www.lbknews.com Friday, March 18, 2011 Page 9

RICHARD HERSHATTERContributing Columnisthershatter@lbknews.com

HERSHATTER

“President Obama,” according to the March 11 Washington Post, “acknowledged Friday that the fast rising price of gasoline could diminish the effect of policies designed to stimulate economic growth…” The president, of course, was addressing the current rise in gasoline prices, the result of turmoil in the Middle East. He was also acknowledging, albeit in an indirect fashion, that a ready supply of affordable energy is a critical com-ponent for economic growth.

Here, the president is correct. American Enterprise Institute researchers, Kenneth Green and Aparna Mathur, put it in terms even I can understand when, after cal-culating the indirect energy content of a variety of consumer goods, they used the common T-shirt as an example:

“Energy is required to grow and harvest the cotton; transport it to a factory; make, package, and transport the chemicals used to bleach, dye, or condition the cot-ton; run the machines on which the t-shirt is processed; create packaging materials; ship the t-shirt to the store; and keep the heat and lights on in the store.”

Green and Mathur, according to the CATO Institute book, “The False Promise of Green Energy,” also calcu-lated that 46 percent of the energy we use is used in the production of food, medicines and consumer goods. It follows then that Mr. Obama’s concern that higher gaso-line prices will slow or even halt the economic rebound is well placed.

But, one must ask himself, does Mr. Obama really understand how essential a ready supply of energy is to a healthy economy? The answer is, I don’t think he does.

During the campaign in 2008 he declared his war on coal in an unequivocal fashion.

“Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than any-body else’s out there … So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bank-rupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

It is unfortunate that a war on coal is also a war on the source of approximately one-half of our ability to

Obama’s schizoid energy policy

generate electricity.EPA Chief Lisa Jackson’s testimony before Congress

last week served to validate Mr. Obama’s campaign promise. She opposes any attempt by Congress to limit her ability to fulfill Mr. Obama’s promise to drive coal-powered plants into bankruptcy. Proposed EPA regula-tions will, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), cause the loss of 7.7 gigawatts (a gigawatt is equal to one bil-lion watts) of capacity, while a Cambridge, Mass.-based consult-ing firm estimates that 50 to 65 gigawatts of capacity may be closed by 2020 because of EPA regulations.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu also validated Mr. Obama’s campaign promise when he said, “We’re going to see massive retirements [of coal-fired generation plants] within the next five, eight years.” The reason, according to industry executives, is that smaller, older units that burn coal won’t be economic under new clean air standards.

Not all companies will be affected. General Electric has been given waivers for the EPA carbon restrictions. GE is a close ally of Mr. Obama, and one must assume GE’s emissions are not quite as damaging as that of a coal plant whose owner isn’t a member of the crony-capitalist club. Jeff Immelt of GE has asked the admin-istration to double and triple the billions currently dedicated to developing green energy. Well he might — GE is a recipient of a good deal of grant money for that research.

As the administration and EPA intensify their efforts to seriously curtail the use of coal in electrical genera-tion, America’s need for electricity continues to grow. It is estimated that the current usage of 3.1 terawatts (a terawatt is equal to one trillion watts) will increase to an estimated 4.5 terawatts by 2035 — an increase of 40 percent. There are those on the environmental side who will claim that wind, solar and geothermal are capable of filling not only the gap left by coal, but America’s ever-increasing demand for power. That, to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg, is about as realistic as hoping unicorns will

poop green energy.The limits to green power are obvious.

Environmentalists have already ruled out putting solar facilities in the desert, consigning that technology to roof tops in the city. Wind power is vastly overrated. For instance, in 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has “serious environmental effects, insufficient production and high production costs.”

Wind power also has a rather gruesome aspect. You no doubt remember the sight of oil soaked birds fol-lowing the BP blow up in the Gulf of Mexico. Every year, as many as 400,000 birds are killed by electricity-generating wind turbines. Those birds are just as dead as those in the gulf; they just don’t make the front page of The New York Times or MSNBC newscasts.

