Ed. Note: This MasterResource post from February 2011 is reprinted for its relevance with the 50th anniversary of the Arab Embargo this month. If authorities impose price and allocation controls today as they did in the 1970s, or during the world wars, expect a return of the gasoline lines. [Bradley has written three pieces on the anniversary of the Arab Embargo at EconLib (here and here), AIER (here), and IER (here).]

For decades I have enjoyed the opinion-page editorials of the Wall Street Journal, both the unsigned editorials and the guest opinions. During the 1970s energy crisis, and today amid climate alarmism and the futile crusade to regulate carbon dioxide, the Journal has been a bastion of sound economic thought.

I was recently reminded of perhaps my favorite WSJ energy editorial of all, “Buffer of Civility,” published during the dark days of energy rioting in summer 1979 (yes, the U.S.…

“Hydrogen from electrolysis, called green hydrogen, typically costs more than $5 per kilogram, or more than five times the price when produced from natural gas.”

“The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act offers an astounding subsidy of $3 to produce a kilogram of green hydrogen, three times the market price. Imagine a subsidy of $150,000 to purchase a $50,000 electric car or a subsidy of $12 to produce a $4 gallon of gasoline. There appears to be no end to the cash governments will pay to try to establish a hydrogen economy.”

World leaders tout “green hydrogen” as an essential fuel in the renewable energy transition. Today, heavy industries use huge amounts of coal and natural gas to produce products needed by society. Governments propose to replace hydrocarbon fuels with hydrogen fuel, using hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies.…

“What we now have instead are vast centralised wind and solar power stations distributed outside of population centres, and quite distant to the eventual market for the third-rate power that is being produced. This is the exact opposite of the original proposals for distributed power located within population centres.

The public is up in arms against the great ruse “energy transformation,” predicted on climate alarmism and at odds with energy density (pushing dilute, intermittent inferiors). Here in the U.S., Robert Bryce’s databank of delayed/cancelled wind or solar projects is above 580 projects. I have personally argued that even if such a project is on private land, the taxpayer enablement gives standing to the locals who decry the project for other reasons (noise, lower property values, drainage, etc.). The fact that land and neighbors were there first means no homestead right to the rent-seeker.…

“So will Michael Giberson and Lynne Kiesling ever consider the opportunity cost of their politicized electricity ‘market’? Will they consider a real free market that was at the center of the classical liberal debate before mandatory open access (etc.) came along? How much failure–and how far on the ‘road to serfdom’ does U.S. energy policy have to go before mid-course corrections?”

Lynne Kiesling and her close associate Michael Giberson have done great damage to the simple conception of a free-market electricity market and related public policy. By the use of hidden assumptions, cloudy definitions, and disengagement (all to “raise rival’s cost”), they have misled many free-market scholars in regard to a fundamental industry.

I am documenting this as much as I can for the historical record. Kiesling counters that I am ignorant of the technical subject matter and exhibit “aggressiveness” in my quest for clarification and openness.…