Imagine a Saudi regime without the financial power to spread Wahabbism throughout the Middle East, Europe, and America. I’m having a hard time imagining a downside. The people would still live in the sixth century, but they’d be doing it over there. We’d all be far better off if the 19 hijackers couldn’t have afforded plane tickets and flight schools.

Government subsidies only reward the politically powerful and encourage wastefulness.

Case in point: ethanol.

“Energy Independence” is a fantasy for the foreseeable future, reducing oil imports is possible, but the environmentalists are in the way. (Do I need to list the ways?)

Yes, I think so too. In fact we have Cheney in the ME and Fallon out the door. One wonders….

Admiral Fallon, CENTCOM head and a vocal opponent (apparently) of attacking Iran, resigned today.

I’ve been convinced that the White House will not attack the Iranian nuclear facilities and, instead, will leave the issue for the next Administration.

But I also though Kerry would win. I.e., I’m not a credible source.

Take a look at this:

Mullahs or Mounties: Which do we prefer?
posted at 5:00 pm on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Energy independence ÔøΩ it has become the buzzword for the 2008 presidential election. We want to move away from Middle East oil, at the very least, in order to keep from being held as economic hostages by hostile governments in the region. We can avoid that by increasing importation from Canada, whose tar sands in Alberta have deep reserves that our friends would like to sell to us. Problem solved, right?

Wrong:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/11/mullahs-or-mounties-which-do-we-prefer/

Well I agree with Terrye on this one. My hunch is that Cheney may have info on Iran and other matters to impart.

We could buy more from Canada as well, but the Democratic Congress thinks their oil creates too many emissions and so limits the purchase of it.

It is this conflict that creates a lot of the problems, on one hand we want pristine, on the other we want energy.

However, if we knew how many government subsidies have already gone into alternative energy production, we wouldn’t believe it. Billions and billions have poured into many great ideas as subsidues ( so it’s not a new idea), and it doesn’t make any difference until it becomes a darling of the markets.

I’m with David Thomson on this one for the most part.

The Manhattan Project to build nuclear weapons was driven by the belief that Nazi Germany was working on the bomb. As a matter of dire urgency, money was no object.

The unofficial motto of the Apollo project was “waste anything but time.” Massive overruns and waste were common throughout the program. Yes, they did meet Kennedy’s goal of landing on the moon before the end of the decade but they did it at the expense of building anything sustainable or efficient. That’s hardly a good model for a national energy plan.

I believe we need to guide our energy policy using a three-pronged approach.

1. Use conservation where it makes sense. While conservation alone is unlikely to do the job, if it succeeds in reducing the rate of growth in energy consumption, it will save a lot of energy over time. The mathematics of exponential growth are simple and it’s easy to see how lowering the rate of growth even a couple percentage points will have a huge impact.

2. Increase domestic energy production. No one who claims to be for energy indepenedence or even simply lowering our dependence on foreign energy can be taken seriously if they don’t realize the need to increase our own energy production. This also means we need to address infrastructure issues such as refinery capacity, pipelines, and the national power grid.

3. Develop alternative energy sources where practical. Wind power isn’t useful everywhere and neither is solar. Do what makes sense where it makes sense. Limit subsidizies to a fixed and inflexible time, say 5 or 10 years. Subsidizies distort the market but they can have their place in the short term.

Also: For an analysis of how politically-driven alternative-energy polities can get out of hand and do actual harm, see A Vicious Circle.