I don’t comment at TPW anymore.
However, occasionally I still read the conversations there. On one thread someone claimed that energy independence has to, in every case, be government mandated.
Naturally, I disagree. In fact, I believe big government is currently responsible for a lack of energy independence.
How so? Here are just a few of the ways.
- Corporate personhood and non-concensual limited liability. By shielding polluting petrochemical corporations from legal responsibility, the regime gives them an unnatural advantage over cleaner alternatives.
- Corporate welfare. Large, established corporations line up at the trough to receive billions of dollars of stolen tax loot; petrocorps are no exception.
- Military-industrial complex. Sure, plundering the Middle East’s oil is not the only reason why the Bush gang has plunked half a trillion dollars of your money into a sand hole. But do you really think it wasn’t one of the reasons?
- Interstate highway system. A big government incentive to sprawl, along with others such as subsidized utility extensions, clearing of inner city neighborhoods in the name of urban renewal, occupational licensing and taxes and regulations making mass transportation and taxis less affordable, and many others.
- Speaking of taxes and regulations there are insufferable multitudes of them, and they keep innovative new startups – such as those which might develop alternative forms of energy in a free market – from ever getting off the ground and competing with the established big players on an even field.
Big corporations have lobbyists who help tailor the regulations, lawyers and accountants to keep them in compliance and fill out the paperwork, money to make regulators look the other way or pay fines if and when absolutely necessary, and more. Small new companies are at a distinct disadvantage in this arena.
- Marijuana prohibition has been used as a rationale to keep industrial hemp from being cultivated, even though it can’t get you high (unlike gasoline, which can fuck you up if you huff it) and has many promising uses, including as fuel.
- Other government disincentives to venture capital and entrepreneurship include the social security pyramid scheme
and linkage of employment to health insurance. The latter parlays with regime intervention in the health care market, which has caused a price spiral.
Not a complete list by any means, but there you are.
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
Well, I do miss your comments on TPW, but of course you’re the number one expert on how your time should be spent.
That is a good list, I think, although I’d add intellectual property laws. I think they play an especially important role in keeping us petroleum dependent.
Energy independence is not even a desirable goal. It is mercantilist.
I’m also through with TPW. I respect Austin very much, but the retardation of some of the bloggers there is too much for me to stomach.
Actually, intellectual property laws play little role in petroleum dependency. It’s simply a fact that oil is cheap. Really cheap. When oil reaches $100 a barrel, it will still be relatively cheap.
The alternatives are not cost prohibitive due to intellectual property. In fact, I would estimate that 80-90% of all the basic research in fuel-cell catalysis, organic bio-diesel production, etc. is currently government funded, and therefore in the public domain. The alternatives are cost prohibitive for technological reasons, though that will change.
Here is a short article I wrote on cost reduction for fuel cell catalysts:
http://www.ilovephysics.com/archives/2006/10/23/no-blood-for-platinum-cheaper-alternatives-for-fuel-cell-catalysts/
Ian Conrad has a great piece on bio-diesel
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/08/biofuel-corn-ethanol-deception-real.html
What kind of Energy Independence are you after? Zero imports, or zero exports, or both?
I think that when people use the term, they are suggesting that the country be well-supplied enough to withstand embargo comfortably. Embargo is unlikely, but that’s beside the point.
What I’d like to see for Energy Independence is that the government not try to prevent price gouging. That way, whenever current supply lines are temporarily interrupted, massive profit opportunities will result in rapid responses with the fastest movers reaping the greatest profits.
The desire for this kind of “independence” is a hallmark of rank conservatism, of the pre-1776 variety. These people should confine themselves to communal farms, have group sex with their daughters, and retrogress into monkeys, for they are savages.
And let them buy their own solar panels, not force me to subsidize them.
Wes Benedict — how do you feel about what’s going on with PV cells in The People’s Republic of Berkely, then? (Government pays upfront, and tags on an increased levy on the house to make up the difference over a 20 year period.)
