Subsidizing bad energy strategy

Robert Samuelson doesn’t like our current energy priorities. Concluding para:

This is not a case of unintended consequences. A new generation of “cellulosic” fuels (made from grasses, crop residue or wood chips) might deliver benefits, but the adverse effects of corn-based ethanol were widely anticipated. Government subsidies reflect the careless and cynical manipulation of worthy public goals for selfish ends. That the new farm bill may expand the ethanol mandates confirms an old lesson: Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious.

In other news, I was pleasantly surprised to find a well-balanced, rational perspective on national priorities from Paul Krugman (who I’m not normally a fan of). Will this sort of tone and balance be a trend for Krugman? I hope so.




Comments are closed.


Learn More

Related Posts: Economic, Political , climate change solutions – on the cheap , economic fallacies of the Left and Right , the spoiled french , moral hazard, immigration , healthcare – a re-evaluation , Al Gore on capitalism , central planning fails again , florida’s ‘public option’ , ‘cash for clunkers’ a success! according to auto dealers , income disparity not a bad thing