Machine Madness

This column by Sam Kazman in the Wall Street Journal discusses the impact of government regulations that mandate energy and water efficiency standards for washing machines. Due to these regulations, top loading washing machines clean clothes much less effectively than previously. Front loading washing machines generally provide superior cleaning, at a significant cost increase.

This raises the question: if energy and water efficiency were such desirable attributes of washing machines even if cleaning quality is reduced, than consumers could choose such models. And other consumers, who don't want to trade off efficiency for cleaning quality, could choose other models. Such is how matters operate in a free society.

The very fact that the government decided to promulgate such standards, rather than leave the choice to each of us individually, is because it feared many would prefer cleaning quality to energy/water efficiency. And because many people wouldn't make the "correct"choice, the government had to make the decision for us.

Just one more example of our nanny state at work, limiting our freedom.

The New Meaning of Going Green

The prospect of legislation to address "global warming" gives new meaning to "going green", as various businesses hope to cash in on cap-and-trade. Among the biggest beneficiaries would be operators of nuclear power plants, since their facilities don't produce carbon dioxide and would receive carbon credits that would be sold to others who produce carbon dioxide - providing a huge windfall for some businesses at the expense of others and the economy as a whole.

You Can't Make This Up

In its attempt to get people to buy electric cars, the Obama administration provides a federal tax credit of up to $5,000 to subsidize their purchase.

Golf carts, which are electric-powered, are covered by this program. And when combined with subsidies provided by state government, up to 100% of the golf cart's price can be free.

While there may be no free lunch, with the advent of the Obama administration, there are free golf carts.

Energy Consumption is Good for You

The Wall Street Journal recently published data from the World Resource Institute on per capita energy consumption by country. And guess what? The United States was not on top of the list.

Instead, we were tenth on the list. The top 10 is dominated by smaller countries, with a number in the Middle East and the Caribbean. But Canada was ahead of us. Doesn't that left-leaning nation realize what an outrage their lifestyle is?

Not only is there nothing wrong with consuming a great deal of energy, but in fact it is wonderful to do so. Whether it is for climate control, the use in industrial and commercial activity, transportation, powering modern medicine, or the enjoyment of electronic devices, our lives are immeasurably better because of energy usage.

More broadly, harnessing energy for human purposes has done more to improve the material conditions of our lives than any other activity.

Barack Obama apparently thinks so too, although his public comments on the subject toe the environmental line. He keeps the Oval Office at very high temperatures, so high that David Axelrod said, "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

If only his policies and rhetoric matched his deeds.

Promises Made, Promises Broken*

The Obama administration, even before it officially takes office, continues to break from the rhetoric of the campaign. Steven Chu, Obama's nominee to run the Energy Department, said during his confirmation hearing that coal was a "great natural resource". Two years ago, he said expanding coal-fired power plants was his "worst nightmare". The nominee to head the EPS, Lisa Jackson, called coal a "vital resource".

While these current characterizations of the importance of coal to generating electricity for our country are correct, the change of heart suggest the nominees have calibrated their tune to ensure the Senate approves their appointments.

Obama and his administration can't have it both ways. Is coal a menace to our world because of global warming? Or is a great natural resource?

The fact that such flip-flops generate so little press indicates that Democratic politicians can get away with political posturing and games playing: appeal to the left wing base of the party to generate donations and votes during campaigns, then tilt to the center during appeals to the country as a whole.

The unwillingness of the press or the public to demand greater consistency from our public officials has added to our poisonous political culture, by exaggerating differences between the parties when either such differences aren't as great as they seem or by sweeping them under the rug at politically opportune times.

* An ongoing series that looks at how Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric matches with the reality of his administration's actions and policies.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

Barack Obama continues to retreat from various campaign pledges. Recently, one of his transition spokesman said that with oil prices below $50 a barrel, a windfall profits tax on oil company earnings (an additional tax on top of the corporate income tax) is a dead issue.

Well, if you really believe in such a tax, wouldn't it be good to have it in place in case oil prices rise in the future?

Or does Obama prefer to avoid a fight when there is no loot to be had in the near-term?

Or was it just campaign rhetoric to help get elected?