GROSSMAN: Here we go again with 'blueprint to nowhere'

Peter Z. Grossman
May 7, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Peter GrossmanFor the umpteenth time since the early 1970s, a president of the United States has issued a plan for solving all our energy ills. Like the “Project Independence Blueprint” of 1974, and Carter’s first and second “National Energy Plan,” the Obama administration’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” is largely a waste of time. It is the latest official attempt to solve our energy dilemmas; every other such effort has only made matters worse. There’s no reason to be optimistic this time.

The major flaw with the Obama plan is that it claims to do two things simultaneously that are mutually exclusive: reduce our dependence on oil and lower everyone’s costs in the process. The only way government can actually do this is by creating technological wonders. But in fact, government has never created any commercially viable energy technologies, much less one with the cure-all properties the country appears to need. 

Look at the last such panacea: ethanol. We now have a mandate to use billions of gallons of the stuff—a mandate that makes absolutely no economic, environmental or technological sense. Of course, we are supposedly on the verge of breakthroughs; President Bush told us so. Now we are supposedly on the verge of breakthroughs with wind and solar and electric cars and other technologies. 

It’s largely wishful thinking. Solar has been five years away from widespread commercial application for the past 30 years. Electric cars have been the wave of the future for about 100 years.

Then again, we are in some kind of energy crisis, aren’t we?

Actually, we are in a political “energy crisis” every time price hikes make people uncomfortable. But it is only when the price is high that we are likely to use less, so if the goal is to cut oil consumption, we are already on the way. It is no coincidence that Europeans drive more fuel-efficient cars than we do; they pay high gas taxes, while we have “corporate average fuel economy” standards that allow us to be inefficient whenever gas prices are low.

This points up the contradiction at the heart of U.S. energy policy: The way to get people to use less (and so become less dependent on foreign oil) is to raise the price. If by government, it means high taxes. The way to reduce the cost is to give tax and other incentives to energy companies to drill everywhere, especially outside the Middle East. But either of these options is politically impossible, so politicians promise to do both simultaneously through inordinately intricate and generally worthless “plans.”

It’s ironic that we are now said to have major problems with respect to energy supply just at the time production and reserves of oil and especially natural gas in the United States are rising. Though natural gas was thought to be tapped out in the 1970s—as President Carter aide John O’Leary put it in 1977, “I think [natural gas] has had it”—we now find we can count on the supply to carry us through the rest of this century and beyond.

Presidents from Nixon on and Congresses beginning with the 93rd have tried all sorts of programs to make us energy-independent while saving us money, too—all of which were abandoned. Expect the new federal “Clean Energy Standard” to be revised if not also abandoned as undoable. 

It’s not clear exactly what administration officials are trying to accomplish or why they feel the need to do it. Yes, gas prices are high and we import a lot, but the largest portion comes from those strange distant lands of Canada and Mexico. Of course, Middle East turmoil will affect the price here, whether or not we import any oil. Texas and Alaska oil is not sold at a deep discount because it’s domestic.

But regardless of whether it makes sense or not, here we go with the latest energy policy blueprint. Call it the “Blueprint to Nowhere.”•


Grossman is the Efroymson professor of economics at Butler University.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.