Liveblog of Pickens on Hannity Show II

4:08 PM: Sean announces T. Boone to be on in the next hour. Supposedly to talk oil prices and how oil is jeopardizing our national and economic security. $700 billion has to come up, even if the oil price isn’t anywhere NEAR what is needed for $700 billion.

6:20 PM: AARGH! Stupid WIS radio! I just realized that I’ve been listening to a looped version of the first hour! So that means no liveblog. But I’ll try to see if I can find a clip of the broadcast and analyze that. But because Hannity’s website sucks, I doubt I’ll be able to find this…

T. Boone to Appear on Hannity TODAY

I only got wind of this at the top of Hannity’s show, but T. Boone Pickens is to appear on the Sean Hannity Show. You can listen to your local station or go to the local Columbia webcast here:

http://www.wisradio.com/article.asp?id=507137

I will be liveblogging this, just like I did last time. We’ll see if anything changes.

Liveblog of T. Boone Pickens interview with Sean Hannity

I heard on the way home that Sean Hannity was interview T. Boone Pickens on the Pickens Plan. Since I was in the car, I couldn’t post directly to the internet, so I had to write it down and copy it now. As Pickens is a Republican supporter (he sponsored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), I can now look in hindsight that Hannity would throw softballs at Pickens. But I was expecting at least some questions that were more critical than were asked.

You can read the liveblog after the cut…

Dumbest Bill Ever

I heard this on the Sean Hannity Show this afternoon and I couldn’t believe my ears, so I had to look it up myself. What I found was quite possibly the dumbest piece of legislation ever created.

The American Energy Act

It supposed to do a little of everything in order to appeal to everyone. And all this is going to do is increase the size of government at the expense of taxpayers. Going through the list of goodies for everyone includes:

• Allowing the drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (no later than… 2010)
• Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
• Extending the current tax credits for alternative energy (which T. Boone was arguing for in Congress a few days ago)
• Extending the tax credits for energy efficient appliances
• The creation of a new “home energy audit” tax credit
• Creating a new “American Renewable and Alternative Trust Fund” slush fund/piggy bank to be funded out of the proceeds from the off-shore and ANWR lease sales
• The creation of the Prizes that John McCain stumped for on the campaign trail.

Basically, this is an attempt by the Republicans to graft off-shore drilling onto proposals that would pass without a problem. It’s a me-too bill. The new parts are the Trust Fund (which Congress has shown that it cannot handle, see the Highway and Social Security Trust Funds), and the prizes. The prizes have been touted by economists, such as George Mason professor Tyler Cowen. From that post:

One drawback of prizes is that they tend to be awarded in the interests of the prizegiver, and not necessarily to stimulate maximum scientific output… Still, prizes make the most sense when you cannot predict where new innovation is coming from, and thus you do not know who should get the grants. As our world becomes more complex, less hierarchical, and more decentralized, I predict a greater reliance on prizes to stimulate science.

I agree entirely with this, and is an example of why government should not give out prizes. Government knows exactly where the research will come from and that this will not necessarily stimulate scientific output, but manage it to the best of a government bureaucrat. The fact that for at least one of the prizes, the conditions for winning are codified is good, but that can be changed down the road as seen fit, especially if someone offers up a good enough campaign contribution (A couple million for $500 million is a pretty good investment).

Simple answers to silly questions

Question: How does the United States attain energy independence?

Answer: Ban energy imports.

Oh, you don’t like that answer? Well, that’s the only way we’ll get there.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by energy independence. First there’s the neo-mercantilist/conservative view, which is independent from foreign energy. Because the foreigners have lower labor and production costs, any reduction in cost as a result of moving to a different energy plan will drive out domestic suppliers first. Look to the 1980’s and remember all the wildcatters in Texas capping the wells. That’s what will happen when prices go down when demand decreases while supply increases (e.g. late 70’s to the early 90’s). So the only way to not let those dirty, anti-American foreigners get our money is to not buy their goods. So you have to ban energy imports.

Or you’re a liberal/environmentalist, who believes energy independence is being independent from any energy. Here, there’s a couple of ways of doing it. The most harmful is to tell people to not use energy. It’s anti-freedom and will be costly to enforce (you try being the one to tell people they can’t use their AC in the South during the summer). The second-best option is to make people want to use less energy. Right now, there’s the going green movement, which is basically a way of shaming people into using less energy. It’s working, but it can only go as far as people are willing to believe the guilt. The more powerful motivator is economics, more specifically prices. Using gas prices as an example, during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, people were alot more willing to carpool and use less gas when gas was at $4.50 a gallon (remember this is 2005). More to the point, it was a sudden increase that forced people to change. Drivers can adapt their habits when the price doubles over a span of many years (prices went from $1 to $2 between 1996 and 2005), but are in much more of a shock when the price increases much faster ($2 to $4 between 2005 and now). When you’re in shock, you’re more willing to make more drastic changes. If you’re in favor of decreasing the use of gasoline, then faster increases are preferable to slower ones (Yes, I’m talking to you, Sen. Obama).

So no matter if you’re Sean Hannity or Nancy Pelosi, there’s one fast and easy solution to energy independence. Make the US an island. That is, if you’re really interested in the idea and not using it as a political point. Somehow, I think that may just very well be the case with “energy independence”.