Permitting Hell vs. Climate Hell at COP27
Onerous environmental permitting regulations make rapid renewable energy deployment in the United States a "fantasy."

Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt—"Demand for fossil fuels will decline in this decade," asserted Daniel Wetzel, the head of the International Energy Agency's Tracking Sustainable Transitions unit. He called this a "truly pivotal moment" in the way the world will produce energy in the future. He made this bold claim during a session today on scaling up global renewable energy production, based on an analysis of projected global energy production trends in a report by the IEA, World Energy Outlook 2022. Crucially the IEA's analysis relies on scenarios in which governments are expected to deliver on their promises with respect to the future deployment of renewable energy technologies.
Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Mario Loyola proceeded during the questions and answers session to elegantly puncture the sunny "stated policies" predictions of rapid renewable energy deployment as "a fantasy," at least in the United States. The Biden administration has the stated policy of deploying enough low-carbon energy production to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent below their 2005 levels by 2030. Loyola argued that these ambitious goals are "totally impossible" to achieve because federal and state bureaucracies will only be able to issue "a tenth of the necessary permits under current law."
Assuming away the red tape barrier for a moment, what is the world's energy future under the IEA's three policy scenarios? Stated policies tracks the trajectory of currently enacted energy policies; announced pledges assumes all aspirational targets are met; and net zero maps the energy pathways to achieve a 1.5 C stabilization in the rise in global average temperatures.
In the stated policies scenario, global fossil fuels demand peaks around 2025.

As the world adds more renewable power while coal-power generation declines, carbon dioxide emissions from the global electric power sector peaks in the next couple of years.

