is real. Information is key.

Okay, but will the heralded information be reliable, as in ‘may the best ideas be presented and debated’, even the case against regulating CO2 as a pollutant.

For example, RFF has trenchantly avoided a real debate over the “social cost of carbon” (SCC). Yet the assumptions behind the Obama Administration’s SCC are highly disputable, and reasonable assumptions can flip the sign from positive to negative (as in CO2 has net benefits) to eviscerate any case for pricing CO2 is off the table. (Alan Krupnick and Ray Kopp, RFF senior fellows and co-directors of the Center for Energy and Climate Economics, are you listening?)

One anecdote. Pundit Jerry Taylor was invited to speak at an RFF carbon pricing panel a few months back. Cato-era Taylor, who was against CO2 regulation, was never invited to so present. But the new Jerry Taylor, funding his (misnamed) Niskanen Center from pro-carbon-tax sources, now politically correct to RFF, was invited (more here).

RFF’s blockade against critics of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation is a sad case of intellectual back-of-the-bus, separate-water-fountain discrimination.

RFF’s new pitch continues:

In this time of change, Resources for the Future (RFF) remains dedicated to independent, actionable research to inform practical solutions that strengthen the environment and the economy. We will continue to provide economic insights for smarter energy, climate, and natural resource policies. We will continue to explore new questions and facilitate forward-looking dialogues on issues top of mind for decisionmakers in the United States and around the world.

Will “new questions” include the (previously) politically incorrect? What, for example, is the opportunity cost of climate-related regulation, whether taxing CO2 or regulating energy demand and supply? What is foregone private or public goods? Should the green greenhouse gas,

Back to the pitch:

Your investment in RFF means that together we will continue to provide objective research and analytical frameworks to help our leaders make smarter decisions. We can’t do this without you. While few details are known about the energy and climate policies of the incoming administration, your support now is more important than ever….

Humm …. “While few details are known about the energy and climate policies of the incoming administration, your support now is more important than ever.” Does this mean that RFF will a bastion of opposition, precluding opposing viewpoints from their seminars and publications?

Or will RFF invite top scholars for new views of climate-related regulation and the efficacy of politically enabled energies such as industrial wind power, on-grid solar, and ethanol?

The Obama Administration brought out the worst in RFF in the last eight years. Will the Trump era of new energy/climate thinking be intellectually respected and debated under RFF’s new president, Richard Newell.

One can only hope that RFF does not become Fortress RFF.

The post Reset at Resources for the Future? (latest fundraising pitch hints at intellectual diversity) appeared first on Master Resource.



Source: https://www.masterresource.org/resources-for-the-future-rff/reset-rff/

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.