It's Called "Alternative" Energy Because it Sucks
J.T. Friedman
Issue date: 10/14/09 Section: Commentary
|
Alternative by definition implies we have multiple choices. Like your choice of going home on holiday weekends to have your mom do your laundry. If you are like me, home is a distance from campus, so my choice factors in how I am going to get there. My preference is a car since it is quite a commute, but there are other "alternative" ways for me to get to work. I could "harness the sun, winds, and earth" by biking, sailing, skipping or swimming back home-but I don't. I don't do these things because they suck. Environmentally friendly yes, but practical no. That is why they are, and will always be, "alternatives."
The same could be applied to our national energy use. We use coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy as our primary energy sources. We have "alternatives," but after a few hundred years of using electricity we have discovered that they all, well-suck. And yet, Democrats continue to force the United States into using sucky energy technology to meet our increasing energy demands.
These green "alternative" energies are destined for failure, as history has told us they are not practical, cheap, or reliable. Solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind energy are two to three-times more expensive than contemporary energy sources. This cost is unavoidable and all "cap and trade" programs are designed to level the marketplace by subsidizing "alternatives" and taxing the most economical choices. What this means in the end is more expensive, and less reliable energy.
The most devastating part of all energy climate change legislation is its effect on the poor. Doubling energy costs will have a much greater negative impact on the lives of the least well-off in society. Far more than any of the "fat cats" earning the top 1% salaries. It is shameful that Democrats continue to use our nation's poor as a strong voting base to get elected, and then pass sucky laws that raise the cost of living and keep the poor perpetually poor.
By now you would think that Americans would have learned their lesson from letting politicians make our energy decisions. The failures of corn based ethanol (which at one point seemed like a good idea) is a glaring example of how shortsighted government planning can cause massive social problems. Literally, millions in the third-world are starving because the US government is paying to take corn out of the food supply and put it in our gas tanks. Corn that pollutes more, is less efficient, and costs the taxpayer twice as much as a tank of gas.
All of this could be avoided however, if we let the market, not Washington determine our energy sources. Through time, market indicators will find the cheapest and cleanest energy sources. If we just let the capitalist system work, it would implement those sources without excessive taxes, subsidies, or regulations. Instead of rushing into using sucky technologies with little hope for success, we must take the long view and consistently, and incrementally, improve our energy sources.
With Liberty,
J.T. Friedman
Be the first to comment on this story