thimbleful of amontillado

For every new demand placed on our strained energy economy, it seems as though a new “bold solution” or “innovative plan of action” is introduced in which to counter. Bombarded with these conflicting claims, how should our public officials go about best balancing the complexities inherent in our energy crisis? Well, first of all, that is a losing question. The correct question I would like to answer is not “how”, but “should”. As it stands, I disagree with the question’s premise that our public officials even have the capacity to provide us with an effective, logistically sound solution to our energy concerns. A centralized plan, with all its intrinsic limitations, simply will not measure up to the more realistic, flexible alternative of the free-market. In short, I would let the competing claims of our energy economy manage themselves.

Our body of public servants is comprised of some of the brightest and most knowledgeable individuals on the face of the planet. Surely if anyone is qualified to analyze new energy methods and whip together a new energy solution, if would be our political leaders, right? Well, as my father is so fond of pointing out to me: The more we know, the more we realize how much we do not know. This world is complex. In some cases—namely, the future of our energy economy—the volume of data that requires quantification is too great to fairly expect a valid conclusion. To paraphrase Socrates, (only slightly more reputable than my father) “True knowledge is realizing that you know nothing.” For indeed, the large majority of values that make up our economy are, by their subjective nature, unquantifiable from the start! Our public officials do not seem willing to recognize the inconvenient reality of their incapacity to fully and clearly analyze the potential value of all energy possibilities. Tragically, when dependable analyzation cannot be achieved, the void is quickly filled with the selfish shouts and baseless pleas of corporate lobbyist interests. If I cannot trust our officials’ well-intentioned plan for the unplannable, I certainly cannot trust any plan coming from extortionate lobbyists. (I am looking at you, William Kaiser.)

  Lucky for us, we can solve the problems our public officials cannot. Sure, we cannot plan a solution for our energy crisis. But we do not need a plan! If our collective knowledge—manifested in free-market interaction—is allowed free reign, we will naturally drive toward the best possible solution. Collectively extensive micro-analysis of energy alternatives by private investors pushes new methods of energy production to the forefront of the industry. These are the innovative solutions that withstand the scrutiny of application on the basis of their own merit: Solutions not conceived by a select group of people, but achieved by the sum of each individual. Any analogous “solution” proffered by our officials only mires forward movement and razes the power of each and every individual that, by definition, integrally contributes to the selective mechanisms of the free-market. Truly, the very idea that a centralized group can encourage authentic progress is an insult to the individual.

Pennsylvania Representative Stephen Bloom once told me that the greatest challenge politicians face today is their own pride. I did not initially understand what he meant, but I find his comment particular insightful in the context of our politicians’ approach to our energy economy. The good intent is there, the desire to see true progress is there. Nevertheless, good intentions have not put an onion in the soup yet. Try as they may, our policy makers will never manage to address the veracity or value of each and every energy claim that competes for their attention. It is tragic, but from where I stand, the greatest enemy of themselves and of their goals is their own pride. Only after our public officials renounce their pride and acknowledge their limitations will the reigns of our energy future be ceded to the free-market once more—and only then will we see progress. So in short, to answer the new question of “should”: I do not want our public officials managing our energy economy. Let the competing claims of our energy economy manage themselves.