My response to government intervention in energy

"This is one of those rare instances where government intervention could actually lead to efficiency, vs the usual case of making it impossible. If we are going to get to point x anyway, we should do it at a minimum of cost to the nation, a directive that I don't think we can count on the free market to achieve. Too many competing fiefdoms will put their own profit interests ahead of the greater good and draw the process out longer than it has to take."

*** Why should we think that in this one particular case, the government, as the coercive monopolizer of publicly-acceptable coercion, has any tool that will result in greater economic efficiency? ***

Fiefdom in IP is a much-longer subject to discuss, but it is definitely important to understand that IP law as CURRENTLY exists, with the obvious problems of our patent and copyright system would not exist under a free market. I do see our current model as a burden that promotes rent-seeking and predatory legal behavior over a competitive drive to best please consumers. Unfortunately, the lawyers (which are over-represented in DC) like this arrangement ;-P . I cannot tell you the absolute best means to protect the profit-motive of research scientists, but I am fairly sure it is neither socialism, nor incredulous legal privilege, especially in computer technology where the time-scales involved stretch longer than multiple generations of technology and software. Of course, I do not advocate an IP free-for-all, like China does. In fact, I think the government should back up our companies to sue China for their blatent protection of IP infringement.

As far as promoting ___ energy over fossil fuels, is it cheaper because it's CHEAPER, or is it cheaper because fossil fuels have been made more expensive or alternative fuels are subsidized through government force? If it's actually cheaper, there is no reason to think there isn't huge consumer demand and thus massive private producer interest. If it's simply cheaper after government distorts the market, then we are all paying an INCREASED burden, not a lesser one. Allowing fossil fuels to be freely used until they are replaced in the market means the average American retains a HIGHER quality of life until that day comes, as they are literally paying less per watt, allowing them more purchasing power in other areas (subsidies also raise cost as they require taxes which decrease purchasing power). And in allowing cheaper energy use until that day, it allows more economic means (cheaper, quicker) to get there, with lower research and development costs. In other words, government intervention may have the opposite effects of its intention - delaying the development of technology that is both cleaner and truly cheaper than fossil fuels. Ethanol?

Government bans on nuclear and other restrictions on energy also distort the market. Why spend billions to develop some technology if the government might simply ban it? Why aren't we currently using nuclear? Why don't we have more domestic oil? Had these two policies not been implemented some decades ago, we might not even be having this debate right now. We could be talking about energy being at all-time lows, rather than highs in price. Again, the policy had the opposite of its intended effect, and now we are seeing a new government fix, with the government blaming the market, even though the market can't function freely. Ironically, government is arguing that removing old, senseless restrictions would do little now. Well, what about THEN? If we hadn't done them THEN, then we would see results NOW. In turn, any "problems" it solves now will likely cause greater problems in the future.

Finally, are fossil fuels cheaper only because their users are not held liable for environmental damage? While there are no beyond-reasonable-doubt links to climate change (and little relative damages), there have been cases of coal plants' byproducts blanketing towns down-wind, degrading health and other qualities of life. Yet it turns out that this practice became legally tolerable, sparing it of liability during the Industrial Revolution, to protect big industry. "The gains outweighed the damages." But then why couldn't these businesses just suffer either the damages or the costs needed to prevent them? Instead of having true liability, we have bureaucratized, arbitrary liability. We have an EPA that can shut a business down for doing something environmentally unsound to their own land without harming anyone, while it can't do anything to stop the nation's largest polluter: the US Army. Why isn't GE shut down for its environmental damages and its nearly outright refusals to clean them up? They're "too big to fail". If polluters are held liable for the proven damages they cause, then fossil fuels may have an increased price tag. It is important to remember that protection of life and property is part of a free market, and that protecting businesses from the consequences of their compulsory damages to others is actually a distortion of a free market. Thus, if alternative energy is cheaper due to its lack of pollution, this should be reflected without "government intervention".