I hope my readers aren't growing tired of hearing about it, but the Heritage Foundation recently released a Backgrounder report calling for a near dismantling of energy innovation programs at the Department of Energy, going as far as to suggest that "elimination of the entire department" might be called for. I took issue with this report right out of the gates. Subsequently, three organizations I proudly associate myself with (Breakthrough, ITIF, and AEL) released a counterpoint memo (PDF), systematically deconstructing Heritage's error-prone arguments. A new rebuttal report that I co-authored was released yesterday and is available at ITIF. In it, we challenge the fundamental misconceptions and false assumptions adopted by the Heritage Foundation in their call for such dramatic cuts to DOE. We identify three chief misconceptions that lead Heritage to propose such dangerous and irrational cuts. - The proposal fails to meaningfully reduce the budget deficit now or in the future.
- Heritage fails to understand where technological innovations come from.
- The proposal ignores the immediacy and enormity of US energy challenges.
The DOE programs that Heritage recommends pruning or outright eliminating are key sectors for energy technology innovation, which will be key for American energy security, economic competitiveness, and fiscal health. The errors and misconceptions riddling the Heritage report bespeak the failure of neoliberal ideology to address the challenges presented by energy infrastructure and decarbonization. Americans for Energy Leadership and the Breakthrough Institute each have excellent coverage of the new report. - Download the report, "All About the Fundamentals: Three Misconceptions of the Heritage Foundation's Deficit/Energy Proposal" here (PDF)
Last week, I reported briefly on a policy report released recently by the Heritage Foundation calling for what I believe to be drastic and dangerous cuts to the Department of Energy. Today, my colleagues and I produced an expanded and thorough response to Heritage (PDF), combating their claims that private enterprise can most effectively operate in the energy sector without much or any government support.We argue that the Heritage report contains numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies, such as:- Heritage cites several ventures as evidence of independent private sector efforts to develop next generation energy technologies that in fact each received public support.
- The report wrongly suggests that DOE budget expenditures are prime targets for substantial deficit reduction.
- The report uses out-of-context figures to exaggerate the relative magnitude of DOE’s budget.
- The report is inconsistent in its support and understanding of the DOE’s role in enhancing energy security.
- The report assumes a zero-sum competition between government and private investors rather than acknowledging the long and successful history of public-private partnerships.
- Selective and prejudicial history is applied to suggest that government research has little to no commercial aim or value.
- The report relies on the unfounded assumption that the private sector is, and should be, largely responsible for energy research, commerce, and infrastructure.
- Heritage acknowledges the role of government in advancing a national interest not met by the private sector, yet claims that the government is not equipped to do so.
- Heritage is inconsistent in applying their support or opposition to federal programs supporting clean energy innovation.
- Heritage wrongly suggests that the private sector invests sufficiently in energy innovation.
The rebuttal has been published by ITIF, the Breakthrough Institute, and Americans for Energy Leadership. Check it out.
