Even Democrats don’t want to hear about climate change. The phrase was barely mentioned at the convention, and every record I checked omitted the once-mandatory Biden qualifier “existential.” [emphasis, links added]
There's no mystery why.
Joe Biden's policies will have no impact on climate change, but Ford will still have to bear the loss of $130,000 per electric vehicle in the first quarter.
Calculations show that this amount equates to a savings of $64.80 per gallon over four years of average driving time. Yes, this amounts to an extremely expensive subsidy to others to use the gasoline they forego by driving electric cars.
Lo and behold, the Biden strategy was flawed from the start and completely contrary to emissions reduction goals.
A new study published this week in the prestigious journal Science may strike a chord with casual readers. It looked at 1,500 “climate” policies adopted around the world and found that only 63, or 4%, had produced emissions reductions.
Even so, media coverage has gone to great lengths to obscure the study’s simple lesson, so let’s be clear: Taxing carbon reduces emissions. Subsidizing “green energy” does not. [This site does not endorse carbon taxes as there’s no need to reduce “emissions”. –CCD Ed.]
In fact, this should be old hat. One of the most cited papers in the field of climate economics is the 2012 “Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels?” said Richard York of the University of Oregon. His answer: “When you consider the net effect.”
Mr. York and a colleague returned with a 2019 empirical paper showing that while “renewables account for a larger share of total energy production, Rather than displacing fossil fuels, they expand total energy production.“
The results won't surprise Obama-Biden Democrats, who in 2012 sponsored a National Research Council study of their own, led by a future Nobel laureate.
For similar reasons, the author does not mince words and concludes that Green subsidies are “a poor tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving climate change goals.”
However, Mr. Biden later doubled down on this poor strategy, Taxpayers and energy consumers spend $1 trillion.
I won’t recount the lies officials have told to sell this folly, especially in the form of Mr. Biden’s ridiculous Inflation Reduction Act.
But nothing in the president’s memory is more similar than Mr. Biden’s record of profoundly ill-advised choices in office.
你知道這一連串的故事：第二次新冠疫情造成9% 的通貨膨脹、邊境崩潰、阿富汗撤軍，以及他在謊稱亨特·拜登的筆記型電腦與俄羅斯有聯繫後試圖安撫弗拉基米爾·Putin.
Mr Biden's green energy strategy is misguided by every economic proposal, Now there's nothing to show for it except billions more in the deficit and the disaster of forcing Detroit to build electric cars the public doesn't want.
Let's welcome the new Science study. The term “counterproductive” has appeared in the economics literature to refer to policies that claim to reduce emissions but instead increase them.
Green energy subsidies start by subsidizing the additional fossil fuel consumption used to produce battery minerals, wind turbines and solar panels. U.S. policy particularly encourages very large SUVs whose net emissions exceed any gasoline fuel mileage they might displace.
When Washington spends hundreds of billions of dollars to entice some drivers to go electric, guess what? It ultimately makes gasoline cheaper and more accessible to other consumers around the world.
Data for 2023 has arrived. As economics predicts, fossil fuel use, emissions and green energy are all growing in tandem. Global emissions have finally passed the 40 billion tons threshold, having doubled since 1984.
A few years ago, the United Nations climate panel abandoned its standard emissions scenario, RCP 8.5, because it was too pessimistic. It may have to be resurrected.
RCP 8.5 is a model of emissions under systemically bad global economic policies, such as Mr. Biden’s green energy trade war and industrial pork barrel, This inhibits the global economy's pursuit of energy efficiency.
Obama's fixer David Axelrod boldly stated on CNN this week that the Democratic National Convention turned out to be a “values-laden” event that lacked “policy details.”
That underestimates the extent to which the convention left voters guessing about how Kamala Harris would act on countless issues. Their only guidance is apparently that she doesn't kick puppies, and Donald Trump does.
Still, every indication is that Ms. Harris will bring better natural judgment than Mr. Biden. But because she, like America, has been surrounded by the New York Times’ unanalytic, uncritical cheers, she may still be dumbfounded when she learns the truth about Biden’s climate policies.
Maybe we should say “if” she chooses to listen to the truth. Because she'll probably continue to throw your money and mine on the pyre to avoid admitting her mistake.
Read more on MSN
