Energy plan ads just a bunch of wind?
Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is on a mission, and wants you to support his energy plan away from imported oil and towards natural gas and wind power. But commentator Will Wilkinson says to be wary of what you hear.
Commentator Will Wilkinson (The Cato Institute)
More on Sustainability, Commentaries
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Scott Jagow: Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is on a mission. Yesterday, he said he was creating an army of people to lobby for his energy plan. That plan is to move toward wind power and natural gas and away from imported oil. Commentator Will Wilkinson has been studying this, and so far, isn't impressed.
Will Wilkinson: Maybe you've seen T. Boone Pickens' commercial by now. The corporate takeover artist and hedge fund chairman is in the process of building the world's largest wind farm. He's also the nation's largest supplier of transportation-related natural gas.
Imagine Pickens' surprise when he discovered that our environmental and economic salvation is to use subsidized wind power to replace the natural gas we now use to generate electricity, and then to use that freed-up natural gas to power our cars. We could use new wind power to replace dirty coal instead. But that's not the plan.
All commercials are trying to sell us something. But Pickens' ad isn't aimed at us the consumers, but as voters sadly under-informed and easily stirred by appeals to emotion. The Pickens Plan is not about offering you, the consumer, a choice.
If wind power were more efficient than the alternatives, we'd already be using more of it. If natural gas cars were attractive to consumers, we'd already be driving more of them. The Pickens plan is about getting the government to use its powers to tax, regulate, and subsidize -- and pick winners in the energy sector.
When Pickens says:
T. Boone Pickens: Over $700 billion are leaving this country to foreign nations every year.
and adds up to:
Pickens: It'll be the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
He's leaning hard on our worst nationalist impulses and attacking the very idea of peaceful, mutually beneficial trade. Listening to Pickens, you'd never know we got something for all that money. What he's really saying is: Why buy the things you need from dangerous foreigners when you could be buying them from rock-ribbed Americans, like T. Boone Pickens?
In the end, The Pickens' plan is that government use its powers to make Pickens the winner. Don't help him. The last time Pickens spent millions on political ads, the Swift Boat Veterans offered us, the voters, their version of the truth. How do you like how that turned out?
Jagow: Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From San Mateo, CA, 08/04/2008
Wilkinson's case would be stronger if he were somehow outing Pickens being secretly behind a plan that benefited him as a CNG provider and wind farm investor. That would be a great smoking gun, but Pickens is very out front with what he is doing. He is already mega rich, so getting mega richer at 80 years old is just not threatening in my opinion. Pickens will probably not build a death ray machine like in an old Bond Film, but merely buy more windmills and put up more CNG fueling stations with new found bucks. What is wrong with that? He's old, and yet, he is looking at our lack of national energy policy with fresh eyes. More points for him. But beyond his ideas, there is action and "skin in the game". Think tanks are great because you get paid the same whether your ideas are helpful or not. Pickens has incentive to succeed because his money gets taken away if he is off the mark. Game changers like Pickens often need to slow down from time to time to explain what the heck they are doing. Hope for a free market is a funny notion in 2008, but coal exists as a fuel because the free market says polluting is free. Not for long Mr Wilkinson. Long may you run Boone.
From WI, 08/03/2008
The only way, the coal, natural gas and oil are cheaper than renewables, wind etc are because we are not paying for their environment impact right now. That means we are not paying any price for polluting the environment e.g. there is no cost to use coal for electricity production. We do not assign a cost for CO2 production, mercury poisoning, environmental and human cost of mining. If these costs were included in consideration of oil, natural gas and coal, the wind mills, solar power wins hands down. There is a huge environmental cost associated with coal and oil.
If we were to enact a legislation and carbon cap/trade legislation. Every major electric utility company will be just producing wind power and using gas powered turbines during peak electric demand or when the wind is not blowing.
From Los Angeles, CA, 08/03/2008
I'm all for the free market. If Pickens wants to invest his money in the wind power and natural gas, he has every right to. However, if he wants government handouts for his wind business, why should his customers, consumers, pay for him twice? Once by a government handout; and a second time when we buy the energy from him.
Maybe Pickens can afford his electrical distribution system by not giving his money to political hit groups like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
From Gulfport, FL, 08/02/2008
Mr. Pickens has offered a plan. Will Wilkenson (whoever he is) has not.
