Energy policy & other regulations

Government regulations can burden the economy by shifting costs to (or creating costs for) the private sector.  Proponents of the regulations seldom have much to say about such costs, so it behooves the rest of us to keep the potential downside in mind.

This is not to say the Government should not regulate anything. The point is that regulations should be based on facts (vs. emotion), with full recognition of the implications. 

Many examples of questionable regulations could be given, ranging from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (which has not ended corporate fraud) to campaign finance reform (which has not made money less important in political campaigns).

There is probably no area in which misguided regulation has had a bigger impact than in the energy sector.  And understandably so, as “energy makes the world go round.”  

The theory that global warming (which has been occurring gradually, albeit with periodic reversals, since about 1800) is caused by human activity (production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases) has been used to justify several dubious policies:

·        U.S. production of oil and gas has been stunted by restrictions on drilling in as yet undeveloped areas (primarily offshore and in Alaska), leading to growing dependence on imports.

·        Tightening emission restrictions have deterred industry investment in modern refinery capacity.  Furthermore, a patchwork of motor fuel standards – which vary by season and from state to state – has contributed to unnecessarily high motor fuel prices and vulnerability to supply interruptions.

·        U.S. auto companies have been subjected to corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, which have helped to erode the profitability of their domestic operations.

·        The government has been using mandate and subsidies to encourage the development of “green” energy sources – ethanol, wind power, and solar power.  We would have no problem with developing these energy sources if they were economically justified, but the mandates and subsidies suggest that they are not.

·        Tightening restrictions on CO2 emissions are proposed, via legislation and/or administrative fiat, which would effectively tax the industrial consumption of fossil fuels and result in higher energy prices throughout the economy. 

SAFE believes that the risk of catastrophic global warming has been greatly exaggerated, that human activity is probably not the primary cause, and that costly counter-measures should not be undertaken based on the unproven man-made global warming theory. 

We have worked hard to educate the public about global warming, and here are several of the visual aids that we have developed for use.  Please feel free to download and use them, or in the case of the video, forward the link..

·        Slideshow on global warming facts and the “clean energy” boondoggle 

·        Exhibit comparing global warming to a real problem, the fiscal meltdown that can be expected if the government does not get its fiscal affairs under control.

·        Cartoon making the same comparison.

·        Talking points on “Global Warming in a Nutshell”

·        Video: “Nature, not human activity, controls the climate” (Bill Morris)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXb7EqvyciI

What would a rational energy policy entail?  Basically, the government would need to take a step back and let private enterprise and the free market decide what kind of energy sources will be used to generate electricity, power motor vehicles, etc.

Blog entries

12/12/11 - Jobs, jobs, jobs, but how? [green jobs not answer]

10/24/11 – Wasteful spending: the EEOC has outlived its usefulness

10/17/11 – Bloom Energy could be the last straw

5/9/11 – An administrative blitz: taking cover is not enough

5/2/11 – Meanwhile, on the administrative front

4/25/11 – Tip for fiscal visionaries: be persistent or get run over [US drilling]

3/21/11 – Japanese nuclear plant damage: a big setback for nuclear power

11/29/10 – Dear EPA: shape up or ship out

11/22/10 – Regulatory common sense requires eternal vigilance

7/26/10 – D.C. update: the “green” energy push

6/14/10 – War on cheap energy grinds on

6/7/10 – Disaster in the Gulf: environmental effects and political fallout

5/10/10 – GovFinance: too bad to fix

5/3/10 – “Reforming” the financial system: a play in three acts

3/8/10  – If coal power is too “dirty,” how about nuclear?

12/21/09  – Two crises and a partridge in a pear tree

10/5/09  – Carbon showdown on multiple fronts

9/28/09 – Energy policy: time for some common sense

6/8/09 – How to win the global warming debate

5/25/09 – The high cost of “green” energy

5/18/09 – A dubious case for cap and trade

5/11/09 – EPA regulation of CO2: a bad idea from any angle

11/17/08 – Don’t bail out the Big Three, but an apology would be nice

10/23/08 – A paradox: the global warming scare lives on

9/22/08 – SAFE cartoon says it all

8/18/08 – Nuclear power: building for the future, and hold the subsidies

8/11/08 – Nuclear power: walk first, then run

8/4/08 – Nuclear power: no panacea

7/7/08 – To drill or not to drill: that is the question

5/12/08 – Ethanol 101: the staying power of government programs

5/5/08 – The Holy Grail: energy policy based on evidence vs. propaganda

4/28/08 – The Icarus syndrome: why the bad ideas keep coming

4/21/08 – Pain at the pump: why energy prices are soaring

1/21/08 – An update on global warming (cooling?)

12/24/07 – Fiscal visionaries at bay [re passage of the energy bill]

9/3/07 – Alternative energy: let the market decide

7/10/07 – Another energy bill

top