Bob Inglis and market-driven environmentalism

Inglis blowing bubbles during his speech. Yes, he was making a point, but it would take too many words to explain it here. You had to be there.

Don’t know whether you read Bob Inglis’ op-ed piece in The State the other day or not. An excerpt:

There is important work to be done in order to realize the full potential of South Carolina’s advanced-energy sector. We need less government and more free enterprise. Some clean-energy technologies are more cost-effective than fossil fuels, and others are not there yet. But even the most cost-effective clean fuels still routinely lose out to more expensive fossil fuels. Why? Because the energy market is not a free market.

Speaking at the Clean Energy Summit is timely for me because, a few days ago, I launched the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, a national public-engagement campaign to promote conservative solutions to America’s energy challenges. One of our first efforts will be to convene forums around the country, much like the summit, that bring together economists, national-security experts, climate scientists and interested citizens to explore the power of free enterprise to solve our nation’s energy challenges. We’re going to be saying that, given a “true cost” comparison, free enterprise can deliver muscular solutions to our energy and climate challenges — solutions far better than clumsy government mandates and fickle tax incentives…

The day that appeared, he was speaking to the South Carolina Clean Energy Summit at the convention center. I attended the event, which was sponsored, understandably enough, by the South Carolina Clean Energy Business Alliance.

In case you wonder how Inglis gets to being an environmentalist from the perch of a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (which shouldn’t be puzzling — conservatives should by their nature want to conserve the environment, if words have meaning), here’s an example of how it works for him: The problem now, he explained, is that different sources of energy don’t compete on an even, market-driven playing field. For instance, the true cost of gasoline is hidden. If the full costs of our military operations in the Mideast were attached directly to the price of gasoline (as we in the Energy Party think it should be), “we’d beat a path to the Prius dealership.”

11 thoughts on “Bob Inglis and market-driven environmentalism

  1. kc

    I see no evidence that Inglis is an environmentalist. That just sounds like more of the usual right-wing “the market will solve everything” hooey.

    Reply
  2. EZ Peazy

    Bob Inglis was making the point that true market values are being manipulated by industries with large Washington lobbies. If we paid the true cost of oil and gas without government subsidies, everyone would be seeking energy efficiency measures.

    Reply
  3. bud

    If the full costs of our military operations in the Mideast were attached directly to the price of gasoline (as we in the Energy Party think it should be), “we’d beat a path to the Prius dealership.”
    -Brad

    True enough. An easier solution would be to just leave the Middle East alone (militarily at least) and let the chips fall where they may. I really doubt it would have much affect on oil prices. They want to sell the stuff as much as we want to buy it.

    Reply
  4. Juan Caruso

    “If we paid the true cost of oil and gas without government subsidies, everyone would be seeking energy efficiency measures.” – EZ Peazy

    There is another element of your lobby equation that you somehow ignore.

    It goes like this: If we paid the true cost of oil and gas without onerous government regulations, it would be significantly more difficult to pedal any energy efficiency measure.

    Remember, cost matters. The Navy’s biofuel program has taxpayers wasting millions at $15/gallon. h Buying at such excessive cost is wastefully premature.

    Reply
  5. bud

    If we paid the true cost of oil and gas without onerous government regulations
    -JC

    Examples please. You can’t just let the oil companies run wild. That’s what led to the Exxon Valdez and Macondo disasters. Some of that so-called “onerous” regulation keeps our environment clean, the workplace safe and generally makes the companies responsible. Would they police themselves without regulation? Not just no but hell no. Bunch of damn crooks is what they are. I say regulate the jerk even more.

    Reply
  6. Juan Caruso

    Bud, Congress heeded the bidding of industry lobbyists (law firms, by the way) by neither effectively regulating U.S. financial derivatives markets before the crash of 2008, nor even exercising the regulatory oversight authorized by prior law. Yet, the regulatory agencies involved employ thousands of lawyers at salaries aggregating $billions (some of whom were caught using their work computers to entertain themselves with porn sites).

    Yet, lawyers in Frannie and Freddie Mac and the CFTC are miniscule compared to the number in Hillary’s organization. By the way, why is so difficult for the public to learn how many lawyers work for our Department of State?

    Our government insults us with pie charts rather than audited financials. Very convenient; perhaps we need more government accountants and fewer lawyers.

    Reply
  7. Kathryn Fenner

    It is so difficult to learn how many lawyers work in the State Department because nobody much but you finds that information relevant.

    Reply
  8. Juan Caruso

    “It is so difficult to learn how many lawyers work in the State Department because nobody much but you finds that information relevant.” – Kathryn Fenner

    Your assumption has the deficit of objectivity as your earlier pronouncement that you know more lawyers than I, and most are conservatives. In fairness, most RINOs are, in fact, elected lawyers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *