Before we decide that a bigger, better [Big Government] energy policy is going to fix our troubles, we should recall that the United States has had various energy plans since the Nixon administration. Unfortunately, such policies have often made things worse. Look at natural gas. In 1982, Congress banned offshore drilling in virtually all U.S. waters. In addition to limiting our ability to produce more oil, that put at least 76 trillion cu. ft. of potentially recoverable natural gas off-limits.
And that's a shame, because natural gas is our most attractive major energy source right now. Solar and wind power are promising, but so far they've barely made a dent in our use of oil and coal. Natural gas is a practical alternative, and relative to other fossil fuels it's clean to produce and burn—and it releases much less carbon into the air. It can drive factories, heat homes and even, as Pickens advocates, power vehicles. But we're producing far less than we need.
Sadly, our government's track record isn't any better in picking energy sources that it does support. Coal has been a national priority ever since Jimmy Carter put on that cardigan. Yes, coal is plentiful, but it is an environmental headache all the way from strip mine to smokestack. Then there's ethanol. It was less than a year ago that leaders of both parties decided that ethanol made from corn would be a brilliant alternative to foreign oil. Speeches were made; sweeping mandates passed. The result? Food prices went through the roof—and energy prices did, too.
Where would a more sensible energy policy start? Pickens is on the right track with his plan to increase use of natural gas. And McCain's call to allow more offshore drilling would significantly increase production. Alternatives such as wind or solar look better by the day, and, indeed, every major energy plan stresses them. But, it will take decades for the alternative-energy infrastructure to match our needs. We must have those offshore oil and gas reserves to bridge the gap.
The government can play a role in advancing alternative energy. Tax incentives and regulatory relief can help. So can research money channeled through the National Science Foundation or DARPA. But let's tread lightly when it comes to giving handouts to corporations in the name of research. Obama's promise of billions in development funds sounds enticing. But who gets those dollars? It wasn't too long ago that investors and politicians alike regarded Enron as a brilliant innovator in the energy field. If copious research funds had been available in Enron's heyday, its executives would no doubt have found a way to pocket a share.
With oil trading at far over $100 a barrel, companies already have incentives to develop alternatives—the market will reward breakthroughs handsomely. In fields ranging from batteries to biofuels, there are hundreds of promising research projects under way. Some will succeed, some won't. But we need scientists, entrepreneurs and consumers to pick the winners, not politicians. Finding solutions to our energy problems isn't rocket science. It's a lot tougher.