╌>

The progressive climate plan is heavy on symbols and burdens

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  4 years ago  •  2 comments

By:   Devin Hartman and Nicolas Loris (TheHill)

The progressive climate plan is heavy on symbols and burdens
There is scant evidence that the plan's domestic net zero emissions goal by 2050 is economically feasible, let alone a pathway to greater prosperity with meaningful environmental benefit.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners


Same reheated tripe, different day.

Democrats have no more intention of addressing climate change than do Republicans.  Republicans and Democrats are arguing over money.  They are not arguing about the climate or the environment.  

We know what is causing climate change: consumption of energy.  Changing the source of energy will only create new, exciting environmental problems that Democrats and Republicans can argue about.  Manufacturing solar cells is not an environmentally friendly activity.  Alternative energy will only increase the need for ore leach pads, pit mines, smelters, chemical production, and disposal sites for electronic waste.  Alternative energy only shifts the environmental problems around for the next catastrophe that politicians can use to argue about money.

As long as we continue consuming increasing amounts of energy the environment will continue to be devastated.  Neither Republicans or Democrats want us to curb consumption of energy because that would harm their political donors.  It's all about the money, after all. 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Democrats unveiled a sweeping climate plan this week. While the progressive plan will not pass this year, it does provide a roadmap for 2021. Hopefully progressives take the time to reconsider, because the current plan is largely insensible climate policy under normal economic conditions, much less a country facing massive fiscal and economic growth constraints. Conservatives should respond constructively with a suite of reforms that spur economic growth, improve the fiscal outlook and reduce global emissions simultaneously.

The plan aims for a prosperous economy prepared to meet the challenges of climate change; however, the tools chosen - namely mandates and tax subsidies and carve outs - reduce economic productivity and are fiscally harmful. This would reignite an expensive subsidy war - renewable tax credits averaged over $200/ton of carbon avoided - just when federal coffers can least support it. Mounting costs, public debt, and steering private investment toward political favorites, all for meager climate impact, will not leave future generations better off.

There is scant evidence that the plan's domestic net zero emissions goal by 2050 is economically feasible, let alone a pathway to greater prosperity with meaningful environmental benefit. In fact, leading researchers think we're a good half century away from potentially zeroing emissions in the industrial sector, without considering the recent economic downturn. Electric utilities with zero carbon goals admit they don't know how they'd meet 2050 targets - but they know it'd cost a bundle - and yet the progressive plan calls for decarbonization of the sector 10 years before that. In addition, the plan's mandate for all light-duty vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035 will require more carrots (subsidies) and sticks (regulations) to get there.

There's another critical zero to consider; the number of cost analyses in the plan. A quality analysis takes time, but comparable references put the price tag in the trillions. American businesses, taxpayers and consumers will suffer, paying more money for fewer options. Such a burden is completely tone deaf as the economy reels.

The hard truth is that zeroing out domestic emissions alone accomplishes relatively modest climate benefit, a far cry from the report title's claim of "solving the climate crisis." Carbon dioxide is globally mixed, accumulates over time, and the United States is responsible for a small fraction of global emissions. Rather than reducing emissions at exceptional cost, policymakers should pursue a pro-growth policy framework that benefits U.S. economic interests and the global climate.

The key is making it cheap to cut emissions domestically in a way that's reproducible globally. This requires a "no regrets" innovation agenda, such as a more effective national lab system, plus institutional reforms to let private capital flow to more productive uses.

Prior to the pandemic, the business community showcased an expanding appetite for clean investment. A growing chorus of companies with ambitious, self-imposed carbon targets - like tech companies and industrials - want more free market reforms such as procurement choice and electricity market access. This begs for liberating supply chains, enhancing competition, enabling consumer choice and liberalizing trade as catalysts for growth and global emissions cuts.

Regulatory reform should prioritize removing barriers to capital stock turnover. Paradoxically, environmental regulations, like some under the Clean Air Act, penalize clean manufacturing investment. Clean investors want "speed to market" and yet regulatory obstacles like approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act take over half a decade to complete. Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act permitting similarly deter clean energy investment.

Regulatory reform should enhance competition, such as modernizing outmoded electricity market rules, and introduce competition where regulation prohibits it, including replacing government-protected monopoly utilities with competitive platforms. Electric transmission investment - an integral part of renewables expansion - requires a regulatory overhaul to enable competition and prudent capital management decisions to flourish.

Progressives cannot be faulted for a lack of ambition. But core elements of their proposal are impractical and not in the best interest of American families, businesses or environmental outcomes. It's easy to set lofty goals that reward stylish business models now and raise costs in future election cycles. It's far harder to challenge entrenched interests now by reforming institutions to unleash lasting economic productivity and emissions reductions. It's time to be bigger and braver than zero-emission symbolism.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Nerm_L    4 years ago

Conservation is the key to addressing environmental problems.  But there isn't any profit in conservation.  Democrats and Republicans care more about money than about the environment.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @1    4 years ago
Democrats and Republicans care more about money than about the environment.

But going "Green" will create jobs and income, so what's the problem ?

Any human that thinks they can "Save the Planet"..... has lost their marbles. Apparently, they have trouble even "Saving themselves", and they're gonna save an entire Planet ?

Laughable ! jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 

Who is online


CB
shona1
Snuffy
bugsy
Jeremy Retired in NC
Sean Treacy


70 visitors