Progressives Demand Energy Effeciency NOW! : Pay More Get Less

There is no end to the insanity that is the federal government and the elites that see themselves as the smartest people in the room. Do they have real time experience with the what they are regulating, of courser not, having experience is not the problem, knowing what's best for everyone comes from what feels good, and seems like the right thing to do to solve a problem.

Witness the demise of the coal industry as it is thought to be a big polluter, global warming CO2 emitter, but the fact that it has meet all of the EPA's regulations that came out just two years ago doesn't cut it. Now the EPA says they have more new rules for the coal producers that will be cost prohibitive and the EPA knows it.

 And the fact that coal produces more the 40% of all our electricity doesn't factor into the progressive socialists agenda to stop all coal production. Worse, it not just stop coal production for electrical energy in the next 10 years, the EPA and the Obama administration what it stopped now.

That more then 6000 have lost their jobs already, and that we are exporting more coal then ever before to nations that are building coal plants by the thousands doesn't register with the progressive Democrats. I wonder how much CO2 China will dump into the atmosphere for the next 10 years with more then 1000 new coal fired plants?

Does it matter at all to the progressives, no it doesn't, it's all about the agenda of control. Little wonder then the progressives are "fundamentally" changing our country and a majority of the voters are willing to help them do it. Who are these people? Why are these voters willingly accepting dependence as a way of life?

Government Efficiency Mandates Harm Consumers
March 21, 2013
Source: David Kreutzer, "Dreamliners and the Hidden Cost of Efficiency," Washington Times, March 13, 2013.

The initial rollout of Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner fleet has been halted following a series of fires within the plane's battery system. The problem with the new lithium-ion batteries, designed to reduce weight and increase efficiency, will likely require a substantial investment from Boeing to iron out the problems. New technologies are prone to unforeseen costs and should not be mandated in the name of efficiency, says the Washington Times.

• The Obama administration has promised that there will be new energy-efficient mandates during the second term.
• Bipartisan support for the new efficiency mandates are likely from legislators who listen to witness after witness describe cost benefits to consumers and manufacturers.
• All of these calculations on the savings from complex new efficiency technologies fail to account for the high costs of development and likelihood of failure like Boeing has experienced.

An example of a poorly thought out efficiency mandate is the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for automobiles, which pushes auto manufacturers to increase the gas mileage. In order for manufacturers to accomplish this goal, they must make cars smaller, lighter, more expensive and less safe -- a tradeoff that few consumers are willing to make.

• In general, businesses and consumers appreciate efficiency because it lowers cost in the long run.
• For Boeing, it may have simply made the wrong choice in choosing which battery to equip the new 787s with.
• In the free market, Boeing's competitors should be unrestricted in offering their alternative to Boeing's offering.

However, bureaucratic decisions at the federal level are the wrong approach to improving efficiency in the private the market.

• The Environmental Protection Agency has expressed that it intends to regulate every aspect of energy use to reduce carbon emissions.
• If the government mandates certain technologies or efficiency standards, manufacturers may force consumers to make sacrifices in safety to meet these efficiency goals.