Clinton’s energy goals point toward economic hazard

July 31, 2015
If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States and implements the energy policy she’s now describing, she won’t win a second term.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States and implements the energy policy she’s now describing, she won’t win a second term.

The country would become so economically distressed by the 2020 election that voters eagerly would evict her from the White House.

Many Americans tell pollsters now that they favor candidates who promise to fight climate change. Most of them would change their minds once the costs hit.

Clinton claims to be able to replace economic energy with the other kind without causing economic pain. Grandiose liberals always say that. Circumstances always disprove them.

European countries and Australia rushed mandates and subsidies into place for renewable energy and now are in various stages of cost-driven retreat. At least six US states with renewable portfolio standards are reconsidering or dismantling the requirements.

Repeating the standard mistake, Clinton proposes to set numeric targets for renewable energy.

In a July 27 speech in Des Moines and related fact sheet, the Democratic former secretary of State set goals of a 700% increase in installed solar capacity by 2020 and a 33% renewable-energy share of the power market by 2027.

Congress followed a similar approach for renewable vehicle fuel in 2007. The huge difference that has developed between its lofty goals and practical reality is a laughable measure of official arrogance.

Why, with energy, do some politicians never learn?

While fabricating market share for renewable energy Clinton also would raise the costs of oil and gas.

“We’ll stop the giveaways to big oil companies and extend instead tax incentives for clean energy while making them more cost-effective for taxpayers and consumers,” she said in Des Moines.

Taxing oil and gas while subsidizing renewables is, of course, a favorite liberal nostrum. And to the extent it succeeds in replacing profitable resource development with work dependent on taxpayer support, it’s doubly expensive.

Clinton is following climate activism into economic hazard. If US voters don’t see that in 2016, they’ll feel it within 4 years.

(From the subscription area of www.ogj.com, posted July 31, 2015; author’s e-mail: [email protected])