The world needs to achieve energy independence in stages, and not in isolation from other countries. Every nation, and the world, needs to reduce its dependence on energy. U.S. should lead, totally rethinking and redesigning energy production and consumption by businesses and consumers. Government should encourage reduced energy dependence by partnering with private industry to encourage energy-efficient lifestyles like hybrid vehicles, that stretch out petroleum use with alternative fuels. Cap-and-trade inefficiently relies on manipulation of market forces. We can save energy through efficiency or design, but not through programs like ethanol that consumed more energy than it saved.
MCCOLLUM POSITION
Where I disagree is that leading the world in redesign of energy production and consumption "requires a coordinated public-private partnership to expand research and development, tax incentives and new capital, and establishing a comprehensive energy strategy that keeps America’s economy growing and competitive." We have enough energy right now, we need to distribute it more efficiently, and for that we need the private sector to compete. We don't need the government to lead or decide or even be a partner. Government role should be to keep a favorable regulatory environment for industry, promote science and technology as the Constitution directs, and promote the adoption of efficient energy lifestyles of individuals and organizations. We don't need a comprehensive energy strategy and we should not try to dictate research. We should be realistic and reasonable in environmental regulation and abandon cap-and-trade. Let the markets dictate winners and losers in well-designed energy.
COLLETT POSITION
Disagree with Collett on a "a comprehensive energy policy that includes increased drilling for domestic oil, as well as clean-burning coal, nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal power." Some energy technologies are going to win in serving the U.S. market and some are going to lose. We need to exploit our energy resources, not conform to some list of energy technologies. We need energy now, not in the future. Some new energy technologies may be brought on-line in the future, but it should be based on private enterprise and market choice. We should not focus research on the big energy companies so they decide when to bring new technologies on-line, and should be open to international companies taking the lead if there is a real market opportunity, and hope new American enterprises will spring up to join.
Just as we learned with BP, states and the U.S. must take care to develop energy resources in a sophisticated and safe way, but with good judgment, so I disagree that "Congress must open up domestic supplies of energy to exploration." It is not "the only way to keep consumer costs reasonable and lead our nation to energy independence." If nuclear energy is a viable resource for the future, we should allow it in a sophisticated and safe way, but again allow market conditions and private enterprise to determine when and where. If we totally adopt nuclear power to meet new energy demand, we might rule out alternative technologies. We need to move away from large metropolitan areas driving economic growth, so we need to look to the distribution of energy, not just maximizing marginal cost through large energy projects. It takes energy to make energy and to distribute it, so I would not predetermine which energy companies will be winners and losers.