Tom Friedman rhapsodizes about China’s surge to green energy. China is, in fact, engaging in green energy research. At the same time, China builds a coal-fired elec-tric generation plant every 10 days. The Chinese have grasped the simple fact that green energy will be a com-ponent of the nation’s energy supply sometime in the future. Until then, coal, natural gas and oil will be needed in increasing quantities to fuel economic growth.

Mr. Obama seems to recognize the potential chilling affect that high gas prices may have on our economic future. Yet, at the same time, his administration pursues policies designed to cripple our ability to provide ample and affordable electricity for industry and consumers, not seeming, at least in this instance, to realize the chill-ing affect high-priced or scarce electricity will have on our economy.

Japan, in the grip of an earthquake and nuclear power plant disaster, may again teach that lesson.

“One of the biggest headaches for Japanese manufac-turers,” according to Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, “is the rolling power cuts — and these may last through the end of April.” If Mr. Obama continues his war on coal-fired electric generation, America may suffer a similar headache, one that lasts a good deal longer than a few months.

Schizoid may be a strong word, but it does seem to describe Mr. Obama’s energy policy.

Does Mr. Obama really understand how essential a ready supply of energy is to a healthy econ-omy? The answer is, I don’t think he does.

KeyOpinion

The past is past,And now, at last,The future lies ahead;Unless our leadersChange our courseAnd hit reverse instead.

Last week the citizens of Longboat Key turned their clocks ahead one hour.

The week was also characterized by the actions of politicians in Tallahassee, which seemed to suggest the beginning of deliberate efforts to turn Florida’s clock back to the 18th century.

Or maybe even farther back. Newspapers reported the discovery in a Florida woman’s backyard of the bones of a human dating back 2,400 years. It could not be determined whether the remains were those of a male or female, but the decedent was likely one of the first tourists to settle here in search of sunshine and a hospi-table winter clime.

If so, that person’s descendants must be mystified by what today’s movers and shakers are trying to accom-plish.

After all, it was a mere 235 years ago that our fore-fathers established a carefully balanced government

designed to ensure freedom and the pursuit of hap-piness with the creation of three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. It was expected that three equal entities would act to check excesses on the part of any one branch, and in fact, the system has worked pretty well down through the years, both nationally and in the individual states.

The last Republican administra-tion in Washington, however, tried to run the government and two wars on mostly borrowed money, and ran up the largest deficit in history.

Nobody likes taxes, and most, but not all, of the states fell into a similar pattern. Florida was no exception.

Rick Scott, the newly elected governor, campaigned on a platform of “business-like leadership” and promised to reduce spending and create 700,000 new jobs for the jobless. One cannot quarrel with such worthy goals, and the Republican-dominated legislature seems pro-grammed to back him up.

Unfortunately, however, the governor proposes to slash $3.3 billion from education, which would bring the state’s school system down to the level of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. There is no question that there is much that ails the present educational establishment,

but starving it for funds seems hardly the way to do it.Similarly, the governor’s intent to cut $172 million

from the Department of Children and Families at a time when that department is having trouble keeping up with its statutory responsibilities seems short-sighted and counterproductive.

As far as the goal of creating jobs and reducing jobless-ness is concerned, Scott proposes to begin by firing sev-eral thousand state workers — an oxymoronic solution if ever there was one.

The real “smoke and mirrors” aspect of his program however, is the promise to reduce taxes on corpora-tions by billions of dollars, which he says will “attract businesses to the state and increase employment oppor-tunities.”

Does any reader of this column think that corpora-tions are presently being over-taxed? Current history indicates that business, with its legions of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants, has found ways to mitigate or avoid taxes or deploy them overseas. Many of the largest pay no taxes at all.

Florida’s attraction to business rests largely with cli-mate and with a supply of skilled workmen. If the edu-cational system can be ramped up to ensure an adequate cadre of well-equipped employees, that will do more to attract and equip new employers than any unneeded tax incentive.

To the rear — march!There is no question that there is much that ails the present educational establishment, but starving it for funds seems hardly the way to do it.

TOM BURGUMContributing Columnistburgum@lbknews.com

BURGUM

Hershatter, page 18