Policy took a backseat during much of Sunday’s presidential debate, but one leading expert says the dust-up between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton over energy policy may one of the most consequential divides between the candidates as voters get ready to make their decisions.
Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher C. Horner says America is facing a choice of whether to unleash the potential of our natural resources or kill a perfecty healthy industry to prop up a failed liberal dream.
Late in the debate, undecided voter Kenneth Bone asked an energy policy question.
“What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?” asked Bone.
Trump answered first and began by slamming the heavy hand of government on the energy sector.
“Energy is under siege by the Obama administration, under absolute siege,” said Trump. “The Environmental Protection Agency is killing these energy companies.”
Horner says that basically right.
“President Obama promised to use EPA through cap and trade, which failed, so he’s gone through EPA without the legislation in an even more damaging way,” said Horner.
He says it’s odd watching the left simultaneously claim among themselves that increased regulation is killing the coal industry as planned while telling the public it has nothing to do with it.
“Now we’re hearing, ‘No, no, no, it’s market forces. It’s other things,’ even while green pressure groups boast of having killed the industry,” said Horner.
While condemning Obama’s EPA, Trump failed to specify how it was crippling energy companies or which regulations were doing the most damage.
Horner is not surprised.
“Specifics aren’t Donald Trump’s long suit, so while I could wish he got a lot more specific on a lot of things, I spend my time more productively,” said Horner, who also says the regulatory scheme is fairly complicated and not easily explained in a debate format.
“The truth is it’s a whole suite of regulations. It is this wall of regulatory sound coming at parties,” said Horner.
Trump articulated an all-of-the-above strategy, embracing renewable energies along with oil, natural gas, and ‘clean coal.’ He says an economic boom is just waiting for the United States under our feet.
Clinton also believes energy is the key to America’s next economic surge. However, she believes the future is in embracing and prioritizing renewables and getting away from the traditional souces of energy.
Horner says Clinton is planning to throw huge amounts of good money after ideas that are proven failures.
“How many divisions does Solyndra have to play on her windmill, solar panel, superpower line, which is really tiresome?” asked Horner, referring to the failed California solar power firm that was kept afloat with by the federal government and ultimately lost $849 million in taxpayer money.
He says Clinton has no interest in promoting what works, only the green agenda.
“What Sec. Clinton is talking about is actually industrial policy. The problem is you’re killing legitimate industries in order to create a viable version of something that’s failed in the marketplace for 125 years,” said Horner, noting that the push for wind and solar power has been afoot since the 1880s.
“Therefore, it will be depended upon policy and the taxpayers and inefficiencies and redundancies and mandates and so on,” he added.
Horner says Clinton’s political goals are clear.
“I don’t want A and I want B. B doesn’t work on it’s own and, darn it, A does so I have to kill A and have you pay for B. It has failed miserably,” said Horner.
During the Democratic primary season, Clinton proudly vowed to kill the coal industry and coal jobs. Now, she says only she has a plan to help those who lost their jobs due to woes in the energy sector.
“She’s said essentially, ‘Don’t worry. We’ve destroyed your livelihoods and when we’re finished, you’re all going to be wind mill repairmen,'” said Horner. “‘I’m going to wreck your industry, ruin your communities for several years. Don’t worry. I have something in mind that’s essentially welfare, because I’m going to put you in make work.'”
“There’s a difference between work and make-work. What she’s talking about is make-work, things that need the federal government to mandate them, give them preferences, underwrite them and so on – to even exist at any scale,” said Horner.
Horner says that approach is simply cruel.
“It’s absolutely heartless if she has any recognition of what’s been going on in these communities targeted by this agenda,” said Horner.
Lastly, Clinton referred to natural gas as an important “transition” from our existing energy system to pure renewable energies like wind, solar and biofuels. Horner says the liberal flip-flop on clean-burning natural gas is another policy shift that will damage America’s economy, as environmental groups swung from loving the abundance of natural gas to loathing it.
Horner says it all feeds into the liberal agenda of energy scarcity, the notion that reducing the supply of energy will lower consumption. However, Horner contends the facts in Europe and elsewhere prove scarcity just leads to high energy prices, which leads to people being unable to heat or cool their homes – and dying by the thousands as a result.
He says the inconsistency on natural gas is dizzying.
“It used to be you’re not allowed to use that because it’s so scarce. Then it was, ‘I’ll let you use that if only you’ll swear off this or let me ban it.’ And now it’s, ‘We can use this for a while because it turns out we have unbelievable amounts of it,'” said Horner,
“Please take a big view of what these claims are. ‘I’m going to let you use something but not much of it, until I get you to things that are new, except they’re 125 years old and have failed all along,'” said Horner.
