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. The Walgreens did not get a lot of traffic. It was not located on the corner of the intersection, and not really visible from Emerson. Meanwhile the CVS there is huge and right on the corner. I am guessing a lot of people drove by a million times and never knew the Walgreens was there. Although, with the new Walmart market going in, that area could really see a lot of increase in traffic soon.

  2. You folks don't have a clue. There is a legal way to enter this country and to get aid. This left unchecked could run us to ruin quickly. I also heard that 'supporters' were getting major $$ to take them in? Who's monitoring this and guess who pays the bill? I support charitable organizations... but this is NOT the way to do it!

  3. Apparently at some time before alcohol has been served at the fair. The problem is that beer or wine used to be a common drink for people before soft drinks and was not thought to be that unusual. Since many folks now only drink to see how much they can drink or what kind of condition they can end up in it becomes more problematic. Go to Europe and its no big deal just as if you had sodas of milk to drink everyday. Its using common sense that is lacking now days.

  4. To address the epic failure of attracting race fans to both the Indy 500 and Brickyard 400 would take too much of my time to write. Bottom line Boles is clueless and obviously totally out of touch with the real paying fan base. I see nothing but death spin coming for the Brickyard, just like Indy. Get somebody in a place of power that understands what race fans want.

  5. I am a race fan through & through. It doesn't matter if it's Indy cars or Nascar. I love a great race. I go to several other tracks each year and you can see the entire track. I know Indy has tradition, but fans want to see the entire race. I sit in the Penthouse, am almost 60 years old, and would like to see a better TV screen in turn 1 so you can see the entire race. Then I think Indy needs to install an escalator so us old folks can make it up to the Penthouse and down again if we want more options to purchase food and drinks. Just a race fans opinion. Lights won't make the race any better, but you might be able to see the TV better at night. Turn 1's screen needs replaced with a better and bigger screen.