A North Carolina-based letter writer in the latest print version of U.S. News & World Report raises some concerns about an opinion column from the American Enterprise Institute?s Ken Green. (You might remember his 2007 presentation to the John Locke Foundation?s Shaftesbury Society.)
If I remember correctly, Green?s U.S. News article had noted the drawbacks in government mandating use of renewable energy sources. The response from John Powell of New Bern takes Green to task:
Kenneth Green conveniently forgot that any investment in electricity generated from renewable energy is rewarded by a continuing stream of income from free wind and solar energy. In contrast, coal- and oil-fired plants will cost a fortune in fuel over their entire lifetime while dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Green also ignores the huge costs (trillions) incurred in global climate damage by coal and oil and by the unnecessary wars we are fighting to secure a supply of foreign oil.
If any North Carolinian is in dire need of the John Locke Foundation?s services, Mr. Powell might be that person. If one could draw a ?continuing stream of income? from something that?s acquired freely, wouldn?t we all leap at the opportunity? Some basic economics might help Mr. Powell learn there?s no such thing as a free lunch.
He might also learn some of the basic elements of cost-benefit analysis. It?s not enough to say that power plants will ?cost a fortune? and generate ?huge costs? for the climate. Cost-benefit analysis replaces adjectives with numbers to help policymakers, voters, and taxpayers decide whether a policy proposal makes economic sense.
As for the assertion about ?global climate damage,? we?ve done some work that might help him there, too.
