Bill Maher Made Adam Schiff and Don Lemon Look Like Morons Last Night
The Nine Lives of Kristi Noem...and She Used Them All Very Quickly
Report: Russia Is Helping Iran Target US Forces
It Must Be Nice Being Married to a Democrat
U.S. Embassy in Norway Targeted by Explosive in New Wave of Attacks on...
Virginia Fraud Ring Allegedly Used Jail Inmates’ Identities to Steal Pandemic Benefits
Illegal Immigrant Arrested for Allegedly Voting in 2024 Pennsylvania Federal Election
Key Iranian Oil Infrastructure Targeted in Latest Operation Epic Fury Strikes
Six U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iran Strike Honored at Dover Air Force Base
FBI: Two Charged in Fraud Ring That Targeted Seniors Across Ohio, Michigan, and...
This New Report Destroys the Leftist Narrative on the Iranian Ship Sinking
Jury Convicts Two Women of Stalking ICE Officer After Livestreamed Pursuit
Southwest Flight Diverted Over Bomb Threat While Democrats Keep DHS Defunded
John Cornyn Announces Support for Ending Silent Filibuster to Pass SAVE America Act
Anti-Communist Protests Erupt in Havana As Trump Eyes Shake-Up in Cuban Leadership
OPINION

What We Know That Isn't So

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
What We Know That Isn't So

Much government interference with our peaceful pursuits is based on junk science and junk economics. Politicians know a lot of stuff that isn't so. So do reporters.

Advertisement

Let me count some of the ways. (I'll elaborate on tomorrow's Fox Business Network show.)

Congress now spends your money on a host of intrusive new programs designed to make America "energy independent." President Obama recently announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

I smiled when I heard. Finally, even Democrats woke up to the benefits of nuclear power. But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight:

"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."

Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' -- you've got a Democratic speech about energy."

All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.

I thought the only reason that nuclear didn't pay for itself is the burden of excessive regulations and objections from silly environmentalists. Apply for permission to build a plant, and their cumbersome lawsuits impose ruinously expensive delays.

Again, Taylor set me straight. He says the nuclear industry itself is comfortable with today's level of regulation. The big problem today is not environmental rules, but simply the huge cost. The same high costs, he says, are found in countries that have long been friendly to nuclear power.

Advertisement

He also notes that when the Department of Energy proposed offering to guarantee 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, the big investment banks told the department that even 80 percent loan guarantees wouldn't be enough. They needed 100 percent guarantees, or they wouldn't make the loans.

"To me that's a market verdict that you're supposed to respect. ... We need to leave these (matters) to markets. And in the marketplace, investors will not spend a single red dime on nuclear power because it's too expensive. ... It's not Jane Fonda or Greenpeace that killed nuclear power. It's Wall Street investment banks who've looked at the bottom line."

He's convinced me. Then he moved on to more Republican candy: the claim that drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska would dramatically lower oil prices and move us toward energy "independence."

Taylor says such drilling would do neither. Yes, it would create wealth. New offshore fields might produce a million barrels of oil per day. While that would be good, the benefits are oversold. "We consume 15 million barrels of oil a day. We produce 5. We'd go to 6." Nice, but no game-changer.

Of course, subsidizing wind and solar makes even less sense. Taylor calls them 12th-century technologies. They require lots of land to produce forms of energy that are hard to store and hard to move, and are too variable throughout the year. Even if we covered most of America with wind farms, there's no guarantee that they'd produce energy when we need it.

Advertisement

Other junk science abounds: banning plastic shopping bags, as 10 cities have done, is pointless. Plastic bags take up a tiny fraction of landfills. When supermarkets are stopped from handing plastic out, people looking to dispose garbage buy more big, black plastic bags.

Banning incandescent bulbs, as Congress has done starting in 2012, is also pointless. The ban will have only the tiniest effect on America's energy use. In addition, fluorescent bulbs often use as much power as incandescent bulbs because people leave them on longer.

People are ignorant enough about science that it's easy for politicians to scare them into supporting absurd regulations. For my show, I went to Times Square and asked if people would sign a petition demanding a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide," a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands. Most everyone signed.

They were embarrassed when they realized that dihydrogen monoxide is ... H2O. They eagerly endorsed a ban on water.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement