The President said little he hasn't said before, except perhaps to allege that the "free market" is demanding solar and wind and other renewable energy, but wicked capitalists who are lining their own pockets are preventing the use of renewables. The President’s regard for “the free market” has never been so noticeable. Normally he disdains and disparages it, and considers those who respect it as quaint, outdated or selfish.
The President may be unaware of this, but the reason that automobiles (and jet planes) and power plants burn fossil fuels is because of the free market, not in contradiction of it. It was not a government decision to use oil instead of something else - the market place chose oil or coal or gas because it is cheap, reliable, easy and safe to use, and because the supply of oil and coal and gas is so vast. The President and his progressive friends would, we suspect, like nothing better than to order the elimination of fossil fuels and mandate the use of solar and wind.
But the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time, which makes it somewhat chancy (if not careless) to rely on solar or wind as the exclusive source of energy. Oh, sure - if an electrical grid already exists, and it includes enough power plants that use nuclear energy, water power, coal, gas or oil, it can be supplemented by a wind or solar energy system; and solar or wind are great alternatives for places that lack oil, or from whom supplies of oil are cut off in time of war or embargo. For instance, Germany had an extensive program of synthetic fuels during the Second World War - but only to the extent its supply of oil was limited. Once the war was lost, Germany returned to oil-based products. Other nations have comparable experiences: synthetics or solar or wind or other "alternative fuels" are fine when there is no "alternative," but good old gas and oil are favored when they are available.
In the earlier days of the industrial revolution, Britain started the wide-scale use of coal as a fuel when its supplies of wood diminished; and substitutes or alternatives for coal were developed for various reasons. However - and this is crucial - the government did not forbid one type from being burnt in preference of another - the free market decided, for reasons of cost, availability, efficiency, health, and so on. Those qualities still are vital today, and there may be applications where solar or wind or other alternatives are the best choice. But they are the best choice because of reasons of cost, availability, efficiency, health and so on - not because the government orders their use. Despite the President’s seeming ignorance of how markets work and his disdain for free markets, he once understood, because back in 2008 he told audiences this: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted…You know ... Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it …they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." In other words, in 2008, Mr. Obama as candidate made it clear that the steps he would take would serve to price fossil fuels out of the market. He understood that the best way to prevent their use was to make them too expensive to use, in much the same way as the government endeavors to diminish tobacco use. And as far as energy goes, the President also believes in the opposite effect, because he supports huge subsidies for “alternative energy,” which is a tacit admission that they cannot succeed in the marketplace by themselves to the extent he demands.
To get to the important numbers: the President wants power plants to cut their emissions by about 30% in the next fifteen years and for the US to obtain 20% of its power from non-hydro renewables by 2030. He wants mandates, not markets. The President's mandate ignores the fact that American power plants have never been cleaner than they are now, and that the marketplace is creating ever less pollution. But to comply with his unilateral declarations will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, will force some plants to close, will cause the cost of electricity to "skyrocket," will slow our economy by about $2 trillion in the next 20 years, and will displace jobs - perhaps millions of them. The President’s plan is not grounded in economic reality, and it will mean disaster for the economy and the end of cheap power. No, Mr. President, the "free market" is not demanding that.