John Broder's piece in the New York Times makes the case that President Barack Obama is playing a two-sided game with oil and coal. Can he ever win? For the past two years Obama has been proposing moderate solutions to problems his addressed radically on the campaign trail, not because he believes the moderate solution is the correct one, but because the "right" solutions get shot down as socialist or big government before he can even propose them.
Playing with the economy is a tricky subject. If the 112 congress ends all energy subsidies, it will be on their heads when energy prices go up (and they will go up -- we do not pay even close to the true cost of energy). This does not mean it's right for congress to sit on their hands and pander to their biggest donors. Rather, it means we face a political system where it's far easier to do the popular thing and get reelected in four or six years than to do the right thing. Like a teenager needs the guiding and disciplining hand of a parent (although he may not realize or appreciate that until later), so America needs the guidance of its government.
Ideally, if all subsidies were removed from the energy market, clean energy would become the popular choice. Realistically, it would take years for this to happen and our planet does not have years. Americans must be persuaded to make the right choice for their environment by subsidies for clean energy, low energy usage, and a removal of subsidies for coal and oil.
No comments:
Post a Comment