Let's Start with a Progressive National Energy Policy and Go From There
A reader asked what I would do if I were elected to public office, by which I presume he meant: what would I do if I had unrestrained power to implement anything I want.
First, let me say that I wrote a piece on this in 2008 called The Civilization that (Nearly) Everyone Wants, which I posted here the next year, when I started 2GreenEnergy. Because I had not yet started to think too much about energy at the time, it’s very light in that arena, and so I would add the following:
• Establish a national energy policy that calls for the phase-out of fossil fuels as soon as it can be practically achieved. This means working hard to decommission the coal plants at the most aggressive pace, and electrifying our transportation. I’m completely convinced that a migration to clean energy/efficiency will be a boon to the economy, rather than the opposite.
• Support R&D work in renewable energy and advanced nuclear, thus accelerating the rate at which the above can be achieved.
• Create a level playing field for renewable energy on the legal front. At a minimum, this means removing subsidies for fossil fuels and allowing solar and wind to use the same vehicle for capital formation (master limited partnerships) that the fossil fuel industry enjoys.
• Remove as much bribery as possible from the law-making process. The obvious place to start is overturning the U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” that grants corporations the right to spend as much as they wish in influencing our elections.
• Offer significant incentives for energy efficiency and renewables to all business and consumers.
• Close the many loopholes in the tax structure that are exploited by the largest corporations and the super-rich.
• Reconstruct our relationship with our power utilities from the ground up, as I’ve covered here and here.
• Lead the way towards international agreements re: greenhouse gas emissions, understanding that, unpalatable as it may be, the OECD countries are going to have to help the developing world in this arena.
I’m sure I’ll come up with other ideas, but this is a start. Thanks for asking.
Craig,
Thanks for your reply ! (With such vague, but feel good policies, you could easily get elected ! ).
There’s nothing very objectionable in your policies, and certainly a huge percentage of the population would agree with them on a moral basis.
But, just for fun, let’s see if we could estimate some of the effects of the implementing your policies on on just the US economy.
1) ” Establishing a national energy policy that calls for the phase-out of fossil fuels”.
The fossil fuel industry represents 28% of the US economy. It generates the most valuable source of government revenue. It employs 36 million Americans directly or indirectly. It’s a huge source of export revenue. Profits from the Oil industry support almost the entire US retirement and Superannuation industry.
The US has a national debt equal to it’s GDP ! (and growing). Your plan would immediately lessen confidence in the only industry propping up the US economy. Even a small reduction in confidence would cause a negative reaction to US capital markets.
Such a lack of confidence must create an unstoppable avalanche, of capital flight to safer havens. The US economy would plunge into a deep recession. This time the US would have no lenders to buy it’s way out of recession.
Oh, but we’re forgetting the part of your policy that state “as soon as practical” , which as we all know, usually means, “sometime never “.
2) President Obama got everyone excited when he spoke of ending the huge “subsidies” granted to the US Oil industry. But after all the hype died down, he was forced to admit that the his administration could only identify less than $2.4 billion in subsidies. Even then these “subsidies” were very old ,and mostly due for expiry in a few years. The “subsidies’ mostly affected small members of the US oil industry.
To a nation, nearly $ 20 trillion in debt, $ 2-3 billion, isn’t a big deal !
3) Extending the concept of MLP to unsuitable industries, is a recipe for disaster. It wouldn’t assist the alternate energy industries, merely invite corruption, tax avoidance and instability.
4) ” Remove as much bribery as possible from the law-making process. The obvious place to start is overturning the U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” that grants corporations the right to spend as much as they wish in influencing our elections.”
A popular concept, but have you thought it through ? Apart from the “free speech ” implications, singling out one group in the community, and denying their right to political access seems very draconian.
Would you also ban access to Trade Unions, Environmental Groups, Red Cross, Sierra Club, the RFA, etc ?
It’s a slippery slope, when you start “banning” any organization from participating in the political process. Corporations pay tax ! (wasn’t that the battle cry of the founding fathers, “no taxation without representation !” ?)
