From faulty premises flow illogical conclusions. The energy plank of the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign platform starts wrong and ends wrong (see story, p. 28).
The energy plank gets one assertion right when it says about the US, “We know we can’t drill our way to energy independence.” The country in fact has no way—no matter how much it drills, no matter how much it conserves, and no matter how much it supports renewable energy—to achieve energy independence.
But campaign platforms aren’t designed to affirm the granitic truths of physics and economics, and this one is no different. The energy-plank statement uses the futility of energy independence to dismiss oil and gas drilling but retains the goal in service to “renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and geothermal as well as technologies to store energy through advanced batteries and [efforts to] clean up our coal plants.” All it takes is “our ingenuity and legendary hard work”—and, of course, money.
Classic errors
Even by the standards of campaign platform planks, which are written for elections and not policy-making, this one is loony. It errs in classic ways. For example:
- It relies on numerical targets set by government while paying little or no regard to economic or physical practicalities.
The energy plank calls on the US to become 50% more energy-efficient by 2030 than it is now, to double the fuel-efficiency requirements of new vehicles, and to derive 25% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025. Numeric targets imply seriousness of purpose. But the only stated purpose in the Democrats’ energy plank is energy independence, which—to repeat—is unattainable.
- Its execution would require massive public spending.
In fact, the energy plank is nothing but public spending—for research and development dedicated to cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, for federal-local partnerships, for federal and military purchasing benefiting upstart energy technologies. Like numeric targets, commitments of money seem to demonstrate seriousness of purpose. Yet governments seldom spend funds they receive from taxpayers the same way taxpayers would spend the money if allowed to keep it. There are good reasons to accommodate this conflict, such as defense, law enforcement, public health and environmental programs, and aid to the poor. But government spending should happen only for good reasons. Support of noncommercial fuels can be such a reason but too often just wastes money.
- It perpetuates the demonstrable falsehood that the government makes sensible choices about fuels use.
Historically, the government has made remarkably poor choices about fuel use. Who, other than corn growers, now thinks a large and growing mandate for ethanol in gasoline makes sense? Yet the assumed superiority of government fuel decisions lurks beneath every splinter of the Democratic energy plank.
- It makes unsupportable economic claims.
The plank promises “a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million jobs.” Ridiculous. The forced use of noncommercial energy creates costs. So do aggressive efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, such as the cap-and-trade scheme that the Democrats say will fund their spending on governmental energy. Elevated costs create net employment losses. Yes, some people would move into new jobs at those “green” energy enterprises created by government and supported by taxpayers. But many more people would lose jobs as governmentally mandated and heavily subsidized energy pillaged the economy.
Wish lists
Campaign planks are just wish lists, of course. They’re designed to attract votes. The Democrats pointed out that their energy wish list came from 30,000 people attending 1,645 meetings held throughout the US.
The assembly of a wish list designed to attract votes is not the same as serious discussion about energy in an interdependent and competitive world. The US needs such a discussion more than it needs ethanol from cellulose or forests of wind turbines. As long as energy independence remains the motivating premise of Americans in large numbers, serious discussion about energy will remain the biggest wish of all.