The People’s Republic of Austin (aka the San Francisco of Texas) offers 75% subsidies. Maybe some capitalist pig can do valuations (with discounted cash flows, etc.) to compare the two plans to see which taxpayers get screwed the worst.
http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Rebates/Solar%20Rebates/index.htm
Personally, I have no issues with this sort of taxation. It’s voluntary, first and foremost. It’s the government acting like a bank. While people would argue that there are already banks for that, all I can say is that voluntary taxation is better than involuntary taxation. If the socialists want their big government programs, they can have them so long as they make it VOLUNTARY.
Australia does this sort of thing with college tuition. They’ll give you a free ride, but hike your income taxes afterwards for a while. You don’t have to take that deal if you don’t want to, just pay with a private loan or with your own money.
Stuart, those loans for solar are subsidized by involuntarily taxing everyone. Those kinds of financial tricks do fool a lot of people into thinking taxpayers aren’t somehow paying the cost.
Why doesn’t Berkeley offer all of its citizens $100,000 loans at 2% interest with the requirement its citizens invest in nearly risk-free investments earning 4%, thereby letting them all earn $2,000 per year, VOLUNTARILY?
I don’t see it that way. I’d prefer to end, and minimize future. wars in places like the middle east. To be clear, I’m dead set against any involuntary means to achieve energy independence.
What makes you think it wouldn’t be way above $100 if the US Regime stopped waging wars on behalf of petroleum corporations, and held polluters personally liable for the actions of their companies? I don’t know what the price would be, but I have a hunch it would not be competitive.
Some of the alternatives have been held off the market market by government fiat. See the hemp fuel link, and links therein.
If petroleum’s true market cost was actualized, minus subsidies, liability protection, and other factors listed in my post, that would be a huge incentive for non-government research into alternatives. Once they are developed and marketed on a mass scale, they could very well out-compete the big corporate energy dinosaurs.
It’s not that I’m after zero anything, per se.
Water, like energy, is a requirement of life. I’m not aware of any government prohibition on importing or exporting water, although any company that tries to take advantage of the opportunity has to deal with the same kafkaesque wonders of red tape origami that I encountered when I was in the import-export business (security equipment, handicrafts and produce, in my case).
I see foreign origin bottled waters when I shop, and I’ve bought American bottled waters in Mexico and other countries.
However, it would be silly to expect that your typical home or business water supply would be imported.
Nor do I think that a significant portion of anyone’s energy needs would have to be transported long distances in a truly free market.
Naturally, all this is purely theoretical unless and until we actually get a true free market. But in the meantime, I hate to see libertarians fall into the trap of thinking the current arrangement resembles a true free market system, and defending the practices of existing big corporate players such as Wal Mart and Exxon, as if they were some kind of Randian heroes, whereas in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
Buy the farm, and stock it with farm raised lasses, and I’ll supply the sweat equity. A new crop of daughters should be ready within a year or less, and ready to put out to pasture and made to work like mules within a few years after that. I’m pretty damn confident I could make it profitable. I just need a few investors who understand my vision and are willing to take a risk.
NEW PENTAGON AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE HAS TAKEN 10 YEARS AND COST 1.7 $ BILLION
IT BREAKS DOWN EVERY 4.5 HOURS
General Dynamics gets $80M Award fee for delivery. The Military Industrial Complex does it again.
Please see the following article in The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601997.html
It is time to view once again the vintage movie, “Pentagon Wars”. You can still order it for about $8.00 from many video supply sources on the web. It is a humorous but remarkably true story of th design and development of one of the costliest weapons systems ever to grace the Pentagon Budget, the “Bradley Fighting Vehicle”. The movie was produced by HBO and starred Kelsey Grammer as the Pentagon General who led the government establishment sponsoring the vehicle program. The profusion of design and performance specification changes and other difficulties which plagued the program for years were hilariously but accurately portrayed in the film.
The new “Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle” is sure to rival the Bradley if it goes to production. According to the Post Article above, the Marines may choose a wiser course and scrap the prototype, starting over with 7 new prototypes over 2 more years, costing $22M each.
Now that’s a bargain!