Posted on 04/18/2023 9:45:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Despite Germany’s last-ditch attempt at realism, the European Union recently approved a 2035 ban on gas-powered cars, moving ahead with its “net zero” emissions agenda. In the U.S., the cost of achieving net-zero carbon emissions would be staggering – $50 trillion if the goal is reached by 2050 – as would the demand for raw materials, which in most cases would exceed current annual worldwide production.
The impact on world climate, however, would be negligible. Emissions in developing countries will continue to increase as those countries’ focus is economic growth for their citizens, not permanent economic misery to “save” the climate. Although a recent Washington Post article suggests that wealth be viewed in terms of “joy, beauty, friendship, community, [and] closeness to flourishing nature,” impoverished individuals who cook with animal dung – such as 80% of the population in the African nation of Burkina-Fasso – aren’t likely to find much joy and beauty in economic misery. Granted, having to cook with animal dung ensures “closeness to nature,” although probably not the one the article’s author envisions.
Rather than approaching energy policy clearly, the U.S. (and most of the western world) is pursuing so-called “net zero” energy policies aiming to fully electrify western economies, while relying almost entirely on wind and solar power. The additional required electricity – after all, the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun sets nightly – would supposedly be supplied by energy storage batteries or hydrogen-powered generators. Two factors drive these policies.
First, there is climate hysteria, which promotes claims that have either proven to be false (the “end of snow” in Great Britain, the disappearance of glaciers in Glacier National Park) or posit extreme scenarios (complete agricultural collapse, massive sea level increases, more frequent hurricanes). The actual evidence is to the contrary, including increased agricultural yields, minimal sea level rise, and no increases in observed hurricane frequency.
Second, these policies are driven by old-fashioned greed. Green energy subsidies, which were already large, have been hugely expanded under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA is a virtual smorgasbord of green energy subsidies for offshore wind, solar power, electric vehicles, and charging infrastructure. The green energy pork, which relies on climate alarmism for its justification, is increasing electricity costs and reducing standards of living, such as in Europe, where deindustrialization is taking place because of unaffordable energy costs. Even progressive California admits its zero-emissions goals primarily will benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Although the author of the Washington Post article may think differently, modern society requires ample supplies of reliable and affordable energy. A modern society that runs solely on electricity must have a foundation built upon three key pillars. First, it must provide lots of electricity, far more than is generated today, because U.S. electricity consumption accounts for only about one-fifth of total energy consumption. Second, all of that electricity must be available 24-7. Third, it must be affordable. Those pillars cannot be supported by reliance on intermittent wind and solar power and huge banks of batteries to store electricity when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Nor will those pillars be based on technologies that don’t even exist, such as generators that run on pure hydrogen.
Even if one believes that addressing climate change is crucial and that low- or zero-emissions technology will yield worldwide benefits, the current approach is the most expensive way to achieve it.
Despite the hyperventilation of some politicians, such as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s predictions of doom, climate change need not entail economic suicide. A far better approach is adaptation to and mitigation of potential future damages that may be caused by a changing climate, such as gradual sea level rise and slightly warmer temperatures.
It is doubtful the U.S. will adopt this approach in the near future, because political expediency nearly always beats rational economics. But as economist Herb Stein said long ago, something that cannot go on forever, won’t. The unrealistic energy policies in place today eventually will collapse under their own weight. The resulting costs to U.S. consumers and businesses will be staggering.
Jonathan Lesser is the president of Continental Economics and an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
it is unilateral disarmament
plain and simple
Can’t disagree with that.
Tell that to Biden, Ketchup Kerry and Greta — Sensible Americans already know the truth. Sensible Americans know that they will be the sacrificial lambs.
It is unilateral starvation through mass unemployment. WTF are we doing to ourselves?
It is not rational because it is based on a lie and a hoax…a means to acquire power and wealth in very few hands. We’ve seen it ever since mankind was booted from the garden for accepting lies over truth.
Do not assume civilization is robust and on solid ground.
BUMP that and this thread!
$cience.
they are installing smart meters in our area....and....they can totally control your usage. they said they have to have your permission...but i wouldn't bet on it.
Amen. What we’ve been living for the last century or so is an historic aberration. The screws are tightening all around the planet, and without God, those in ‘charge’ are either blind or complicit.
BEACUASE IT IS A SCAM TO SIPHON WEALTH FROM THE U.S.
I thinks we all agree that we should stop as much pollution as possible.
I strongly disagree it is causing ‘climate change’.
Since liberals think the solution is to stop pollution, and we can ALL agree with stopping pollution, why do they care if we believe in climate change or not?
(hint: to get more tax money and government power)
yep
refuse to live by lies
NETZERO will push 2 BILLION more people into STARVATION.
The engineered global shortage of fossil fuel fertilizer has already ensured that we will see the largest Famine in human history. The only way rational way to fight the famine is to drill more natural gas so it can be made into fertilizer. The Irrational way is to allow a billion people to die.
It’s always been a wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the elites.
Suicide.
Inevitably these green energy policies will cause massive blackouts leaving large numbers of people not only in the dark and without heat and air conditioning, but without water and short of food. Of course your EV will be useless and soon your cell service and Internet access will be gone. There will be a breakdown of essential services like fire and EMS and hospitals will be holding on solely with emergency generators. These blackouts will persist for days or even weeks. How will people react when these blackouts become more frequent and lead to deaths?
Fight the power! Fight the power! Drink carbonated drinks. Eat beans. Drive around in gas guzzlers. Turn up your AC. Melt those polar ice caps. Earth Day is coming, and we must celebrate it!
“the European Union recently approved a 2035 ban on gas-powered cars”
Maybe I’m working too much but I had absolutely no idea about this. Are they freakin’ insane? That’s only 12 years from now!
Like I always say “The percentage of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is 0.04%. If we aren’t careful it may raise all the way up to 0.04% or hit 0.04% like it was 100 years ago”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.