The editors of the Wall Street Journal consider President Biden’s environmental plan:
Some green groups have done their own back-of-the envelope analysis of what it would take to achieve Mr. Biden’s 10-year plan. Take a recent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) report that argues for a “strong whole-of-government approach.†This includes eliminating new gas-powered cars by 2035, presumably by ramping up corporate average fuel economy (Cafe) standards. Mr. Biden has also proposed sweetening federal tax credits for buying electric cars—currently $7,500—but soon consumers will have no choice but to buy them when their gas vehicles expire.
The Biden goal will require the electric grid to be totally rebuilt in 10 years. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. will also have to double its share of carbon-free power to 80% from 40% today—half of which is now provided by nuclear—to have any hope of achieving Mr. Biden’s pledge.
All coal plants would have to shut down, and natural gas plants would be phased into obsolescence. Wind and solar energy would have to increase six to seven fold. The Obama Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court blocked in 2016, looks modest by comparison. It sought to reduce CO2 power emissions by 32%. Most homes would also have to be electrified. So if you like your gas stove, you won’t be able to keep it. Farmers would also have to adopt “climate-smart agriculture and forestry,†EDF says.
and they assess the approach President Biden is taking as authoritarian:
Mr. Biden is essentially doing an end-run around the Constitution, which requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate for the President to enter a treaty. The emissions reductions that foreign leaders pledged on Thursday aren’t legally binding, but Mr. Biden intends to use regulation to bind Americans.
Businesses will be conscripted as foot soldiers in the progressive war on fossil fuels. Mercenaries like Google, Apple and Microsoft have already enlisted. America’s founders believed that the Constitution’s separation of powers would safeguard individual liberty, but this assumes Congress guards its power.
Mr. Biden will face no resistance to his regulatory overreach from Democrats in Congress. They will happily finance his 10-year plan to remake the economy, starting with his $2.3 trillion much-more-than-infrastructure proposal that is the Green New Deal in disguise.
A few observations. First, Mr. Biden is trying his belief that China, India, and other countries require American leadership on carbon emissions before they will act. While I think that China in particular is not above exploiting American gullibility, I don’t believe the Chinese leadership will do anything they don’t see as being in their own parochial interests. I take President Xi at his word: they’re not going to do anything until 2030. In 2030 I presume they’ll decide they won’t do anything until 2040. And so on. American leadership is irrelevant.
Second, I believe the costs of achieving President Biden’s environmental objective are being grossly underestimated, the benefits are being grossly overestimated, and the toll it will take on the economy, particularly in the form of net job loss, is being grossly underestimated. Just as one example, what will the short term emissions impact of the plan will be with all of its building and rebuilding? 14 years is not that long a period.
Third, IMO the only practical way of achieving the goal of zero carbon emissions by 2035 is via cheap energy provided by small scale nuclear reactors and carbon capture and sequestration. Time’s a wastin’.
Finally, I have a proposal for cutting U. S. electricity consumption by 1% overnight: ban cryptocurrency mining. Also Amazon consumes 2% of the electricity generated in the U. S.
“First, Mr. Biden is trying his belief….”
First, Obama and his people are pulling the strings.
“In 2030 I presume they’ll decide they won’t do anything until 2040.”
Second – of course. Along with – “…I believe the costs of achieving President Biden’s environmental objective are being grossly underestimated, the benefits are being grossly overestimated, and the toll it will take on the economy…”
Of course. So what does this tell you? This has nothing to do with environmentalism. Its about controlling the economy and redistributing money in return for votes and power.
You may not be aware of this, but black neighborhoods are disproportionately affected by climate change. This needs to be redressed. And of course, social media giants will be necessary for communicating the “correct” facts and silencing harmful debate. And banks can be instrumental in providing loans to “correct thinking” environmental enterprises……..
I don’t believe that President Obama has ever had the sort of hands-on style you’re suggesting. As to “his people” if you mean the Democratic Party apparat, I agree.
I think that they sincerely in believe in what they’re saying (to the extent that politicians are sincere about anything) and that they regard it as a lucky coincidence that they benefit from what they’re doing politically and financially. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of people have a different view of causality than I do.
How to avoid seeming like a cynic when the solution to the crisis always benefits the planners, the same ones who publicly crowed “Never let a good crisis go to waste !â€
As for China, why would they do anything but watch while American leaders are sawing off the branch we sit on, unwinding the economy, throttling energy production. Why would they interfere in that?
“Second, I believe the costs of achieving President Biden’s environmental objective are being grossly underestimated, the benefits are being grossly overestimated, and the toll it will take on the economy, particularly in the form of net job loss, is being grossly underestimated.”
Could be, but then we have not tried it yet. What we have tried over and over is cutting taxes thinking it would give us growth, but it doesnt. Cutting regulations didnt make much difference.
I think the costs are being underestimated. The benefits are probably being underestimated also. There are a lot of hidden costs in fossil fuels. What I think will really happen is that the changes wont happen as fast as claimed. That will keep costs and disruption down.
Steve
Wonder what the plan is, federal seizure of all electrical power lines, generators, etc., solar panels and wind turbines even when the Kennedys sail, a nation wide plan like the TVA or Bonneville Power Administration? Will the unions be forced to run diverse, equitable hiring halls and agree to no strike contracts? Will IC engines be banned from Federally financed roads? And of course, the question by which authority is all this being done by? Executive orders and “come on Man” dont go too far.
I suspect you’ve never tried jumping from the top of a 10 story building to see if you could fly but that’s not much of an argument for attempting it.
And I see exactly zero reason to believe there will be unforeseen benefits.
“Which authority”?
The IPCC.
Finally, the dream achieved. Global Government is our last real hope, and thanks to Big Tech, Rome can finally rule the Provinces in real time.
No, I don’t believe a “climate emergency” is upon us. But that the ruse.
They’re playing that hand to the limit. All the chips are on the table.
https://time.com/5418577/what-humanity-do-limit-climate-change/