Energy Policy in Wonderland

It seems very likely that Congress is not going to pass an energy bill. Of course they aren't going to pass a budget either. No one in Congress wants to sign on to the extraordinary deficits we are running. Nor are we going to see any supplemental health care legislation passed. Ditto.

So what are the consequences of not passing a new energy bill? The New York Times thinks they are dire:

You don't have to look far for proof that this country must cut its dependence on fossil fuels and develop cleaner sources of energy.

It can be found in the oil-slicked Gulf of Mexico. It can be found in China's aggressive efforts to win the global competition for green technologies and green jobs. And, most urgently, it can be found in the inexorable math of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, oil spills are bad, and maybe Tom Friedman is right and we ought to try to be more like China. But what would a better energy policy look like?

Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman presented a good but far from perfect bill on Wednesday that would at least point the country in the right direction. For the first time, it would set a price on carbon emissions that are now dumped without penalty into the atmosphere. A price signal is an essential prerequisite for reducing emissions and for shifting American industry to cleaner, less polluting sources of energy.

The measure would also invest widely in low-carbon technologies, renewable fuels, more efficient vehicles and mass transit.

Setting a "price on carbon emissions" is intended to do two things. One is to discourage the burning of cheap fossil fuels. Maybe that would save the environment, but it would also make energy and everything that is produced using energy (which is everything that is produced) more expensive. Even organic farmers wearing hemp trousers have to drive their produce around. At a time when the world economy is, to say the least, in a precarious state, that looks like a political winner!

The other thing that a carbon tax is supposed to do is to encourage investment in clean, renewable energy. That, we are constantly told, will create "green jobs" and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

The only problem with that is that it is false, in any meaningful sense. Green energy means chiefly wind power, solar power, and biofuels. All three create green jobs to be sure, but they so because they are heavily subsidized by government. That means that wealth generated elsewhere has to be shifted to these technologies in order to create those jobs. That is wealth that cannot be spent on other things, including other productive enterprises.

For every job created in the wind industry, about two and a half jobs are eliminated elsewhere. Better yet, wind power depends on, well, the wind. When it doesn't blow, power must be generated by more traditional means. Nations that have invested heavily in wind power have seen their carbon emissions and their reliance on fossil fuels increase.

In fact, the only viable sources of energy for modern economies are fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) and nuclear power. That is a bedrock fact, and any rational energy policy would have to be based on it. That doesn't mean that we can't do a lot better in using energy. We may find ways to use those resources that are friendlier to the environment. Government may certainly have a role in encouraging that. But for that to happen, "progressives" would have to abandon transparently false myths about "green energy." Don't hold your breath.

Comments

[George Mason]

KB; Old friend you missed one of the reliable sources of energy which as everyone in S.D. should know is hydro. If you want green technology the new and more efficient hydro-turbines can provide a significant supply of base load electricity. The base load, no matter how many wind mills or solar panels you erect, must still come from one of the uninteruptable sources you mentioned. All of these sources supply electricity at a lower cost than wind or solar.

[BillW]

US passes Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, thhousands of lessers regulations

China has no such environmental concerns

US manufacturing costs go up as a result of laws - manufacturing for USA goes to China

Global environment not helped - pollution merely moved to China - but environmentalists in USA feel good for having cared and done something

US consumers/voters/taxpayers think environmental regs are free because products that used to be made in the USA now come from China at poverty wages so Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act cost them nothing - no new taxes - no higher prices

Now US passes Cap & Trade

"China's aggressive efforts to win the global competition for green technologies and green jobs" continues in large part because China does not have to comply with environmental laws creating demand for "green technologies"

Global environment still not helped because Chinese carbon emmissions have increased in direct proportion to US reduction in carbon emmissions

US wealth continues to flow at even greater rate to China

Greenies feel good - Chinese laugh all the way to the bank

[Michael Snow]

THE NYT continues as a propaganda machine for the CO2 hysteria: '... inexorable math of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions.'
What the math shows is that there is no need for hysterics when it comes to 'greenhouse gases.' Just ask Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT: "One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things [reducing CO2 emissions] will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a no brainer.”

Or ask other top-notch climate scientists like John Christy, who was a lead author on the IPCC, or Roy Spencer whose new book exposes the naked emperor:
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274031273&sr=1-1

[KB]

George and BillW: thanks for the support. It looks to me to be as you say.

Michael: I think it is worse than Professor Lindzen says. Reducing emissions will have no effect even if the climate models are right.