|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens |
|
|
|
|
|
While I was writing what we'll call my "where did that come from?" post (named after my brother's email response to it), one of the things I had in mind was this sort of argument: 1) Energy is an important part of the economy, therefore 2) the economy must be spared the costs of that energy. If the economy wants energy so badly, won't it be willing to pay an extra penny per kWh?Perhaps the most seductive compromise on the table is Senator Jeff Bingaman's (D., N.M.) amendment to establish a nationwide "renewable-portfolio standard" (RPS). An RPS is a regulatory scheme that requires utilities to generate a specified percentage of electricity from wind, solar, and other politically correct technologies.He is correct that this RPS is not the way to do it; a cap is better, not only because of the flexibility, but because it's clearer; it doesn't put the government in the position of deciding what the favored modes of energy production are, later for someone to claim that someone following those rules has found a "loophole" because an overly baroque and intellectually incoherent system meant something different from what it's proponents had thought. "Renewable", certainly, is not what we need to be encouraging; the market does that perfectly well. "Clean" is where the market might need some nudging. (Again, note why; it is in the interests of individuals to produce dirty energy because they reap the benefits while imposing the costs on everyone. There is no market failure related to scarcity, except insofar as OPEC has artificially raised the price, which means we're conserving more than is optimal. The people who argue that we're spending down our oil reserves too quickly have to rely on the assumption that all the people who make their lives out of selling oil have misjudged its long-term value and haven't exported enough reserves to the future; it's possible, but it's not the way to bet unless it can be made clear why all the experts are wrong.) |
||
