Needed: Southpaw Pitches
Okay, Catallarchy can really, nontrivially use some friendly liberal guidance now. Micha Ghertner and other Cato interns have been selected as Team Blue for an internal debate with their bosses about the wisdom of government subsidies for alternative fuels research. Micha et al have to take the pro side. They’ve got a decent start, and I pointed them to Kevin Drum’s peak oil musings for additional fodder, and there’s some good stuff in comments, but if you sincerely believe in funding alternative fuels development you could probably make better arguments yet. Give it a go.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
June 14, 2005 @ 11:25 pm
Why would anyone who sincerely believes in alternative fuels development want to comment there? They aren’t seriously trying to come up with good policy, they’re just trying to help the people at Cato find the best snap arguments in favor of their predetermined conclusion.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 15, 2005 @ 9:30 am
Rich, some might do it for the sheer enjoyment. Also because, you never know, it might “work.” You might plant a seed that later blossoms into full-blown managerialism in a formerly barren, libertarian soul.
Comment by the talking dog —
June 15, 2005 @ 2:52 pm
Jim–
The best answer I have is one of my market-based proposals, which I set forth here: http://thetalkingdog.com/archives2/000225.html
There’s enough talk about my ultra-uncool-position on Terri Schiavo to piss off just about anyone, but once you get past that, I simply propose something called “The Free Market”.
The Government is ALREADY all over the energy business: it’s called “our defense budget.” That’s around 19% of our federal budget, around 5% of GDP, with no sign of abating, almost entirely to subsidize the price of oil. My suggestion is not a subsidy at all, but simply assigning the ENTIRE DEFENSE BUDGET as a fuel tax (I’m guessing we’d double the cost of a gallon of gasoline– still a lot less than Europeans pay, btw), AND pay for our defense at the same time we could LEGITIMATELY lower income and other taxes.
Plus, with the price of fuel reflecting WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS, and not subsidized by the government, alternative energies (obviously, I’m thinking about, among other things, wind which will be opposed by environmentalists on the grounds that it impedes the view from their yachts– I”M NOT KIDDING– http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_1_10/ai_n9480536). But I also want other things, like, you know, EFFICIENT CARS AND TRUCKS, wind and solar power, and even SAFER nuclear power (for which I would ALSO reimpose to free market conditions by immediately ending the government’s policies which amount to subsidized insurance for the nuclear industry).
I realize that none of this sounds truly “liberal”, but with all the money we save by charging off defense to oil users (where it belongs, of course) we can blow the money saved on truly awesome social programs and national health care… or at least lower taxes for the very poor…
Comment by Samurai —
June 15, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
The reason Government should fund the search for alternative energy sources is the same reason the government has always funded things; the profit protential is too far in future for a business to undertake, and yet the research will take so long that by the time we really need it, it won’t be there otherwise.
Another good rational is that funding of pure science by the government has led to many innovations inconceivible at the outset, because what you are looking for is not always what you find. A study of tree frogs in the Amazon, for example, leading to a cure for some kinds of cancer. An oil company, on the other hand, might supress information leading to some new source of energy it stumbled upon because it might not be kind to its profit margin. For example, what if ExxonMobile figured out how to make ‘Mr. Fusion’, the power source of the DeLorean in ‘Back to the Future’; a tool that turned ordinary garbage into energy would instantly bankrupt them. Thus, it would never see the light of day.
Finally, I think the energy needs of our society as it is constructed are so critical to the survival of a large number of us that such a task cannot be left to the market. This must be done, and we should do it, regardless of the possible losses and blind alleys that might bankrupt a normal business.