From Little Rock, AR, 08/02/2008
"The last time Pickens spent millions on political ads, the Swift Boat Veterans offered us, the voters, their version of the truth. How do you like how that turned out?"
Mr. Wilkinson's story was good until this last part. Mr. Pickens helped the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. However, Senator Kerry has never offered any evidence to contradict the Veterans allegations. Mr. Pickens has even offered to give $1 million to charity if Mr. Kerry can disprove even one allegation. No proof yet and it has been almost a year.
How do you like how that turned out?
From Fairfield, CA, 08/01/2008
"In the end, The Pickens' plan is that government use its powers to make Pickens the winner."
And that my friends is the story of modern day corporate run America.
I'm glad to see Mr. Wilkinson believe in separation of church and state.
" A republic, if you can keep it."
BF
From McKinney, TX, 08/01/2008
Few people talk much about the very large subsidies that oil gets, like direct cash subsidies, foreign aid to oil countries, several aircraft carrier battle groups patrolling Middle East oil shipping lanes, troops guarding oil pipelines, military bases in oil countries, 2 Middle Eastern wars, military intelligence operations.
Without these we would not be getting our oil, and if we paid these costs at the pump instead of with the income tax, oil might no longer be market competitive against alternatives.
All pickens plan gets is a little bit of cash. And it will be worth that cash to rescue the USA from being held hostage to oil which can be manipulated by hostile Middle Eastern countries.
From Syracuse, NY, 08/01/2008
When Wilkinson writes "If wind power were more efficient than the alternatives, we'd already be using more of it" he neglects to note that wind power is the fastest growing energy segment. In fact wind turbine manufacturers can not keep up with the demand to install more wind facilities.
Furthermore it is thinking like Wilkinsons which keeps the status quo. "if it were better it would have happened" That is the kind of defeatist mindset that does no one any good.
From CA, 08/01/2008
"In the end, The Pickens' plan is that government use its powers to make Pickens the winner."
And that my friends is the story of modern day corporate run America.
I'm glad to see Mr. Wilkinson believe in separation of church and state.
" A republic, if you can keep it."
BF
08/01/2008
"In the end, The Pickens' plan is that government use its powers to make Pickens the winner."
And that my friends is the story of modern day corporate run America.
I'm glad to see Mr. Wilkinson believe in separation of church and state.
" A republic, if you can keep it."
BF
From Peoria, IL, 07/31/2008
I think the main point in this article is:
"We could use new wind power to replace dirty coal instead. But that's not the plan."
Pickens's plan is to "use subsidized wind power to replace the natural gas we now use to generate electricity, and then to use that freed-up natural gas to power our cars."
Why does he leave out replacing the dirty and environmentally damaging coal plants? Honestly I haven't read Pickens's plan, but if he leaves it out then it is not a good plan. We need to get off coal.
Also I would never trust a man who funded the Swift Boat ad campaign against Kerry. That got us 4 more years of Bush and Cheney, 4 more years of Iraq, and ultimately the high gasoline prices we are paying now while the oil companies (Friends of Bush and Cheney)are making the highest profits ever earned by any company ever (just reported today).
I appreciated hearing this point of view. So many people just fall for the propaganda without looking deeper. Sure, it is good to get off oil. Wind is good. But nuclear is better (works better, and is much much cleaner and safer than coal). Solar panels along the interstates like in Europe would be great. Get the big energy companies to provide alternatives by mandating they get off oil and coal. They won't do it without being forced.
We need creative ways of thinking. Perhaps T. Boone Pickens, good ole boy that he is, really did fund that Swift Boat ad in good faith that Bush and Cheney would be good for this country, but I don't think so. I think everything he does is because it is good for him and his friends. If we get some clean energy from him, great. But no one should trust anything he says. Watch what he does instead.
From Washington, DC, 07/31/2008
Wilkinson suggests that wind power is less widely used because it's inferior, but he neglects to mention that fossil fuels received far more subsidies than renewables did during the last century. It's hardly a level playing field.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute broke down the Department of Energy’s R&D expenditures from 1948-2003 and found that approximately $74 billion (56% of the total) went to nuclear energy; $31 billion (24%) to fossil fuels; and $15 billion (11%) to renewable energy sources. Authors from the economics firm Management Information Services, Inc. totaled up federal energy incentives (mostly tax breaks) from 1950-2003, and reported, “Oil accounted for nearly half ($302 billion) of all federal support between 1950 and 2003.” Renewables got less than 10%.
http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/picking-energy-winners/
From Washington, DC, 07/31/2008
Wilkinson suggests that wind power is less widely used because it's inferior, but he neglects to mention that fossil fuels received far more subsidies than renewables did during the last century. It's hardly a level playing field.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute broke down the Department of Energys R&D expenditures from 1948-2003 and found that approximately $74 billion (56% of the total) went to nuclear energy; $31 billion (24%) to fossil fuels; and $15 billion (11%) to renewable energy sources. Authors from the economics firm Management Information Services, Inc. totaled up federal energy incentives (mostly tax breaks) from 1950-2003, and reported, Oil accounted for nearly half ($302 billion) of all federal support between 1950 and 2003. Renewables got less than 10%.
http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/picking-energy-winners/
From WA, 07/31/2008
Wilkinson is exactly right.
He's not arguing against wind or natural gas. He's arguing against erecting government subsidies and regulations that make other people bear the risks and make it harder for other sources to compete.
If Pickens' ideas are good, then he'll be rewarded plenty. The government shouldn't pick sides and force the taxpayers to bear the costs and risks. Anybody who wants to invest his own money in these technologies has plenty of opportunities to do so.
People who complain about oil subsidies are also right.
Let's end those too.
07/31/2008
"If wind power were more efficient than the alternatives, we'd already be using more of it. If natural gas cars were attractive to consumers, we'd already be driving more of them. The Pickens plan is about getting the government to use its powers to tax, regulate, and subsidize -- and pick winners in the energy sector."
You're a fool to make this statement. Like the oil and coal industry hasn't been lobbying the government for DECADES in order to gain subsidies to make them #1. Of course they have! And, despite windfall profits over the last few years, they still get paid subsidies!
Not only that, they don't pay a cent for all the wars that we fight on their behalf to ensure secure/solid distribution. Instead, we the tax payer do through the inflation tax as we attempt to pay off our national debt, as we continue to over print our worthless fiat money.
These articles are so misinformative they make me want to puke!
From Cincinnati, OH, 07/31/2008
Call me silly or uninformed, but as members of a capitalist democracy, why are we concerned if anyone has an idea that makes them rich (or richer) My concern is whether or not it is a good idea that works, is achieveable, serves the greater good and makes the US less vulnerable to economic actions and threats from often less than friendly foreign powers. Buy from them, trade with them, be part of international commerece, but let's not be dependant on them.
From ME, 07/31/2008
I am amazed that this made it as a story... slow news day @ Marketplace.
1) Pickens or any other business person that develops renewable energy resources that get us away from oil, coal and nuclear should lobby for change, and dare I say they should profit from their efforts. Remember this is 'marketplace' not 'non-for-profit place'. Besides even if there is another 100 or 200-year supply of oil do we need to burn every last drop in internal combustion engines. Remember folks we all use plastic and other petrochemicals every day let's save the dinosaur juice for sexier things than just tail pipe emissions.
2) Wilkinson proves that education doesn't equal intelligence with his comment "If wind power were more efficient than the alternatives, we'd already be using more of it." because any intelligent person knows that we don't 'use more' renewable energy sources because they have yet to be commercialized. Logic tells us that renewables have yet to be commercialized because gas and oil have been cheap (so far). So cheap that our culture actually thinks it is ok to burn it rather then work a bit harder towards sustainability.
3) Lastly Will's concern about government picking winners in the energy sector is a touching in its naïveté, they have already picked winners and it is oil, coal and corn based ethanol. I’m ready for a new winner will and it will be renewable energy like it or not.
Notice that I use the term renewable rather then alternative energy. When will alternative be mainstream? I argue the time is now change the status quo and please stop calling it alternative energy.
From Los Angeles, CA, 07/31/2008
Check out Marketplace's Greenwash Brigade's coverage of Pickens' plan at http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/2008/07/an_oil_man_who_gets_it.html
From Ann Arbor, MI, 07/31/2008
I applaud Will Wilkinson for his critique of Boone Pickens Energy plan. Nowhere did I hear Mr. Wilkinson say Picken's plan have no merits. Mr. Pickens may be on to something, nevertheless, it never hurts to hear the other side of the story. And as we should all know, Mr. Pickens will have no problems if truth and the greater good are victims of his plans. Thank you Mr. Wilkinson
07/31/2008
The idea that market forces really drive the available supply of things to buy, at least with big ticket items like cars, is just laughable. I would say it's true with items produced on smaller scales in industries with more competition. It's just a fact that large industry is resistant to making sweeping change, no matter how necessary that change is. Why is that you Cato institute guys talk about "free markets" in the abstract and never address the realities of economics.
From Austin, TX, 07/31/2008
Are you INSANE AND/OR RETARDED? World oil production is peaking and you suggest that weaning ourselves from oil and moving to renewable energy is a ploy by selfish billionaires? WTF is the matter with you?
We are increasing our national deficit spending by almost $1 trillion dollars per year now, mainly because we import so much oil at ever higher prices. And you dismiss this as beneficial global trade?? Do you realize what an incredibly negative impact this is having on our national finances, the value of the dollar, and our economy?
Let me simplify it for you. Renewable energy == GOOD. Continued heavy dependence on waning oil supplies == BAD. Increasing US federal borrowing and deficit spending by $1 trillion per year == VERY, VERY BAD and COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE.
From Austin, TX, 07/31/2008
Are you INSANE AND/OR RETARDED? World oil production is peaking and you suggest that weaning ourselves from oil and moving to renewable energy is a ploy by selfish billionaires? WTF is the matter with you?
We are increasing our national deficit spending by almost $1 trillion dollars per year now, mainly because we import so much oil at ever higher prices. And you dismiss this as beneficial global trade?? Do you realize what an incredibly negative impact this is having on our national finances, the value of the dollar, and our economy?
Let me simplify it for you. Renewable energy == GOOD. Continued heavy dependence on waning oil supplies == BAD. Increasing US federal borrowing and deficit spending by $1 trillion per year == VERY, VERY BAD and COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE.
From ME, 07/31/2008
'If wind power were more efficient than the alternatives, we'd already be using more of it. If natural gas cars were attractive to consumers, we'd already be driving more of them.' Whaaaa???!! Since when is the present administration, including Congress, offering alternatives? As long as the tip-top government guys are oil tycoons themselves, we'll not see sound environmental policy. As long as Congress waffles, we the little people pay more for much less. I'm hoping for the best for November, but come on, guys. To imply that we even have options at this point for less reliance on foreign oil is misleading. The government will see to it that we're socked in. Only when we the public smarten up and start protesting in a big way will there be any progress. For the foreseeable future, I'll be working my three jobs.
From Hunterdon, NJ, 07/31/2008
Pickens obviously has a self-interest here, but so does the oil, auto, utility and financial industries. He at least is proposing an alternative to a status quo that is failing. When the consumer really does have a choice, then change will occur. Will Wilkinson is mistaken that this happens by itself through the efficiencies of a free market. Like it or not, government often does have to pick and nurture technologies through sponsoring research, subsidies, and regulations. For example, advances in automotive safety, emissions, and mileage all happened as a result of government mandate. In NJ, we still get most electricity from coal and nuclear, but we now have the choice to buy a percentage from alternative providers.
From CA, 07/31/2008
When Pickens mentioned natural gas, I was suspicious. Now that I know he was behind the Swift Boat smear, I'm going to pass this story on to all my friends.
Thank you!
From Lexington, KY, 07/31/2008
This argument is flawed and misleading, more so than the one it's criticizing. Here's my take on it: http://theslippyexpress.blogspot.com/2008/07/cato-not-actually-fan-of-power-to.html
From Houston, TX, 07/31/2008
Pickens is putting his own money into wind. What is wrong with that? Wind is supposed to be the darling of the liberal media.
Wind in Texas is a big thing - accounting for up to 10% of the daily capacity: http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/
There is no way that any freed up natural gas is ever going into cars - trucks maybe. The infrastructure isn't there and never will be. Plug-in cars will get here long before that. We will use the gas to generate electricity.
I applaud Pickens for coming up with a market-driven idea. Who came up with the stupid idea to devastate the global food market by mandating subsidized, corn-based ethanol?
THAT is something to oppose.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.