Why ‘All Of The Above’ Energy Policies Fail

True energy dominance does not come from a politically constructed mix of energy sources dictated by government planners.

In the debate over energy policy, the term “all of the above” has been heralded as a balanced, pragmatic strategy. But in reality, this approach is little more than a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework for energy — one that prioritizes political considerations over performance and efficiency. Just as DEI hiring initiatives emphasize inclusivity over merit-based selection, the “all of the above” energy policy forces taxpayers and ratepayers to subsidize inefficient energy sources under the guise of fairness and diversity in energy production.

This misguided philosophy has led to the proliferation of heavily subsidized and unreliable power generation, such as wind and solar, which fail to deliver power when it is needed most. These sources are not chosen based on their ability to provide cheap, reliable energy but rather on their alignment with politically driven mandates and green ideology. Despite the rhetoric of energy independence, the reality is that the expansion of these energy sources has increased our dependence on China for critical materials while simultaneously driving up electricity prices for American consumers. Ironically, while the U.S. is shackling its energy sector with expensive and inefficient mandates, China continues to dominate global energy markets by producing affordable power — largely fueled by coal.

The issue is not just limited to electricity generation. Biofuels, another beneficiary of the “all of the above” approach, serve as a prime example of government inefficiency. These fuels make gasoline and diesel more expensive, harm engine performance, and require massive amounts of water to produce. Rather than being an environmentally friendly alternative, biofuels epitomize waste — consuming resources and taxpayer dollars for minimal benefit.

Proponents of tax credits and subsidies argue that they create “good-paying jobs,” but this justification rings hollow. The same could be said of nearly any government-funded initiative, including federal bureaucracies that are now being exposed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for being inefficient and wasteful. Of course, by this logic, one could also argue that funding for male circumcision programs in Mozambique created “good-paying jobs” as well — just not ones that benefit the American workforce. President Trump highlighted this as an example of what he considers “appalling waste” in government spending, and yet the same defenders of bloated federal budgets will insist that all taxpayer-funded jobs are inherently valuable. Just because an industry is artificially propped up by government incentives does not mean it is economically viable. True job creation comes from industries that thrive on their own merits — not those that rely on perpetual government handouts.

A recent letter from members of Congress underscores this flawed thinking. It claims that tax credits are essential for energy affordability and national security, yet it ignores the fact that these subsidies distort markets and drive up costs. The argument that these tax incentives were promised for a ten-year period, and therefore should remain untouched, is nothing more than an attempt to lock in bad policy. If a program is wasteful and inefficient, it should be ended — regardless of previous commitments to corporate beneficiaries. The idea that repealing subsidies would cause an energy crisis is a scare tactic used to protect special interests rather than consumers.

True energy dominance does not come from a politically constructed mix of energy sources dictated by government planners. It comes from an energy sector that is free to compete based on cost, efficiency, and reliability. The “all of the above” approach is not a strategy — it is a crutch for failing energy policies that depend on taxpayer support to survive. If we are serious about unleashing American energy, we must reject this DEI-style approach and allow the best energy sources to rise based on merit — not mandates.

Originally published in Daily Wire