Self-Serve, Please

Tax dollars shouldn't be used to hype alternatives to fossil fuels.

MOVING THE United States to a clean energy future is a priority for the Obama administration. There's nothing wrong with that. But should it really be paying trade organizations to tout the benefits of their pet energy sources?

Through its Clean Cities program, the Energy Department will use $300 million in economic stimulus money for "petroleum reduction projects." According to the agency, the funded programs will "speed the transformation of the nation's vehicle fleet" by putting 9,000 alternative fuel vehicles on the road and creating 542 refueling stations for them.

And then there are the "education projects." The Alternative Fuel Trade Alliance won a competitive bid for a $1.6 million contract to hold events and workshops "to increase knowledge about alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies." The organization is made up of the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Biodiesel Foundation, the Clean Vehicle Education Foundation and the Propane Education and Research Council. Even though some of these groups lobby the government for subsidies, the Energy Department award is for marketing, not lobbying. Still, enhancing the propaganda efforts of alternative energy "winners" strikes us as a strange use of taxpayer money.

Is there a similar effort in the offing to promote nuclear power as an alternative to coal to help meet the nation's power demands? After all, nuclear energy emits almost zero carbon emissions. But, somehow, we just don't see a nuclear power trade group being able to avail itself of such taxpayer generosity anytime soon.