Modern liberalism and its energy-policy offspring make lavish use of counterintuitive assertion. A public made to believe men and women differ only anatomically, for example, might also be persuaded to not only forswear affordable energy but also relish the hardship. Political movements able to argue past human experience can get away with anything-for a while. This is one reason energy politics has importance beyond the price of gasoline.
The urge to repudiate nature makes liberalism crave regulation and tolerate the accompanying compromise of liberty. In response, conservatism works to suppress governmental intrusion into individual lives-except when the official touch might advance commercial interests of a friend. Perspectives clash all along the political spectrum-even with specific segments of it. Politics, at its best, reconciles them into some version of how things are that might not be anyone's view of thoroughgoing truth but that at least approximates reality well enough to work for a majority.
Energy decisions
It's where liberalism and conservativism intersect that governments make decisions about energy. This framework, hardly new, helps explain how honest, well-intended, and socially minded observers can differ radically about how things are-or should be-with energy.
Radically contrasting views emerged this month of a court decision about US regulation of hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian land. The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver rejected an appeal by environmental organizations to lower-court invalidation of the Bureau of Land Management's 2015 rule expanding regulation of hydraulic fracturing. An environmental group nevertheless claimed victory.
"This decision is two victories in one," declared a statement from Earthworks. "It means the BLM can start enforcing a rule to protect water, public health, and communities threatened and harmed by fracking [sic] on public land. The second victory, no less important than the first, is that in the eyes of the court and the eyes of the Trump administration, the public's land managers have the authority to regulate drilling on the lands the public owns."
Even by the loose standards of pressure-group press notices, declaration of double victory by appellants in a dismissed appeal case stretched believability. To be fair, it was not a sweeping defeat for Earthworks and others on its side. The ruling was, in fact, a rearranging of legal furniture in response to Executive Branch changes.
Under appeal was a 2016 ruling by a district court in Wyoming that the BLM exceeded its authority with its 2015 rule on hydraulic fracturing. After taking office last January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing BLM to conduct a review. In response to a follow-up order in March, BLM rescinded the regulation. With the regulation clearly in jeopardy under a new administration, the appeals court saw no reason to proceed with the appeal or to rule on the core question of BLM authority.
"Given these changed and changing circumstances, we conclude these appeals are prudentially unripe," the court said. "As a result, we dismiss these appeals and remand with directions to vacate the district court's opinion and dismiss the action without prejudice." The court made clear that vacating the district court's opinion was deferral, not a ruling on the merits. "When an appeal becomes moot, we generally vacate the district court's judgment to prevent it 'from spawning any legal consequences,'" it explained, quoting language from a precedent case.
Cheering 'victory'
The ruling therefore did not mean BLM can start enforcing the rule, as Earthworks asserted. It in fact acknowledged that BLM has no intention of doing so. And it avoided ruling on the authority to regulate that Earthworks said it upheld.
Earthworks fans won't see things this way, of course. Disposed toward liberalism, they'll cheer legal victory where none exists with the same righteous gusto they use to promote uneconomic energy. Soon, though, BLM's frac regulations will be gone. Eventually, liberalism will make energy costs intolerable. And ultimately, experience will clarify perceptions and political choices.