Energy Security vs. Energy

Congress is considering energy legislation that will create some very bad outcomes. One of the worst will be to make the United States less secure when it comes to access to energy. I addressed this issue Friday in the
Christian Science Monitor. A longer and more detailed version of my argument is over on the site of the Ashbrook Institute.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Monique
Editor
13 years ago

Excerpt:
“The energy legislation now pending in Congress – which raises taxes on the oil industry, repeals incentives designed to increase domestic oil and natural-gas production,and mandates increased use of “renewable” energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, and biofuels) – will almost certainly achieve none of these objectives. Indeed, it will make things worse, especially with regard to energy security.
Energy security should not be confused with “energy independence.” The latter is a chimera, especially in this age of global interdependence. It is the mantra of those who stress “renewable” sources of energy.
But for technological and economic reasons, such alternatives are far too expensive and unreliable to compete on the market with oil and gas. That’s why they must be subsidized. …”
Additionally, these measures will only increase the cost of energy (which is fine if you are like Al Gore or a member of Congress and can afford it) and do exactly zero to solve global warming.
Congress is making these important policy decisions in a low-fact, context-free cocoon. One hopes that they come out for air before this becomes law.

Tom
Tom
13 years ago

OK, that’s it: Mac wins for best avatar

Barry
Barry
13 years ago

Once again I am disappointed that right wing thought seems to have abandoned a conservation ethic. Even the Wall St Journal concedes that enhanced auto efficiency standards will save consumers $22 billion annually in fuel costs (and benefit the environment.) Mr Owens denigrates renewable (wind, solar) as too expensive and needing subsidies, but (while it should be on the table) Mr Owens doesn’t seem to mind the government subsidies nuclear energy needs, in loan guarantees, research for waste disposal (still a problem) and liability limitations.
Fortunately our Governor gets the idea that wind power may well be a good deal for Rhode Island, possibly tidal power too. We don’t have oil, coal, uranium, natural gas, but we do have wind and tides and their development can boost our state’s economy.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.