Energy, Environment, And The Democratic Debate

Energy and the environment were once more among the absent at last night’s presidential debate. Not too surprising, given the recent shootings in California and SCANDAL of the Sanders’ camp data breach. SCANDAL trumps everything in terms of politicians’ attention (and some would say the news media), and the shootings allowed for some actual disagreement about gun control, which is much more exciting than asking who would be a stronger proponent of renewable energy. (Yawn.)

Here are some questions that could have been asked (especially by a skeptical interrogator):

What are you going to do to implement COP21? Specifically, will you impose carbon or other energy taxes? Bernie Sanders has indicated he wants to fix the country’s infrastructure ($1 trillion!) and that it won’t cost the average citizen anything because he will tax unicorns and pixies, I mean, tax-dodging corporations.  No one has suggested “spending” money on renewables, because of the pretense that it creates jobs (as opposed to replacing some jobs with others).

(Promising to fund something from better tax collection on corporations is the Democratic equivalent of Republicans denouncing “waste” in government. I call these “Rosenblatts” after Joseph Heller’s character Harris Rosenbatt in Good as Gold who primarily through luck, became a respected advisor to presidents. Although he didn’t understand the complexities of finance, he simply endlessly repeated “Balance the budget” to which everyone nodded sagely but did nothing.)

Will you apply a cost-benefit analysis to energy investment? The recent end to the oil export ban is almost a clear a battle between smart and dumb policies as exists. The export ban was based on dumb politics (“we hate oil companies,” “keep oil at home”) and lifting it had beneficial effects (more oil production, less oil imports, more jobs, more tax revenue) and should have been ended with minimal debate. Yet, it had to be “purchased” with an extension of the Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy (wind and solar) that will cost billions and produce expensive energy. (Yes, it creates jobs but so does government-funded ditch-digging.)

(Contrast and compare: “Wind energy and solar energy are notably beating out conventional generation modalities (coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc) with regard to production costs and abatement as well, according to a new study from the US investment bank Lazard.”  And:  “‘These tax incentives are crucial for these clean energy technologies like wind and solar to continue to compete,’ said Melinda Pierce, legislative director at the Sierra Club.”)

What is your stance on coal consumption and mining jobs? Democrats have long shown a willingness to sacrifice the environment in favor of coal mining jobs (see “Clean Air Act and Howard Metzenbaum”) and the so-called ‘war on coal’ has not been much of an exception. Cheap natural gas has slammed the coal industry, not the Obama Administration, but Democrats quail before the charge that they wiping out the jobs of voters, I mean coal miners. Clinton, for her part, has announced a $30 billion plan to revitalize coal mining communities, which will hopefully be more successful than previous attempts to help Appalachia (by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson). This is at the least well-intentioned and could be a valuable contribution (as I have recommended before), and hopefully won’t turn into another case of throwing money at the problem.

Fonte: Forbes