An article published in New York Magazine calls Rubio's energy ideas "terrifyingly stupid." To prove this point, the author outlines five weaknesses in Rubio's energy positions in order to prove that Rubio is a dangerous man (and he is... if you're a democrat, that is.)
1) "Rubio’s speech attempts to weave together two themes. The first is that the Obama administration’s environmental regulations are strangling the energy industry. The second is that the energy industry is developing brilliant new innovations that are creating new jobs and affordable energy for the economy. At no point does Rubio grapple with, or even acknowledge, the tension between these two strands of thought."
Here is the difference: oil and gas actually work. Solar and wind are intermittent power sources, meaning they don't always provide power. When they are unable to do so--because there is no wind or it is night time--you need other, more conventional, sources to fill in the gaps. So nuclear, coal, or natural gas. Simply put, solar and wind are inherently unable to provide for our energy needs. Natural gas and nuclear can, and they both would drastically cut emissions in this country while simultaneously growing the economy.
1) "Rubio’s speech attempts to weave together two themes. The first is that the Obama administration’s environmental regulations are strangling the energy industry. The second is that the energy industry is developing brilliant new innovations that are creating new jobs and affordable energy for the economy. At no point does Rubio grapple with, or even acknowledge, the tension between these two strands of thought."
These two ideas are not contradictory. Now it is true Obama has drastically increased the number of regulations strangling the energy industry. Obama's regulations cost $80 billion annually. So the author makes a good point: then why is the energy industry booming?
It is booming in spite of these regulations. Indeed, growth would likely have been higher had Obama not increased the amount of red tape. Indeed, the oil boom was created first in 2005 when breakthrough energy technologies were created and made fracking more efficient. Over time, as these technologies became more widespread, productivity increased. These discoveries came about before Obama piled on the bureaucracy (of course, regulations existed in 2005, but at a much lower level).
It should also be noted that Rubio doesn't oppose all regulations--only new Federal ones. In fact, states already regulate fracking. There is no point in creating redundant regulations at the Federal level. Proper regulations can benefit growth--Rubio opposes the inefficient ones.
So...
The views are not contradictory because Obama's regulations are bad... and...
The industry grew in spite of regulations, and it boomed before Obama's new rules, and...
States already regulate fracking, so it makes no sense to have more regulations on a Federal level that would just complicate things.
2) "Rubio asserts that Hillary Clinton opposes this technology... This is false."
Clinton wants to ban fracking on public lands. And while she takes a moderate stance on fracking overall, she supports regulating it significantly. So, yes, she is pretty much against it.
3) "The central policy proposal in Rubio’s speech is to “immediately stop the Clean Power Plan.” Rubio has cast doubt on the validity of climate science."
(1) Of course we should stop it. There are better ways to combat climate change. First, institute a pigou tax. This raises the gas tax significantly BUT cuts payroll taxes, so the net-effect fewer taxes because people simply buy less gas, but they get to keep more of their overall paycheck. Economist Greg Mankiw, Bush's adviser and former head of the Harvard economics department, is a proponent of pigou taxes. The alternative is Obama's Clean Power Plan... that will cost the economy $479 billion, cause energy bills to increase by double digits, and cause 19 million Hispanics to lose their jobs. Which sounds better? Opposing the Clean Power Plan is good economics. And there are alternatives should Rubio decide to take action.
It should also be noted that Rubio doesn't oppose all regulations--only new Federal ones. In fact, states already regulate fracking. There is no point in creating redundant regulations at the Federal level. Proper regulations can benefit growth--Rubio opposes the inefficient ones.
So...
The views are not contradictory because Obama's regulations are bad... and...
The industry grew in spite of regulations, and it boomed before Obama's new rules, and...
States already regulate fracking, so it makes no sense to have more regulations on a Federal level that would just complicate things.
2) "Rubio asserts that Hillary Clinton opposes this technology... This is false."
Clinton wants to ban fracking on public lands. And while she takes a moderate stance on fracking overall, she supports regulating it significantly. So, yes, she is pretty much against it.
3) "The central policy proposal in Rubio’s speech is to “immediately stop the Clean Power Plan.” Rubio has cast doubt on the validity of climate science."
(1) Of course we should stop it. There are better ways to combat climate change. First, institute a pigou tax. This raises the gas tax significantly BUT cuts payroll taxes, so the net-effect fewer taxes because people simply buy less gas, but they get to keep more of their overall paycheck. Economist Greg Mankiw, Bush's adviser and former head of the Harvard economics department, is a proponent of pigou taxes. The alternative is Obama's Clean Power Plan... that will cost the economy $479 billion, cause energy bills to increase by double digits, and cause 19 million Hispanics to lose their jobs. Which sounds better? Opposing the Clean Power Plan is good economics. And there are alternatives should Rubio decide to take action.
(2) I have to disagree with Rubio on denying climate science. It is 100% true. Now, even if the US ended all CO2 emissions we wouldn't do that much, so being a climate skeptic isn't that dangerous.
(3) Rubio supports nuclear power, essentially a CO2-free energy source. Oh, and evil fracking has caused America's emissions to fall to the lowest point in 20 years. So, yep, Rubio is so evil, reducing greenhouse gasses while growing the economy.
So no, this doesn't make him crazy eithe.
4) "He praises fossil fuels on the grounds that we’re sitting on all this energy, so we might as well use it. ... [T]urn Rubio’s logic completely around: All that solar and wind energy does the people no good if we don’t harness it."
5) "On energy, and many other issues, Rubio’s policy vision — like that of his fellow Republicans — is to overturn Obama-era reforms and restore Bush-era policy priorities."
The author literally gives no proof for this. It is just an assertion. But Rubio is not just George Bush. Rubio's tax plan is an entire redo of the tax system, Bush just cut tax rates.
Rubio's plan can be summarized like this, "Rubio would ensure that we are deploying and developing the resources we already have, by allowing states and tribes to develop energy resources within their borders; approving the Keystone XL pipeline; lifting the ban on crude oil exports and expedite the approval of natural gas exports; streamlining offshore drilling regulations; and other measures."
-- Bush never ended the ban on oil exports.
-- Bush didn't have the opportunity to allow the Keystone XL pipeline. It didn't exist yet.
-- Bush actually passed many energy regulations, whereas Rubio gives that role to the states.
Nice try, NY Mag, but Rubio isn't Bush lite.
________
Rubio is not "crazy." His energy policies are what America needs to do in order to bring us a new American century.
