Energy Wars: Simply a RedState/BlueState Thing?

I’m in Houston, Texas, on business. Houston is the undisputed nexus of America’s energy industry. For now.

Is Prime Directive #1, the New Green Economy, all about permanently blunting the political power of the Red States?

As dominant as the Blue States are in nearly all sectors America’s economy, in energy they depend mightily upon the Red States. Of the top 10 oil producing states, only California (#3) is reliably Blue. Texas dominates natural gas, as Wyoming does in coal.

But we’ve seen the Great Ethanol Scam, in which taxpayer dollars have largely funded the entry of Minnesota-based Archer-Daniels-Midland into the motor fuel business, for reasons that have no basis in efficiency, economy, or the environment.

And we are seeing a move by Connecticut-based General Electric Corporation to move into the energy arena in a big way, again with the help of federal dollars.

Shifts in tax policy that will discourage domestic exploration and development mean the multinationals are more likely to take their search overseas, while independent domestic producers will have a harder time accumulating wealth.

Trade in carbon credits will shift the focus to the commodities exchanges in New York and Chicago, and to Washington, DC, where benevolent bureaucrats will reward cooperative utilities and other carbon generators with valuable credits.

All this accrues to the relative political and economic advantage of the Blue States vs the Red States.

In a world where many questions are answered if you “follow the money”, might this explain much of the unending hysteria of the Green Agenda?