Measure twice, cut once

As unpleasant as it has been, the surge in gasoline prices that occurred between 2001 and the peak earlier this year had one salutary effect: the discussion about alternative energy sources has finally become widespread and serious. What we have seen as a result is, in effect, a nation-wide, or indeed planet-wide, period of brainstorming.

The concept of brainstorming was first developed by American ad-man Alex Osborne, who wrote, “It is easier to tone down a wild idea than to think up a new one.” The idea is to get a group of people together who throw out as many ideas as possible without censorship in the form of judgments as to whether they are good or bad, practical or impractical. During a brainstorming session, criticism of ideas isn’t allowed and all ideas, no matter how crazy they may seem, are encouraged.

In this context, it is appropriate that every possible alternative source of energy be part of the public discourse, including nuclear energy, clean coal, corn ethanol and so on. If we refuse to accept anything as a potential solution just because we can’t work out all the problems to begin with, we’ll never get anywhere.

But in the field of public policy, the brainstorming phase can’t be allowed to trespass too far into the appropriations stage. The energy problem is tremendous, and the exigencies of global warming, the geo-political need for energy independence and the dire state of the economy all suggest that massive government investment will be required—such as the Green Deal we suggested in “Paging FDR” in our October 2 issue—to get results as fast as we need them. Between the need for speed and the giant deficit we start out with, we must minimize the money spent on dead ends. In other words, now more than ever is time to heed the adage: “measure twice, cut once.”

The story of corn ethanol is a cautionary tale in this regard. Due to the political clout of the corn-growing states, this is one alternative energy source that has already received billions in government incentives. The unintended consequences, seen earlier this year, included massive spikes in the cost of food grains and outright food shortages in some locations. And there are serious questions as to whether corn ethanol yields more energy than must be expended to produce it. This is one idea that has passed from the brainstorming to the testing stage and has been found seriously wanting. Nevertheless, cutting off the spigot to that boondoggle has not proved easy. President-elect Barack Obama, among others, still speaks up for it.

As noted in our editorial of November 6, we think similar problems lie in wait with regard to electrical transmission lines. Bigger, more glamorous transmission lines entail huge expense, environmental degradation and massive impositions on private property rights, and set up a situation where the power supply to vast swathes of the country can be knocked out with a single breakdown or attack.

The rush to battery-driven cars could create another kind of problem. The switch to batteries only makes sense if a commensurate increase in electrical production is planned. We think this is possible in the long run, with geographically diversified generation from sustainable sources. But it is by no means clear that anybody has worked out how much additional electricity can be brought on stream, and how rapidly. If it lags the growth in demand for car-battery recharging, the price of electricity will skyrocket as demand for it increases. That means the first result of a large-scale switch to battery-driven cars would not be cheaper driving, but a huge increase in the cost of lighting, heating and air conditioning homes, cooking food and watching TV. In the same way aid for corn ethanol had the unintended effect of crowding out food acreage, so massive infusions of aid into electronic vehicles may have the unintended effect of leaving large segments of the populace freezing in the dark.

In the midst of crisis, it is all too easy to start panicking and to want to throw money at practically everything, hoping it will stick. The temptation must be resisted. That’s not to say some funding shouldn’t be made available for researchers to brainstorm the energy field on an ongoing basis. But when it comes to implementing large-scale government programs, all of the ramifications—economic, ecological, medical and social—for each potential energy source must be thought through. Obama indicated an openness to all energy alternatives as a candidate, and in the spirit of brainstorming, we applaud that. But he and Congress are going to have to do some work separating the wheat from the chaff before large sums of taxpayer money are allocated.

Dr. Punnybone

Fast Forward