Proposed regulations of oil-bearing trains pose several challenges and divert us from more important safety questions.
The Obama administration’s approach to the public policy challenge of energy production and consumption ignores three important energy realities.
The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline has taken more than five years to approve and Washington bureaucracy will likely delay it for months if not years to come, at the expense of real, market-driven job creation.
Environmentalists continue to resist pipelines such as the Keystone XL, even though pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries, and in a substantial cost advantage, when compared to road and rail.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report is a document intended to further the narrative of catastrophic man-made climate change.
When considering energy independence, one has to strive for clear thinking and consider all of the potential tradeoffs and potential unintended consequences involved.
Understanding energy system inertia and momentum is key to judging whether a rapid transition toward any type of energy is feasible.
The Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada’s oil-sands to refiners in the Gulf Coast is in the news again.
The fuel-ethanol saga must rank at or near the top for examples of well-intended policy run amok, wherein a policy is enacted that winds up causing harm to the very thing it was supposed to protect.