Make-Energy.net

Most of the candidates have proposals for energy programs. The issues for an energy program are somewhat clear-cut:

1) Will you allow new drilling in environmentally sensitive areas?

2) What part, if any, does coal play as an alternative to oil?

3) What fuel standards do you want to place on automobiles?

4) What part does nuclear power play?

5) What part does ethanol and bio-diesel play as an alternative to oil?

6) What incentives are you willing to give to other alternative energy proposals like solar, hydro, thermal, and wind power? How will you pay for those incentives?

Look, the general consensus of geologist is that we have about another 20-25 years of cheap oil (and at current U.S. demand a substantial portion of that oil will be imported). From a short-term free market approach, the U.S. is economically better off without an energy program. There are, of course, two problems with the short-term analysis. First, it ignores that an oil-based economy externalizes many of the environmental problems (and hence the costs) of consuming oil. Second, it ignores the mid-term economic and other dangers of sending that much money to countries that really do not like us. In the absence of deciding that their a strategic necessity to make oil too expensive (and other fuel forms relatively cheap) — a decision that politicians have proven reluctant to take — most of the proposed energy policies are merely the shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The bottom line is that we are addicted to oil. Politicians love to talk about breaking the addiction but the actions needed to break the addiction are too painful for any politician to seriously propose. We will still be having this debate in 20 years when it may be too late to do much good.