energy independence my ass: john stossel
In his usual restrained but crystal-clear fashion, Stossel puts the idea of ‘energy independence’ into the toilet.
And flushes it.
To be for “energy independence” is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer’s floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving “energy independence” would expose us to unnecessary risks — such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn — and ethanol — shortages.
Trade also saves us money. “We import energy for a reason,” says the Cato Institute’s energy expert, Jerry Taylor, “It’s cheaper than producing it here at home. A governmental war on energy imports will, by definition, raise energy prices”.
Go read it all. Money line:
McCain and Obama talk constantly about how much they will “invest” — with money taken from the taxpayers, of course — to achieve energy independence. “[W]e can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market,” Obama said.
What makes Obama think he’s qualified to pick the “best plans”? It’s the robust competition of the free market that reveals what’s best. Obama’s program would preempt the only good method we have for learning which form of energy is best.
The older I get, the more stupid I think that politicians are. It’s apparent to me that most lack even a basic understanding of how the real world functions (where good products and services, not empty gestures rule), and for the most part they believe in unicorn and fairy-dust solutions to problems that our government has absolutely no business involving themselves in.
I become more libertarian every day - in the classical sense, not the rock-throwing, weed-smoking G8 protester sense.
Lord Bitememan says:
Okay, I’ll bite.
When most people say “energy independence” they don’t necessarily mean “energy isolationism.” Most people want to wean America off of Middle Eastern oil, but ask most and they really have no problem buying it from Canada, Mexico, Britain, or other more stable large oil exporters. The problem with Stossel’s “trade is no problem” position is that it presumes all state actors will behave in a pure market best interest and not as rational maximizers. Furthermore, it presumes that market conditions will be forever divorced of political context. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in. Sometimes state actors use commodities as a political weapon against people to achieve other means, or the market panics in the fear that this could happen. Oil is a fungible commodity on a global market, and this means interruption anywhere in the chain can lead to problems with our supply at home. Our oil isn’t just at the mercy of the governments of Canada, Mexico, Britain, or Saudi Arabia. Our oil supply is also at the mercy of Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stossel’s world view doesn’t account for the Arab Oil Emargo. If Russia cuts off oil shipments to Europe over the whole Georgia affair, Europe will be forced to compete with the US to make up for the shortfall, driving up prices catastrophically. If Hugo Chavez announced an oil embargo or if Ahmadinejad blockades the Strait of Hormuz we can, again, expect a major oil shock.
Following from this, we spend a great deal of money and political capital securing a global energy supply produced by others, and T. Boone Pickens figures look cheap when you factor in the rest of this money. We’ve spent millions bolstering the government of Saudi Arabia, we’ve fought two wars with Iraq, one over the territorial integrity of Kuwaite, and another over the mess that created, we pump millions in aid into Columbia as a bulwark against Hugo Chavez, we’ve bailed out the Mexican economy to prevent that country’s collapse. Yeah, the oil market is cheap, when you don’t consider the vast amount of money and manpower, the debts we incur to countries like China and the dead US servicemen, that go into preserving this condition.
So the answer that is being proposed, the so-called “energy independence,” isn’t quite so extreme when you consider that state actors can interrupt supply and reak havok on the market at any time. And the proposed solutions aren’t that radical either. Increase access to drilling within the US to increase available supplies, what’s a more Republican answer than that? Provide market incentives to encourage alternative energy sources, sounds better than paying farmers not to grow corn to me. And perhaps if we provide enough in the way of alternative energy sources we can shift some of the calculi upon which foreign actors base their policy decisions. If we can subsist on other drilling and alternatives than when Putin decides to threaten Europe with energy embargos he won’t break Europe, he’ll just go broke. If we can do without the middle eastern oil Ahmadinejad can slam shut the Straits of Hormuz just to discover the rest of the world will go on, and he’s just started a war he can’t win. Stossel has a crystal clear view alright. . . the problem is they’re the sand crstals surrounding his head.
Scott Allan says:
I love John Stossell. We really need to expand our use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy would be plentiful and not subject to droughts or other natural disasters. I certainly wouldn’t mind plugging in a car for energy. Also, it’s green with no emissions. Tree huggers should love this. I’m not a big fan of hydrogen cars or biofuels. Hydrogen is produced from water and biofuels from plants. Imagine the world starving because we used all the water and food for energy. Then what happens during a drought? Wind, solar, and nuclear are the ways to go. As T. Boone Pickens says, the U.S. uses 25% of the world’s oil and have 30% of the total supply. Sound like enough to me to become independent until alternative energy matures.
Scott Allan says:
Oops! Got that wrong. Just saw the commercial again. We only have 3% of the world’s supply. I thought 30% sounded high