The always scholarly and thoughtful Bill’s Comments has linked to Rite Wing TechnoPagan’s blog. The teaser article was about green energy alternatives, on which I will riff below. Go check it out.
I respectfully submit to the Maximum Leader that TechnoPagan ought to be added to the blogroll. I don’t generally agree with much of what TechnoPagan writes, but he challenges his readers to think and backs up his arguments. Add him, o great arbiter of Nakedvillainous bloggy goodness.
But back to the green energy alternatives.
Technopagan basically argues that subsidies for green energy are misguided since they shift the true cost of those alternatives to taxation, which precludes the invisible hand of the marketplace from making accurate comparisons between energy sources.
A conservative is generally against subsidies.
A liberal is generally for government intervention to determine a “good” result.
I’m a progressive.
The marketplace works. But, to mangle W.C., “Capitalism is the worst form of economics - except for all the others.”
As a progressive, I would like to make sure, like Technopagan, that the true costs of any commodity - energy or otherwise - are reflected in prices so that the market can make accurate comparisons between energy sources. I’ll agree that green subsidies be eliminated IF:
Traditional energy prices are forced to account for the hidden costs that are generally not reflected in price. Coal plants can keep producing energy, but their pollution must be filtered - why should the populace be forced to bear the byproduct of pollution, which is certainly more injurious to the commonweal than a few more pennies of taxation that are used to subsidize green alternatives. Once the true costs of production are factored into the marketplace, I’m confident that green energy is viable. Or, at the very least, higher fuel costs will offer profit incentives for further energy research.
I think there is a bit of a nod toward this position at the end of TechnoPagan’s post:
However, taking the notion of subsidies at face value, it occurs to me that acomplete ban on subsidies would put a stop to a lot of arguments. If virgin paper is “really” more expensive than recycled paper, and only looks cheaper because of subsidies, then getting rid of the subsidies would cause people to switch to recycled quite spontaneously. Likewise, if meat is a low in cost as it is because of heavy subsidies to the Meat Industry, removing those subsidies would convert more people into vegetarians.
Hey - and now he is moving into my pet area - agricultural policy. I would love to see the subsidy of industrial agriculture end. At the very minimum, an end to corn subsidies would end the profitability of grain-based feedlots, saving fuel, leading to healthier grass-fed beef, reducing erosion, making actual family farms economically viable, improving the lives of animals, and eliminating environmental problems like manure nutrient overflows.
