As the Republicans wander towards the majority in at least one house of Congress, it may be instructive to note that their energy policy for the last few years has been tagged as, “all of the above”. That is a perfectly serviceable rhetorical device, but as an actual policy it leaves a great deal to be desired.
In 2010, “all of the above” is a dangerous approach that may very well lead to more destructive energy and environmental policies than the renewables first policy pursued by the Obama Administration. Because it avoids the fundamental question of what the federal government’s role in energy production should be, “all of the above” allows (and probably encourages) Member of Congress and their enablers to increase federal involvement in all sources of energy.
This can be seen in a number of places, but let’s just pick out two for purposes of the discussion. Recently, 63 House Members signed a letter to EPA urging the agency to treat fuels derived from biomass (think corn) differently than fossil fuels for the purposes of calculating greenhouse gas emissions. That means that these Members wanted EPA to ignore mounting evidence that biofuels are actually worse for the environment. Unfortunately, about two dozen of these members were Republicans, including some of the most senior Members of the caucus.
In a second instance, the American Enterprise Institute (and some friends from the environmental community) offered that what we need to do is make the federal subsidization of energy more efficient (reported on here). Again, they want us to ignore 60 years of evidence and experience that suggests that federal money spent on energy research is taxpayer money wasted.
It does not take years of experience or any great wisdom to see where “all of the above” eventually leads. Deals between different factions in which everyone’s pet projects are given access to the slush fund (whether we call it a loan guarantee, tax credit, research grant, or whatever). That is why the last two large energy bills have been so embarrassingly bad. They were the result of multiple logrolling deals in which everyone got something. Even the taxpayers got something; unfortunately in their case it was the bill.
Lobbyists and other rent seekers respond like kids who hear the bells of the ice cream truck when they hear someone advocate for “all of the above”. They know it means that payday is within sight. Those involve in gaming the system for renewable energy sources also know that it means those sources will continue to remain free from objective scrutiny about their cost, reliability, and viability.
The Republicans, who claim to be chastened by their four years in the wilderness, repeat again and again that they will not make the same mistakes. Perhaps they will make different mistakes. I would simply note that just in the last three years Republicans have advocated for an ethanol mandate (see above), for a renewable portfolio mandate, for a carbon tax, for elimination of the incandescent lightbulb, for a gasoline tax, etc., etc.
If they are serious about changing their ways, Republicans should move away from “all of the above”. They should, instead, focus on creating a level playing field for all sources; focus on alerting the voters to the advantages and disadvantages of energy sources; and focus on removing impediments to energy production that have been created and are sustained at the federal level. Such an agenda would be more in keeping with the renewed (and welcome) emphasis on smaller government, more freedom, and less federal involvement in all aspects of our lives.
