Question Earthority!

When I heard that the CLEAN Energy Act (the acronym stands for “Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation”) was on the agenda for the 110th Congress’s “first 100 hours” hype-fest, two knee-jerk reactions formed immediately in my mind:

First: They’re going to pass something that won’t pass in the Senate, and won’t be signed into law by the President — it’s just grandstanding.

Second: This isn’t going to be a corporate welfare cut. It’s going to be a corporate welfare transfer, and probably some tax hikes on the false premise that “not taxing”is the same as “subsidizing.”

I guess I’m just an incurable cynic. Unfortunately, that cynicism was justified.

The CLEAN Energy Act probably won’t pass in the Senate. Even if it does, President Bush probably won’t sign it. If President Bush doesn’t sign it, it’s done — the House vote on it was 264-163, well short of a 2/3 “veto-proof” majority. So, in that sense, this whole thing is really much ado about nothing.

And if, by some bizarre chance it passes in the Senate and is signed into law, it still postures government as part of the problem rather than part of the solution:

- The “subsidy cuts” appear to be largely tax hikes rather than a grab-back of any taxpayer monies, or even especially unjustifiable special tax breaks actually given to the oil industry, i.e. real subsidies.

- One especially onerous provision is a requirement that, in order to qualify for future oil leases, companies must fork over royalties not provided for in their current leases. Back in 1996, the feds screwed up and forgot to include a provision automatically raising royalties if prices shot up (which, as you may have noticed, they’ve recently done). Now Pelosi & Co. are stamping their feet and demanding that the companies honor the lease provisions that the government wishes it had negotiated, instead of the ones that it actually did negotiate. I’d like to go back to my last employer and re-negotiate my back salary upward, too, but even I am not possessed of that much gall and temerity.

- And what’s going to be done with the new money? It’s going to be handed over as corporate welfare to the new bosses’ favorite energy firms. The Democrats, it would seem, regard new mal-investment as the cure for old mal-investment.

To be honest, there’s not really an environmental angle here — or, rather, it’s a very small, and mostly negative, one. Sure, money in Nancy Pelosi’s credit account may be less likely to be spent on 91 octane than money in your pocket or mine, but that’s probably a negligible effect at best. And government mal-investment in “alternative energy” is almost certain — if history is any guide — to create a new class of corporate welfare queens who won’t deliver the goods as well as privately funded ventures, but who will dominate the market with government money and government mandates.

And, of course, the biggest of the Big Oil subsidies — the projected $1 trillion bill (and rising) for using the US armed forces as an industry rent-a-cop in the Middle East — wasn’t touched, and isn’t likely to be. For the sake of comparison, Pelosi estimates that the CLEAN Energy debacle may bring in as much as $15 billion, or around 1/160th the cost of that bigger subsidy. It’s doubtful that CLEAN will save as many American or Iraqi lives as refusing the administration’s next “supplemental” budget request for the war in Iraq would, or do as much for the environment as bringing an end to the oil pipeline sabotages and the zinging of depleted uranium all over the place would …

… but then that’s the point, isn’t it? The Democrats are quickly demonstrating that they’re interested in hype, not results.