June 22, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist - Mr. Bush, Lead or Leave - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Thomas Friedman - Mr. Bush, Lead or Leave - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Writing from his considerable frustration, Thomas Friedman makes it seem so simple. A realistic energy policy is far more complex than his simplistic rant suggests.

Here are some common sense elements (a work in progress) in no particular priority order of a realistic energy policy :
  • Recognize that market prices will direct investment in new energy research and sources. If market prices for petroleum remain at current prices or higher, other alternatives, including hydrogen and electricity will emerge profitably.
  • Government subsidies and sponsored research are a realistic means to change our economy's energy sources in the long term. Good research takes time and is expensive; subsidies are costly and risk distorting the marketplace.
  • Don't assume that electricity is fungible, irrespective of price, with petroleum products for transportation or heating.
  • Understand that oil will not soon disappear from our energy diet. Enormous and costly infrastructure is devoted to petroleum and natural gas that will not be abandoned quickly. Financial realities and the economic effects of a shift to alternate sources of energy must be seriously considered and absorbed with minimum disruption to our economy.
  • Don't clutter the debate about energy with climate change. Energy efficiency is a much more realistic goal which will have the desirable side effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Recognize that energy efficiency measures have limits that will only mitigate demand when population grows.
  • A healthy economy requires a healthy energy industry.
  • Don't spend time on blaming bogeymen for the cost of energy. Public policy is better crafted on facts and realities. Plain talk is more productive that disparagement."Big Oil" as a derogatory term best left out of the discussion. The fact is we need energy companies with substantial resources to invest in our energy future. It's senseless to alienate companies that can help solve the problem of energy supply and costs in our economy. The same goes for "Windfall Profits" The emotional appeal of notion of the 'big guy desiring to screw the little guy' is the cheap fodder of opportunistic politicians which does not move the issue forward. The same is true of suggestions that the oil industry should be nationalized.
  • Wind and solar generated electricity supplement but do do not substitute for reliable baseload sources such as hydro, nuclear and coal.
  • "Energy independence" is unlikely within 50-100 years in a global economy. Nevertheless, we should optimize our own energy resources.

No comments: