• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • An All of the Above Approach to Energy?

    The 2009 Offshore Technology Conference kicked off yesterday with a star-studded panel offering perspectives from all sides to discuss meeting America’s energy challenges in both the near and the long term. The panel included statements and question and answers from Roger Ballentine (Senior Fellow, Progressive Policy Institute), Jack Gerard (President, American Petroleum Institute), Bill Graves (President, American Trucking Association), Jason Grumet (Executive Director, National Council on Energy Policy), David Holt (President, Consumer Energy Alliance), Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Jim May (President, Air Transport Association) and Marvin Odum (President, Shell Oil Company).

    Although there was some disagreement, the general consensus was that when it comes to working together to reach an agreeable solution, all sides are talking past each other. The unpredictable nature of how energy policy will be structured in the future is limiting businesses’ commitment to investment as any number of congressional laws could seriously distort the market. Despite the current economic recession usurping the headlines for the last several months, $4-a-gallon gasoline still lingers in the back of peoples’ minds.

    While not everyone on the panel agreed on everything, there was some general consensus on offshore drilling. Marvin Odum made the point that global energy demand is going to skyrocket in the next half century. Regardless of how much renewable and alternative energy will be brought on board, increased oil and gas supply will be critical to meeting that demand. Most panelists as well as the audience seemed supportive of an “all of the above” approach to energy, but that’s not necessarily the best way to look at it.

    An above all approach might sound good, but really it is merely a way to ensure that everyone gets a piece of the pie. Rather than open up energy sources to competition, it forces businesses to build business models around subsidies and set asides rather than on a good product. It puts more value on good lobbying than a good product. It also causes a great deal of uncertainty for businesses to commit to projects.
    Perhaps a better approach is: let the market decide. Maybe all of the current sources of energy (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, etc) have a role to play in America’s energy profile. But the central criteria should be that it is cost-effective and able to compete without any subsidies, mandates or special tax breaks from the government. An all of the above approach may not suit the best interests of the consumer, but the market will develop the best sources of energy at the lowest cost to the consumer.

    In a true free market, if someone can supply it cheaper and more effectively, they will. A balanced, comprehensive energy policy must not be focused on making sure everyone gets a piece of the pie, but instead on allowing everyone to compete for a piece.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to An All of the Above Approach to Energy?

    1. Spiritof76, New Hamp says:

      Our government is against the American people and their ability to work and prosper by turning our country into a Cuba.

    2. Thomas Gray SC says:

      Topic energy,

      As a people we have parts or our energy portfolio that we can maintain,,, cheap transportation is not one of them, but when the price of oil will climb I think depends on when the world econimy begins to grow again.

      As a former owner of a very small trucking company I know Mr graves has plenty to think about,

      Whatever the future we are all facing higher energy cost, and the reasons are many and some absolutely uncalled for,

      when I learned that the environmentalist activist some years ago have completely stopped any new construction of electric nuclear power plants in the U.S.A. my vote is let the majority decide not a radical minority,

      these activist environ groups are not poor but the people that are poor suffer and never a word about improving mans quality of life just lawyers and lawsuit's to cut off the energy sources they must have to not die.

    3. Pingback: Energy Policy - “There Is No Productive Debate” | QandO

    4. Chris Nelder, Califo says:

      Enjoyed meeting you at the conference, Nick, and having an intelligent debate about the merits of different approaches to combating climate change. My take on the conference: http://www.getreallist.com/the-great-divide-on-en

    5. Pingback: The 2009 Offshore Technology Conference | ecopolitology

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×