While controversy and discord between the two major political
parties about energy policy play out in the media, in reality they
do not disagree at the level of principle.
The current energy debate is a skirmish between those who
advocate energy socialism without drilling (or with some drilling
if needed as a political bargaining chip) and those who advocate
energy socialism with drilling. Neither major presidential
candidate advocates a free market in energy.
The rallying cry for Sen. Barack Obama and the Democrats is
energy efficiency, i.e. forcing or mandating incentives for people
to use less, and “investment” (government subsidies) for every
alternative energy source ever featured in a Sierra Club position
paper (see Obama’s “New Energy for America” plan).
Republican Sen. John McCain’s plan might be best summed up as
“me too, plus.” In large part McCain embraces Obama’s energy
socialism and adds some new drilling and nuclear power (see
McCain’s “Lexington Project”).
Ideologically there is no difference between the Democrat and
Republican approaches. They both propose to use the powers of the
federal government to move energy production and consumption in the
direction that central planners deem appropriate. The overarching
goals of both the McCain and Obama plans are to fight global
warming and to prevent Americans from freely purchasing oil on
international markets, aka energy independence. As an aside,
neither candidate thinks that this latter goal is more important
than preserving every inch of that frozen wasteland known as the
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). For all of the posturing
by Republicans about new exploration, opening up ANWR is not part
of either John McCain’s energy plan or the Gas Price Reduction Act
supported by most Senate Republicans.
Clearly the Republicans have abandoned all conservative
principles when it comes to this issue. The idea that freely
choosing entrepreneurs and consumers, unmolested by incentives and
outright coercion, have any significant role to play in determining
our energy future has been completely abandoned by the GOP, and
especially by its presidential standard-bearer. The Republicans and
the Democrats both promote Soviet-style multiyear plans for “energy
independence” with mercantilist talk about “keeping dollars in
America.”
Both parties advocate massive subsidies for the trendy
technology of the moment, like electric and hybrid cars, biofuels,
and the longstanding money pits of wind power and solar power.
Energy production and consumption are to be centrally planned from
Washington. The role of private consumers and producers is to
goosestep to the planners’ marching orders.
ONE PHRASE THAT BOTH parties refuse to utter is energy freedom. Yet
this — not energy independence and certainly not climate change —
should be the guiding principle of any party that calls itself
conservative. The energy problems that we face have been caused by
previous government policies. Largely we have an energy market
dominated by subsidies for inefficient energy sources; coercive
restrictions on oil, gas, and coal exploration, which have stifled
competition and driven up energy prices; and the micromanagement of
energy demand. Both parties and their presidential candidates have
supported these policies.
The solution is to drop these policies, replace them with
nothing, therefore instituting free markets. Abolish all subsidies
and punitive taxes that either promote or punish differing energy
sources. Eliminate so-called “energy efficiency programs,” which
amount to social engineering and lifestyle control. This would
include laws regarding average fuel economy for automobiles (CAFE
standards) and the kinds of light bulbs and appliances people can
use. And state governments should repeal all renewable portfolio
standards that restrict the use of coal, oil, natural gas, and
nuclear power for electricity generation, as well as restrictions
on CO2 emissions — especially cap-and-trade programs.
The only energy policy our government should have is freedom of
choice. Let consumers and producers decide what is efficient; how
much we import and who we import it from; how much profit companies
should earn; and, just as importantly, how large the losses are
they should sustain.
In other words, we need to abandon the bipartisan energy
policies that have gotten us into this mess. Unfortunately, neither
party is willing to veer off of its road to energy serfdom.
