Writing in Foreign Policy magazine for November/December 2007, Veejay Vaitheeswaran offers a wide-angle view of the future of oil and debunks seven widely-accepted ideas about oil’s vise grip on creative policymaking.  One is the idea that government can, with the help of a "visionary leader," quickly move a country away from oil dependence. 

Government efforts, Vaitheeswaran writes, can’t keep pace with the mobility of the market and "when bureaucrats start picking pet technologies, whether they are fuel cells, clean coal, or corn-based ethanol, the real trouble begins."  There may be clouds on the horizon for corn-based ethanol, reported on here by Joel Achenbach for the Washington Post, but the U.S. government has already made a choice, given the present 51-cent per gallon subsidy ethanol enjoys.  This subsidy may run up against larger problems, such as the reality that there is not enough open land left to grow the corn needed to make ethanol viable. 

So what is government’s role in promoting alternative fuels?  FP’s Vaitheeswaran says "modern history is littered with failed government schemes to reduce dependence on fossil fuels."  Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere — in government support for inventors and entrepreneurs who can, with financial help, accelerate the introduction of technologies that can begin reducing our dependence on oil.  The nation’s infrastructure, built around fossil fuels, isn’t going anywhere for a long time.  So the sooner we ramp up the R&D effort, the better.  Any visionary leaders out there ready to take that small step?

Ned Hodgman

Comment RSS - Trackback URI