But Loyola is clearly right: stated policies aimed at deploying renewable energy production in the U.S. will run into a massive red tape roadblock. In fact, they already have. In August, my Reason colleague Eric Boehm pointed out that 18,000 megawatts of offshore wind power are currently tied up in federal environmental permitting battles.
And federal red tape is not the only problem. Energy expert and author of A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Robert Bryce has compiled a handy database of solar and wind projects that have been rejected by local U.S. jurisdictions. Since 2015, some 371 wind farms and 102 solar plants have succumbed to "not in my backyard"-ism.
In his September report, "Unleashing America's Energy Abundance," Loyola observes, "If the climate crisis is 'code red for humanity,' as President Biden has said, the goal of a clean energy transition is almost certainly beyond reach until the whole permitting system is reformed, including significant amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)."
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in his opening remarks at COP27 declared, "We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator." That's totally hyperbolic, but as Loyola is entirely right that at least in the U.S., our constant stomping on our regulatory brake insures that all energy projects—not just renewable ones—are stuck in permitting hell.
Note: I will be reporting from COP27 for the rest of the week.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Besides permitting there is the awkward fact that renewables don't work very well, in fact, mostly only if the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Still nights when it is hot in the Central Valley means only Governor Newsom will sleep without sweating.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (mjd-10) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.?????????.???
Ron, did it ever occur to you that the goal may be a little, um, different?
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link............>>> onlinecareer1
That, right there, made me laugh out loud.
Reality
Onerous environmental permitting regulationsmake[s] rapid renewable energy deployment in the United States a “fantasy.”"Onerous environmental permitting regulations make rapid renewable energy deployment in the United States a "fantasy."
Even if every project was permitted on the same day it was submitted, it would be a fantasy. These so called "renewables" aren't. With the exception of hydropower, they only thing they renew is losses of useful capital that could be used to build nuclear power. The rest of this stuff is head in the sand virtue signalling with everyone else's money.
Geothermal can be effective in limited situations.
I'll grant you that one, but like hydro, it's pretty limited sitewise. So called "renewables" are a niche energy source. Where they can be economically exploited, go for it. Pretending solar panels and windmills backed by giant batteries is a viable alternative is just fantasy tho...
The SMR (small modular reactor) is an interesting concept. Still, the sheep will protest.
Guterres hyperbole is predictable- at COP, he's preaching to a crowd of more than 40,000 social entrepreneurs and fewer than 4,000 climate scientists.
But fifty degrees north of where Ron is sitting, things are still warming up:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-polar-bear-express.html
While the US has reduced carbon emissions by 20% this century, China has tripled its carbon emissions, and overall global carbon emissions continue to increase.
Unless/until China, Russia, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations actually reduce their carbon emissions, it is folly (and suicidal) for the US to destroy our nation’s economy in hopes other nations will follow.
Meanwhile, 400 private jets were used to fly these sanctimonious carbon spewing hypocrites to Egypt to lecture and impose disastrous economic policies on the rest of us (who have exponentially smaller carbon footprints).
No wonder Chairman XI always has a smile on his face.
The climate nazis want us to destroy our energy capabilities and economy, while the wokes want to destroy our culture and the mental health of our kids.
Notable: neither group's (lets be honest, its the same group) bullshit is tolerated in China
China is the biggest economic beneficiary of US policies that ban domestic coal/oil/gas production and mandate electric cars/batteries, and solar and wind energy (as China controls most of the world's cobalt, lithium, nickel and other rare minerals needed to manufacture those batteries, wind mills and solar panels).
Nothing like the US becoming totally dependent upon China for our energy.
Seems like nobody learned from Germany's (and most of Europe's) policies to ban nuclear power, coal, oil and gas fracking, which enriched and emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine.
Isn't the 'fantasy' that renewables, even if they actually worked all the time, at 100% efficiency, would produce almost no energy compared to the amount we actually need.
The issue with me trying to run my house on a small pinwheel connected to a capacitor in an area with little wind isn't the amount of govt red tape preventing me from having my pinwheel.
You need a bigger propeller beanie.
Or $0.05 of gas. If you want a bigger propeller; your more than welcome to PAY for one out of your own *EARNINGS*. The biggest curse of Gov-GUN energy is spending other people's wealth.
+100000 Exactly…
(1) Semi-Truck diesel engine put out appox. 400,000W of energy..
Do the math. Solar and Wind doesn’t cut it for anything but lights, electronics and vacuum cleaners. There’s a reason Solar couldn’t take off in a free market and there's also a reason people moved beyond the windmill (a horse a buggy energy era).
I looked into solar panels for my house. We're in an ideal location for panels, but even with all of the subsidies the math didn't work out to a net benefit over its life. On top of that, installing panels of our roof would necessitate replacing our roof now when it has 5-10 more years of life.
I don't think the technology is there yet for most people
That's simply innumerate- free market energy cost inflation has made wind and solar attractively cheap, hence their impressive growth rates.
LOL
??
This statement simply is not credible. My kid telling me he didn't take a cookie when half the cookie is still in his mouth is more credible than this. Santa Claus claiming to have seen Bigfoot while puking into a toilet full of leprechaun shit is more credible. Joe Biden backing down Corn Pop (a really bad dude) is only slightly less credible than what you wrote. You owe everyone here an apology.
^ yes.
Also half expected it to end with "...I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul"
Did you forget that the cost of solar panels and wind turbines are also subject to inflation?
Considering the amount of 3rd party Gov-GUN theft used to make them. I'd say their inflation response (actual cost) is mostly hidden on their price-tag.
Hey, Ron, how many boosters are you up to?
My prediction would be 6 total doses. I call them 6 dosers.
And tests, how many tests have you taken?
Like ex-lovers, who keeps track?
The only "fantasy" that matters is "The Most Dangerous Superstition" (Larken Rose). As long as the majority force us to live under the tyranny of so-called representative govt. we will be divided/conquered arguing over what we should be forced to do, e.g., how we should deploy our resources, as if "one way is the only way" or "your rulers know best, shut up and comply".
How about the freedom to choose? How about zero regulators? How about free enterprise, i.e., capitalism? Socialism failed!
"Demand for fossil fuels will decline in this decade,"
The demand for the decline of the demand for fossil fuels will decline in this decade.
Seriously, your climate mandates weren't on the ballot in places that still generally respect ballots and are being set on fire in places where people don't. People are seeing through the con, your choice whether you get out now or ride it all the way into the tar and feathers.
Has anyone else noticed the progressives who want to end coal, oil, and gas production to force the transition to wind and solar overlap with the folks who block mining for minerals needed to make solar panels and wind turbines?
Even IF the US came close to reaching Biden's goals, and the EU did the same, the fact is that the worlds population is going to increase by 2 billion (25%), over the next eighty years. Much of that growth is going to be in what we call "developing countries." And, as those countries do "develop," their per-capita demand for energy will increase exponentially -- and most of them will, initially, be relying on coal and petroleum.
As far as the US meeting its goals, well --
Significant increases in hydro power (7% of current total US energy production ), is not too likely (there are only so many rivers available). All other "renewable" sources count for about the same percentage (perhaps a bit more). Nuclear energy accounts for about 20%. Even if we triple the amount of power generated by "renewables" over the next three decades, that will leave us with 35% less power generation than we currently have. It will take right around around 1000, 1 gigawatt nuclear reactors to fill the void. We currently have 94 nuclear reactors on line.
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link............>>> onlinecareer1
"Loyola argued that these ambitious goals are "totally impossible" to achieve because federal and state bureaucracies will only be able to issue "a tenth of the necessary permits under current law."
That the stifling regulatory regime the enviromentalists have created over the past decades may be tying up the projects they want to build is at least a delicious irony.