Big Energy Policy Mistake: "All Of The Above"

November 02, 2024/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

In a post on October 23, I noted that, during this election cycle, “energy realism” has suddenly become a positive electoral issue for Republicans. The positive electoral effect comes from pointing out that a forced energy transition increases consumer costs, limits choice, and destroys jobs. Examples cited included President Trump’s use in his campaign in Michigan of the Biden-Harris regulations restricting combustion vehicles, and his use in Pennsylvania of Harris statements that she would ban fracking.

But there is another approach out there to the subject of energy realism, which has been taken up by many Republican candidates and energy think tanks. That approach goes by the name “all of the above.” The idea is that the government’s policy should be to allow and/or support all forms of energy development. After all, won’t allowing or supporting all forms of energy maximize consumer choice? And, to the extent that some renewables get into the mix, we could also “reduce emissions,” at least by a little. It’s a win, win!

Actually, not. In practice, “all of the above” is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don’t work and the drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we’re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.

A leading example of a think tank pushing the “all of the above” agenda is Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, or CRES. CRES characterizes itself as “a right-of center non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that engages policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation’s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America’s competitive edge.” CRES’s own website doesn’t provide many details about who might be behind it. Wikipedia provides at least a little useful information, including that it was founded by “Republican grassroots organizer James Dozier” in 2013, and that it received a $1 million grant in 2018 from the MacArthur Foundation. The MacArthur Foundation doesn’t sound very “right-of-center.”

At the CRES Annual Report, we learn about their “Vision” and their “Mission.” Here’s the Vision:

Our goal is to lower global emissions through U.S. policymaking to maintain a clean environment and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

And the Mission:

CRES engages Republican policymakers and the public about responsible, conservative solutions to address our nation’s energy, economic, and environmental security while increasing America’s competitive edge.

Perhaps you are starting to see why these guys might be more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

The President of CRES is Heather Reams. On October 30 Reams published a piece at RealClearEnergy with the headline “Keep Conservative Climate Champions in Congress 2024.” The gist of the piece is to advocate for the “all of the above” energy policy, and to support Republican Congresspeople who adopt that messaging. Excerpt:

Electing members of Congress who champion an all-of-the-above energy approach to reducing emission should be a no-brainer. That’s why CRES endorseda slate of 40 House and Senate Republican candidates ahead of the November election.  These proven leaders have consistently shown a commitment to addressing climate change through American innovation, clean energy advancement and thoughtful policy discussions.  

So what, in Reams’s conception, does “all of the above” encompass? In this piece, she first mentions some members who have advocated for “nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower.” So far so good. But it quickly goes downhill from there. Next up is advocacy for “green energy tax credits.”

And over at the CRES website, it goes from bad to worse:

• “CRES Applauds Funding Awards for Carbon Capture”
• “CRES supports efforts to reduce industrial emissions,” including by federal subsidies to “decarbonize chemicals,” “decarbonize steel,” “decarbonize food and beverage products,” “decarbonize paper and forest products,” and so on and on.
• “CRES endorsed the [package of four bills to support the adoption of hydrogen technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions] because hydrogen technologies are critical to U.S. efforts to lower global emissions, promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and leverage domestic manufacturing to create American jobs.”
• “CRES commends Congress for working together to pass record federal energy research and development funding.”

And those are just a sample. They completely buy into the idea that the source of the people’s wealth is the distribution of federal handouts and subsidies, and that with enough federal funding we can have an energy system consisting of whatever the powers in Washington want it to be.

It’s a little late for this election cycle, but I would highly suggest that it is time to ditch this nonsense. Renewables (and carbon capture, and hydrogen) either don’t work or are hugely too expensive or dangerous or all of those things. 

That’s the winning message.