Brian McGraw: Mitt Romney’s Ethanol Problem

While I’ll be the first to admit I would prefer Mitt Romney’s energy policies to those of President Obama, especially his appreciation for increased energy production on public lands and the OCS, I found his newly released energy policy white paper slightly humorous in parts.

On the top of page 19:

• Focus government investment on research across the full spectrum of energy-related technologies, not on picking winners in the market;

• Support increased market penetration and competition among energy sources bymaintaining the RFS and eliminating regulatory barriers to a diversification of the electrical grid, fuel system, or vehicle fleet;

On the bottom of page 19:

Instead of distorting the playing field, the government should be ensuring that it remains level. The same policies that will open access to land for oil, gas, and coal development can also open access for the construction of wind, solar, and hydropower facilities. Strengthening and streamlining regulations and permitting processes will benefit the development of both traditional and alternative energy sources, and encourage the use of a diverse range of fuels including natural gas in transportation. Instead of defining success as providing enough subsidies for an uncompetitive technology to survive in the market, success should be defined as eliminating any barriers that might prevent the best technologies from succeeding on their own.

I’m not sure what the Renewable Fuel Standard is other than a subsidy for an uncompetitive technology allowing it to survive in the market.

I guess you can’t win them all.

Cooler Heads

About these ads

4 responses to “Brian McGraw: Mitt Romney’s Ethanol Problem

  1. Spreadeagled between keeping the green useful idiots happy and reality i guess you end up with this mess.

  2. Ah, don’t worry about the Etch-A-Sketch.

    If you don’t like his allegiance to corporate cronyism (the Renewable Fuel Standard is just a suck-up to big agribusiness), you can just flip him over and shake him really hard.

    Yet another reason why Republicans should support Ron Paul for President, right?

  3. Given that the environmental left controls the message, this is a pretty bold statement, pretty much guaranteed to generate howls about dirty air, dirty water, environmental destruction and deaths of the young and old. Oh, yes, and destruction of all life on the earth by passing a global warming tipping point. We’ve gotten the almost 4 decade cant about reducing our “addiction” to oil and reducing our dependence on foreign oil without increasing our development of our own resources. Republicans seem to live in terror of being declared not green. Romney, it seems, is willing to go in the other direction a bit. He is the only viable candidate who seems to be a better alternative to what we have now.

  4. Believe it or not it appears that politicians understand science better than scientists understand politicians. You can have the perfect scientific approach to energy/enviro problems but IF you do not get elected you might as well have no approach at all. Science is the search for reality, politics the search for votes. Say the wrong thing – true or false – to the wrong people too loud or too often and guess what? YOU LOSE THE ELECTION and get to spend the next four years wishing you had been a little more circumspect in expressing your views. Put another way which do you prefer – complete honesty or useful moderation? When the public gets to make the big decisions you damn well better not jar their feelings too hard.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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