Bad Energy Policy from Both Ends of the Political Spectrum

This past Wednesday, Michael Boskin, Stanford economist and chair of the Council of Economic Adivisors under Bush 41 had an op-ed on green jobs and industrial policy in the WSJ.  He said a bunch of  things that nearly all economists would agree with: government should fund basic R&D — which the market will not adequately support on its own — but should generally stay out of downstream markets.  And government shouldn’t pick specific technologies or firms as winners in market competition.  So far, sounds great.

But it’s what Mr. Boskin doesn’t say that tips his hand as a partisan political advocate.  He doesn’t mention that nearly all scientists believe that carbon dioxide is a major cause of climate change, or that nearly all economists agree that the best way to deal with the threat is to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, through a tax or cap-and-trade program.  He also doesn’t mention that the Republicans have blocked those most-efficient responses to the environmental threats, so the Democrats are responding by ramping up much-less-efficient alternatives, as I pointed out in a Bloomberg Business Class op-ed earlier this week.

I know that economists close to candidates in both parties pull their punches on their own side’s inconsistencies, but it really does make it difficult to have a reasoned debate when the presentations from experts get so one-sided.  If you aren’t annoying politicians on both ends of the spectrum, you probably aren’t telling the whole story.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Bad Energy Policy from Both Ends of the Political Spectrum

  1. Steven Schiller says:

    Thanks Severin for your posting and article. So, since you laid down challenge for pointing out inconsistencies ….I can’t have a discussion with Republicans when they deny there is a problem called climate change or other environmental impacts of fossil fuel use. If they thought there was a problem (other than high gasoline prices) we could discuss options, as the positions of those recognizing the problem are not one-sided – nuclear yes or no, CCS or not, cap and trade or command and control, renewable subsidies or not – but on the other side of the aisle (in Bizzarro world) there is no concern for climate change, health and environment impacts – just burn baby burn and that is their one (supply) side. There is no fair and balanced for the “Rs”; it is frustrating to pretend there is anything other then a blind devotion to a tragedy of the commons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s