“IER’s philosophy and research reflects a number of academic traditions, from natural-rights philosophy to market-process economics to Public Choice. We are heavily influenced by the lessons of history, given the extensive role of government intervention in energy markets (remember, for example, the 1970s energy crisis?). We are not a public relations firm but one based on classical liberalism, better known today as libertarianism.”
Former Obama advisor and Democratic operative David Axelrod recently tweeted: “Donald Trump cites energy analysis from The Institute for Energy Research, notorious as the climate change-denying arm of the oil industry.” In fact, Trump cited an IER-sponsored study that predicted that legalizing energy production on federal domains could result in a half-million well-paying jobs annually and economic benefits of more than $100 billion annually.
What was the study that Trump cited and Axelrod decried?…
“Tesla is redefining ‘too big to fail’ as ‘politically correct, so bail’.”
I publish a monthly post at Forbes.com, Political Energy. My fellow scholars Michael Lynch and Alex Epstein also have columns at Forbes. All of our contributions offer the energy community and policy makers an alternative to the current government energy planning mentality.
My most recent post, “Investors Confront Tesla’s Energy Fantasy,” has just been published. Some quotations follow:
“Musk’s various ventures have received almost $5 billion worth of government assistance. Nevada recently chimed in with $1.3 billion to incentivize Tesla to build its “gigafactory” — a new battery producing facility — near Reno.”
“Elon Musk retorts that his subsidies pale in comparison to those given to the oil and gas companies.
“Artificial reliance on unconventional energies is problematic outside niche applications. Politically favored renewable energies for generating electricity are expensive and supply constrained and introduce their own environmental issues. Alternative vehicular technologies are, at best, decades away from mass commercialization. Meanwhile, natural gas and reformulated gasoline are setting a torrid competitive pace in the electricity and transportation markets, respectively.” (1999)
Advocates of energy reality and a consumer-driven, taxpayer-neutral energy industry have reason to be discouraged. Arguments against government intervention in energy market from decades ago are still valid if not more true today.
Peak oil … Energy security … Pollution reductions… Global lukewarming. Game, set, match fossil fuels. Game over for government subsidized wind power, solar power, ethanol, and electric vehicles.
But the advocates of forced (government) eco-energy transformation march on.
A theme at MasterResource, now in its eighth year, has been the false arguments and predictions of the energy interventionists, and the still-true, come-true arguments of the freedom school.…