Bonus gem

Ken Cohen, master of ExxonMobil Perspectives blog, made a great point a few days ago about energy policy, on the occasion of US mid-term elections:

"Don’t burden taxpayers with unnecessary energy business risks" 

His description of what this means, though, is where the gem obviously comes in. Here it is:

"Continuing long-term subsidies for alternative energy supplies that are not sustainable in the marketplace is a misuse of valuable taxpayer funds. We’ve seen this happen with the continued government support of corn ethanol, in addition to other renewable energy sources. By intervening in the nation’s energy markets and picking “winners and losers,” I think we’re overlooking more immediate solutions to our economic and environmental challenges."

Protesting against long-term subsidies that can distort the energy market is funny enough coming from the oil industry which receives billions of dollars in US subsidies annually. But for the sake of logic--and my sanity--in general, let's contrast his statement with an earlier point he makes in the same blog post:

"We also must support the development of alternative energy sources when and where they hold economic potential."

The economic potential of renewables obviously hinges on their ability to scale and become competitive with...fossil fuels. Precisely with the help of long-term subsidies. I'd be interested to hear how Ken Cohen thinks we're going to ever scale up renewables without some kind of reliable, consistent government support.