Runnin' On Empty

On last Saturday's First Team of the Northern Alliance Radio Network, one of the topics that we covered was our wish for Republican candidates to offer clear and distinct energy policy alternatives to those espoused by the Democrats. Unfortunately that wish appears increasingly fanciful as evidenced by John McCain's remarks on global warming and energy today:

Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction--toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain. "Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world."

Two problems with this. The first is that achieving McCain's goal--while less drastic than others proposed--is completely unrealistic without major impacts to the economy. The second is that while he claims his approach adheres to free market principles, it's just a less drastic form of government intervention.

McCain's major solution is to implement a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions, like a similar program in the Clean Air Act that was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that triggered acid rain.

Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target.

McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050.

"As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt--and that is good economic policy."

No, it isn't. It's trying to solve a problem that we may very well have little or no ability to impact while taking on costs that are likely far in excessive of any realistic potential consequences from said problem. The benefits of this are dubious at best, while the costs are very real (and almost always understated).

McCain is not the only Republican proposing Democrat-lite energy polices:

The Brookings Institution held a discussion on energy challenges for the next president of the United States, where Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke about his Seven "Grand Challenges" for the next five years. The 5-year proposal, which he calls "A New Manhattan Project," includes integration of plug-in electric cars and trucks, carbon capture for coal-burning power plants, cost-competitive solar power, nuclear waste management, advanced biofuels made from inedible crops, green building construction, and fusion energy.

I always cringe when I hear about the need for "A New Manhattan Project" or "A New Apollo Program" to address the country's energy needs. It's clear that when the government has a concentrated, focused effort on a specific goal, it can use its power to accomplish remarkable feats in relatively short periods of time. In addition to the examples cited above, you could include the Hoover Dam or more recently the building of the new I-35W bridge:

The bridge was expected to open on December 24, 2008, but Sanderson said they are about three months ahead of schedule.

There's a financial incentive to finish early, too: $200,000 for each day before December 24, with a limit of 100 days. The contractors will receive an extra $20 million if they finish by September 15. Sanderson said that's the date his crews are shooting for.

Pretty impressive considering the bridge collapsed on August 1st, 2007. Now that's what you call adhering to free market principals.

The one thing that all these projects have in common are clear and concrete goals to achieve. Building a useable atomic bomb. Landing the first man on the moon. Building a damn. Building a bridge. Of course, there were thousands of actions that went into each goal being realized, but at the end each could easily be demonstrated as having been reached.

So what is the goal of our "New Manhattan Project" for energy? Lower carbon emissions? More "alternative" fuel sources? Less reliance on foreign energy supplies? Or simply more energy for the US?

All laudable goals no doubt, but not exactly the specific, easily measured ones mentioned early. Having the government try to drive such an energy effort across a broad spectrum of industries, geographies, regulatory groups,research specialties, etc. with no clear goals seems like a prescription for inefficiency, waste, and poor results. Like the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs" before it, a centralized government energy program will likely become another vast and endless sinkhole where billions (if not trillions)of dollars are invested in efforts that pay few dividends.