There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be.
Not a student of history I see.
Oil was not regulated very much or very well till the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and civil ordinances concerning gas stations came about in the early 1900's and late 1800's. Coal was also not very regulated till TR busted the coal miner's union around 1903 to save the lives of millions of people from freezing to death that winter. Before that? Whale Oil was very free market. Before that, Wood. Who the hell regulated wood? Lumber companies and the timber industry.
No free market and never was?
Monkey bollocks.
Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer.
They can and do. Just too many think they're getting screwed on the price by going to Solar or Wind. Or their neighbors get pissed that they're making a neighborhood eyesore. Ever study on how to get off the grid? There you go. Choose away. Nobody says you MUST be hooked up to a grid, save city ordinances... unless you live in some pseudo fascist state. I dunno. Does Finland force you to use a particular type of energy?
I have never understood the obsession the US far right have with the mythical 'free market'
Do not confuse free market with lassaiez faire capitalism. All successful economies have a certain level of government involvement. The more government though, the more it's like driving a car while riding the brakes. The more government the harder the brake is being pushed. Sooner or later, one or the other will be ruined.
Government, should be involved ONLY with ensuring 'fair play' in as much that labor is not exploited, truth in advertising and delivering on promised results, fair competition to prevent monopolization, unfair foreign economic warfare is blocked and accurate weights and measures. After that, for the most part government should stay the **** out of it.
especially as the US right also champions protectionism and subsidies when it suits them, for instance with cotton farming.
Protectionism? Is this a bad thing against other countries using economic warfare against their opposition? SHit, look at China and how it's come to dominate. Currency manipulation, state funded industry, child labor, slave labor, environmental disasters, non-existant labor protection and of course low societal costs all create an environment wherein they can siphon off labor and break another nation's industry if they are not protected from what is essentially an illegal and unfair advantage in another nation. Every nation in the world does protectionism. SO ******* what?
The government (be it federal or state) even if usually via some SOE's is the customer which buys the electricity and supervises its supply to end users. So it is up to the government to decide which form of energy they will invest in and purchase.
Thanks for providing proof that publically owned utilities must be privatized. They form artifical monopolies that then are protected from market forces driving the prices down, offering variety and locking people in to a higher price structure than should be available if free market forces were at play. Again, government picking winners and losers and deciding for people what is best is a bad thing.
That isn't leftist, it isn't social engineering and it certainly isn't interference
Bullshit. It is exactly that for the reasons I posted above. It's just as evil as smart growth. Over here, in some states it's illegal to have only one cable company in a geographic area. Those areas MUST provide 2-3 choices in an area for competition. Those areas have the lowest cable prices possible. If they are found to be colluding on prices, that's called a trust and is punishable by law. Areas with geographical monopolies preventing competition have the worst service and highest prices with poorest quality because the consumer cannot choose to go elsewhere. This is economics 101, and yes, I've taken that course.
It's a given, an inate aspect of enery production as much as it is with the provision of water, roads or sewerage treatment.
You can privatize every one of these as well. The most difficult would be roads because there IS a constitutional mandate for it to be done by the government. Sewage? Easily privatized just like garbage was/is in the US. Most landfills and recycling centers here are privately owned. In Minneapolis/St. Paul there are like 14 garbage companies and even more recycling companies. Now that would drop if they got rid of government subsidies, but there would still be many to choose from if government did not mandate any one particular hauler. Your argument does not pass the objective reality test of what currently is happening.
As is so often the case, this need to reduce every debate to left/right is a shackle; it's a set of blinkers that allows only two possible outcomes or viewpoints.
How do you balance mutually exclusive worldviews like Government control versus individual freedom?
The left is almost always for government control, the right is almost always for individual freedom. hmmmmm.... I wonder why?
Personally, I couldn't give a shit if tidal power is left wing or right wing - if it makes sense, let's use it. If not, let's dump it.
The only point in which I agree with you this post. BUT, we need an accurate and truthful discussion on the cost/benefits between it and other forms of energy creation SANS subsidization for either party. That's how you know what's better once you compare the two.
