By Conor Coughlin
Government agencies abuse the civil rights of all Americans, especially small business owners, when bureaucrats are allowed to engage in legal double standards for the benefit of shady public/private partnerships prospering from back-room energy initiatives.
While researching the new EPA ENERGY STAR® Smart Grid product line that could potentially be worth trillions of dollars to its private-sector partners, I found that the Dept of Energy had modified its hiring process. DOE is the federal agency that provides scientific research for the EPA and other federal bureaucracies. If you believe that DOE Application Portal accidentally posted some bad information, you simply don’t know anything about the mindset of the Progressive bureaucrats at the DOE. Any energy-related claim a bureaucrat makes that can’t be found in a written form is probably pure B.S. The case currently in effect at the DOE has created a Catch-22 situation where bureaucrats are making policy decisions based on scientific evidence that can’t be presented to the public. That same energy policy can’t be legally challenged without first presenting a valid argument against their science, which may not exist. My area of expertise is in electrical matters. Still, the DOE’s policy on natural gas provides an excellent example that can help the average citizen better understand this issue.
When Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) were making news with a secret plan to ban natural-gas stoves in America, nobody ever considered the original DOE policy position on natural gas. That policy had changed, but Secretary Granholm wasn’t really talking about natural-gas policy. She shared her feelings that Stakeholders wanted Certified Climate Change Professionals® trained in the Core Competencies to explain DOE science to society. Her comments weren’t related to an existing policy. The public was being spoon-fed a fallacy to distract from real policy issues that needed to be kept under the control of the media.
The Association of Climate Change Officers was officially formed in 2012, the same year DOE commissioned NERA Economic Consulting to produce a report on the Macroeconomics of expanding Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) exports. That report confirmed another 3rd party report showing that increasing U.S. LNG exports would hurt America’s economic interest compared to a No Export scenario. DOE leaders fully understood that increasing LNG exports would benefit a few large natural-gas producers while undermining our industrial sector output and reducing labor compensation. Rather than following the science that DOE had paid real professionals to produce, bureaucrats decided to enrich themselves and their corporate environmentalist pals. Contrary to what you thought you had been told, there was nothing intelligent about DOE’s application of energy policies in over three decades. The policies themselves weren’t bad. They had been flipped upside-down by bureaucrats seeking the make fabulous fortunes in a new Clean Energy Economy. All are built on half-baked ideas.
The Media-Entertainment-Complex didn’t want the American people thinking about the EPA’s new Smart Home Energy Management System, designed to provide EPA-approved products supplied exclusively by ENERGY STAR® private partners like Samsung, a South Korean multinational corporation. The Liars Club needed people to believe universities have been providing clear-cut science and straightforward policies. Still, these issues were too complex for the little people to understand. Imagine the chaos ensuing if voters discovered that some private investors in ENERGY STAR® were not even U.S. companies or citizens. Would it matter if those ENERGY STAR® partners were foreign weapons manufacturers, OPEC members, Fake News outlets, or ballot-counting machine companies?
For decades, I’ve referred to the ENERGY STAR program as a national disgrace. Can Samsung now sue me for claiming that EPA has made false claims regarding extraordinary electrical energy savings that defy physics and common sense? If the U.S. government claims that ENERGY STAR® is providing unbiased information, does that make me a bigot for wanting to check their math? After all, it was Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu that released the EPA: Lead By Example guidelines instructing bureaucrats to estimate that their ENERGY STAR products saved 25% to 50% more electrical energy than similar products. Secretary Chu didn’t supply a legal definition, technical description, or mathematical formula to measure the energy savings from a government-owned product, so how does anyone verify the accuracy of estimates by bureaucrats? This is not a new phenomenon; government bureaucrats like to claim their investing massive amounts of public revenues into green ventures with no expectation of any measurable results. Bernie Madoff was allowed to run a similar Ponzi scheme for decades because he was also a political insider considered a “market maker.” The absence of any financial footprint for tens of billions of dollars didn’t bother authorities, despite receiving multiple requests for investigations from real professionals of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
When Energy Secretary Granholm released a cartoonish new video featuring a Hollywood Super Hero to promote the DOE’s new Clean Energy Corp, it appeared to be geared toward the intellectual capacity of a small child or a TicTok entrepreneur. Few adults would fall for that level of buffoonery unless they’re Limousine Liberals pretending to be savvy investors looking for ground-floor opportunities in the next big Biden Family business venture. The DOE Application Portal is seeking procurement specialists, scientists, policy wonks, seasonal professionals, and students right out of college. Still, the DOE doesn’t want to offend any of those applicants by requiring a Social Security number, home address, criminal history, medical information, or a passport/driver’s license number like other employers. Suppose Congress doesn’t care about violating your Constitutional rights from ENERGY STAR®, FISA Court abuses, or manipulations of natural-gas markets. Why should anyone else care if DOE is building an army of Certified Climate Change Professionals® to market magical EPA products in global markets?
Cross-Posted with n4mationTags: Commentary
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.