Pickens' plan is basically a couple of pie charts showing how he'd like to see the U.S. energy economy work. ...He gives no specifics publicly, but he's made it clear that it's up to Congress, not consumers or investors, to make this vision become reality. Because Pickens has announced his gambit in the name of the environment, the media have dropped the skepticism they usually apply to the claims of businessmen trying to make a buck. Because his plan involves government - meaning you and I pay the costs - that skepticism ought to be even greater.

Would a major newspaper editorialize with surprise that "even Kraft Foods says we need to eat more macaroni and cheese"? Would guests on The McLaughlin Group get away with saying that "even Budweiser is lobbying for more beer consumption"?

Then why do talking heads and journalists exclaim with surprise that "even T. Boone Pickens" is lobbying for greater U.S. reliance on wind power? Don't they know he owns the largest wind farm in the world?

The "Pickens Plan," the legendary oilman's public relations and lobbying blitz billed as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, has its virtues and its flaws, but it should be presented in an honest light - a billionaire heavily invested in currently unprofitable (without subsidies) wind power wants the government to further subsidize, mandate or otherwise help wind power be more profitable.

Watching Pickens talk about the United States' energy industry is like watching a CEO talk about the way a company is run. He would shift natural gas from electricity generation to transportation, replacing a third of our gasoline consumption with natural-gas-powered cars; then he would expand wind power to fill the gap in electricity generation.

But Pickens isn't the CEO of America. He's not the boss of me or of my power company. What do his big dreams for our energy economy have to do with anything? Isn't he a billionaire investor? If he thinks wind is the electricity source of the future, good for him.

Pickens' company, Mesa Power LP, is building a 4,000-megawatt wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. The American Wind Energy Association says this would be the largest wind farm in the world. If Pickens is right about wind, just as he was right about oil going over $100 a barrel, he'll get rich.

So, what's with the TV commercials, the radio ads and the Web site?

Watch the video he has on PickensPlan.com. After walking through his vision for the country, he tips his hand: "We have to have the right leadership, and everybody in this country has to cooperate. We have to get on the same team; we have to march in the same direction."

"Leadership ... march in the same direction ..." Pickens is talking about government. He's talking mandates and subsidies. And these government programs would profit him.

This is the point where environmentalists, advocates of big government or other fans of windmills start to sound a little bit like capitalists. Why should I mind if Pickens is getting rich off of wind power? If he's profiting from helping the planet, good for him.

But in contrast to the free market, where entrepreneurs (like oilman Pickens) can generate wealth, in the government-controlled market, one man's profit is another man's loss. Although Pickens suggests that the only losers would be Saudi princes, in truth drivers, taxpayers and anybody who uses electricity would also bear the costs.

Will we be paying to make the environment better? That's not clear either. Most environmental solutions we've been fed over recent years have significant environmental downsides: Hydropower disrupts rivers and habitats, hybrid cars have dangerous batteries, lighter-weight aluminum car frames require more energy in their construction, energy-efficient light bulbs contain mercury and are made in China, and ethanol - well, naming the problems with ethanol would take up an entire column.

What might be the environmental problems of massive expansion of wind power? That's an open question, but we have some early signs. Michael Heberling at the Heartland Institute wrote in 2002, "Between four and five million birds are killed every year in collisions with stationary, generally solitary, communications towers." Wouldn't windmills cause even more problems for birds?

What about the massive land use? Maybe we would all benefit from a twentyfold increase in wind generation, but should our government rush us toward it? If our tax dollars are invested in subsidized wind, will more promising, more futuristic technologies not get the capital that could make them succeed?

Pickens' plan is basically a couple of pie charts showing how he'd like to see the U.S. energy economy work. It involves massively increasing our use of one source of power in which he is heavily invested. He gives no specifics publicly, but he's made it clear that it's up to Congress, not consumers or investors, to make this vision become reality.

Because Pickens has announced his gambit in the name of the environment, the media have dropped the skepticism they usually apply to the claims of businessmen trying to make a buck. Because his plan involves government - meaning you and I pay the costs - that skepticism ought to be even greater.

Examiner Columnist Timothy P. Carney is editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report.

Web link: http://www.examiner.com/a-1538408~Timothy_Carney__...