But, like most bans, in practice, it’s pretty much unworkable, since any relegation would be quickly circumvented.
Graig, I have an advantage over you. I experienced the chaotic mess created in Australia by the Labour/Green government.
The leftist Australian Labour/Green government was elected on a platform very similar to your own policies. At the time of their election, the Australian economy was the strongest in the developed world. The outgoing conservative government has paid off the national debt, created a $50 billion “future fund” as an investment fund for national infrastructure. The conservative government had set aside a further $200 billion to deal with any budget emergencies, or as a hedge against adverse economic conditions.
The outgoing government was operating huge budget surpluses.
In 2007, the incoming Labour/Green government attracted the youth vote, mainly on promises of environmental action. The predictions of climate change advocates, like Professor Flannery, were in vogue, and the new Prime Minister, flew to Copenhagen with great fanfare, (and a large contingent of press and government ‘advisers’ and civil servants.
Back in Australia, Professor Flannery strode the corridors of power, labeling anyone who disagreed as a “climate denier ‘ and spending vast sums of government money on publicly funded ‘studies’, ‘policy papers” and creating a vast army of public servants, and government funded academics.
The government pursued it’s green agenda, with enthusiasm, generous spending and generating much favorable publicity. The resultant “green boom” was remarkable. The Labour/Green government was assisted by revenue from an unprecedented demand for Australian natural resources caused by the boom in growth of the PRC economy.
Unfortunately, enthusiasm, doesn’t equal responsibility. The Australian economy, once fireproofed against such events as GFC, buckled under the erratic government mismanagement, and all the ” green initiatives” collapsed due to poor planning, excessive spending, greed, corruption , and lack of government supervision.
Professor Flannery’s famous prediction, that Queensland was now in “permanent drought” , due to climate change, was accepted. As a result, both the Queensland and Federal governments neglected the flood levies. That much ridiculed old “climate denier” Professor Ian Plimer , was heavily ostracized, for suggesting that Queensland would flood.
The ill-conceived, Carbon Tax , raised no useful revenue, but helped in the demise of the Australian Car Industry, and local manufacturing.
But the floods arrived, with a vengeance ! The loss of life and property was unprecedented. The government made no apology, and continued to support Professor Flannery as an “internationally respected climate scientist” ! ( the irony of course is that Flanney’s academic credentials, are as a paleontologist at a minor college, where Prof. Plimer is a geologist, physicist and chemist at a major college).
Eventually, after 6 years, the chaotic, ideologically driven, Labour/Green government was abandoned by the voters, and the newly elected conservative government inherited an economy, heavily in debt ($400 billion) running a huge budget deficit, run down infrastructure, and needing massive tax restructure and reform.
Simultaneously, the great mining boom ended, adding greatly to the new governments woes.
But did all that public money invested in “green industries” , create a more environmental future ? Sadly, no. In fact it destroyed the once thriving local Solar and insulation Industries by encouraging a flood of cheap, and inferior imported products, installed (often dangerously) by quick buck, fly-by-night, opportunists, ripping off government incentives.
The Labor/Green Government built (on guess who’s advice) a hugely expensive desalination plant in Victoria, that’s never been used. Meanwhile, neglecting coal-fired power transmission infrastructure. (to be replaced by wind farms, that never happened) . The failure of these power-lines was one of the major causes of devastating bush fires, creating great loss of life, and property. (and adding vast amount of carbon to the atmosphere !).
Australia, is very like America in many ways. The lesson, for environmentalists, and governments, must be to place less emphasis on ideological principles, and more on responsible economic management.
It’s only in the context of strong economies, that green initiatives can be effectively encouraged. Making an enemy of any economies largest contributors, won’t help the introduction of new technologies. Vilifying and excluding the wealth creators for the political process, is counter-productive.
Isn’t it better to include as many sectors of the economy as possible, in the nations political process ? Inclusion, promotes good citizenship and responsibility.
Isn’t it,.. well, …just plain democratic ?
Reblogged this on Energy post.