The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda

[Vambram]

The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda

One of President Joe Biden’s first actions in office was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on global warming. The international accord aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels, with the ultimate objective of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees...

www.heritage.org

One of President Biden’s first actions in office was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on global warming. This Backgrounder details the harmful economic implications of doing so by modeling a theoretically efficient carbon tax designed to achieve the Administration’s emissions reduction targets. While the Paris Agreement’s climate impact will be minimal at best, it will impose significant costs on American families and businesses. Instead of implementing an agenda that will decrease Americans’ access to energy and cost trillions, President Biden and Congress should pursue a policy agenda that advances economic freedom, rejects symbolic but ineffective climate policies, and reduces barriers to innovation and economic opportunity.

The Biden Administration’s climate goals are so unrealistic that the Heritage Energy Model—a clone of the EIA’s model—crashes before they can be achieved. Attempting to meet these goals through a carbon tax would reduce U.S. GDP by $7.7 trillion over 18 years and U.S. employment by 1.2 million jobs. Eliminating all U.S. emissions would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100—wrecking the economy for a negligible climate benefit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Biden Administration’s climate goals are so unrealistic that the Heritage Energy Model—a clone of the EIA’s model—crashes before they can be achieved. Attempting to meet these goals through a carbon tax would reduce U.S. GDP by $7.7 trillion over 18 years and U.S. employment by 1.2 million jobs. Eliminating all U.S. emissions would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100—wrecking the economy for a negligible climate benefit.

Where do you see Biden proposing a carbon tax?

 

[weekEd]

The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda

One of President Joe Biden’s first actions in office was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on global warming. The international accord aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels, with the ultimate objective of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees...

www.heritage.org

One of President Biden’s first actions in office was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on global warming. This Backgrounder details the harmful economic implications of doing so by modeling a theoretically efficient carbon tax designed to achieve the Administration’s emissions reduction targets. While the Paris Agreement’s climate impact will be minimal at best, it will impose significant costs on American families and businesses. Instead of implementing an agenda that will decrease Americans’ access to energy and cost trillions, President Biden and Congress should pursue a policy agenda that advances economic freedom, rejects symbolic but ineffective climate policies, and reduces barriers to innovation and economic opportunity.

The Biden Administration’s climate goals are so unrealistic that the Heritage Energy Model—a clone of the EIA’s model—crashes before they can be achieved. Attempting to meet these goals through a carbon tax would reduce U.S. GDP by $7.7 trillion over 18 years and U.S. employment by 1.2 million jobs. Eliminating all U.S. emissions would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100—wrecking the economy for a negligible climate benefit.

Can't we just build a machine that doesn't work and takes up space on the side of the road under a bridge with a cardboard sign that says "I was built to be unemployed"

 

[iluvatar5150]

Can't we just build a machine that doesn't work and takes up space on the side of the road under a bridge with a cardboard sign that says "I was built to be unemployed"

Man, I thought that would be the one job the machines didn't take from us.

 

[driewerf]

Eliminating all U.S. emissions would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100—wrecking the economy for a negligible climate benefit.

That is why it is a global agreement. All the countries agreed to do their part (but most fail ).

 

[durangodawood]

People dont account for how much human caused climate change is going to cost us. Its going to be absolutely astronomical economically. But also in terms of visceral human suffering. And the migration pressures will be overwhelming.

Youd think that last one would give the modern "conservative" pause, except they are still struggling to assimilate that gw is even happening at all, after a couple decades marinating in denial-media.

 

[iluvatar5150]

People dont account for how much human caused climate change is going to cost us. Its going to be absolutely astronomical economically. But also in terms of visceral human suffering. And the migration pressures will be overwhelming.

Youd think that last one would give the modern "conservative" pause, except they are still struggling to assimilate that gw is even happening at all, after a couple decades marinating in denial-media.

Well, the coastal areas that are expected to flood are full of liberals and/or non-Americans, so

¯\_(ツ)_/¯​

 

[durangodawood]

Well, the coastal areas that are expected to flood are full of liberals and/or non-Americans, so

¯\_(ツ)_/¯​

Wyoming has lots of room for these liberals and dark people.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Wyoming has lots of room for these liberals and dark people.

True. We could pick up a couple senate seats in the process.

 

[Vambram]

New Documentary’s ‘Cold Truth’ About Climate

The documentary "Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth" challenges the premises for eliminating fossil fuels for climate change.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[rambot]

The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda

One of President Joe Biden’s first actions in office was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on global warming. The international accord aims to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels, with the ultimate objective of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees...

www.heritage.org

One of President Biden’s first actions in office was to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on global warming. This Backgrounder details the harmful economic implications of doing so by modeling a theoretically efficient carbon tax designed to achieve the Administration’s emissions reduction targets. While the Paris Agreement’s climate impact will be minimal at best, it will impose significant costs on American families and businesses. Instead of implementing an agenda that will decrease Americans’ access to energy and cost trillions, President Biden and Congress should pursue a policy agenda that advances economic freedom, rejects symbolic but ineffective climate policies, and reduces barriers to innovation and economic opportunity.

The Biden Administration’s climate goals are so unrealistic that the Heritage Energy Model—a clone of the EIA’s model—crashes before they can be achieved. Attempting to meet these goals through a carbon tax would reduce U.S. GDP by $7.7 trillion over 18 years and U.S. employment by 1.2 million jobs. Eliminating all U.S. emissions would reduce global temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100—wrecking the economy for a negligible climate benefit.

It seems dishonest that they would say it would cost 7.7$ trillion but give no ACTUAL details about any kind of plan.

Canada has a carbon tax and have had one for quite a few years now. Despite the crying of many, it is not really overly burdensome. The BIGGEST blue collar people that would be affected by it (farmers) are mostly exempt. And EVERYONE gets a quarterly rebate check that comes VERY close to counteracting carbon tax from heating electricity, and transportation.
It is structured so that poor people are given higher rebates so the impact on them is ALMOST nonexistent.

The rebates themselves go into green technology rebates (retrofit windows, solar panels better insulation). It's pretty rad.

 

[rambot]

New Documentary’s ‘Cold Truth’ About Climate

The documentary "Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth" challenges the premises for eliminating fossil fuels for climate change.

www.dailysignal.com

The premise of this movie is farcical. I hope to remember to come back and comment on this tonight. no time.

 

[Vambram]

The premise of this movie is farcical. I hope to remember to come back and comment on this tonight. no time.

The facts and analysis in the article is far more important than the video documentary.

 

[Desk trauma]

True. We could pick up a couple senate seats in the process.

I’m waiting to see if a test case for not allowing recent state residents to vote happens as that talking point keeps coming up.

 

[Bradskii]

The facts and analysis in the article is far more important than the video documentary.

The article is by the Daily Signal which is the media outlet for the Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank you linked to in the op. They are climate change deniers and receive funding from Exxon: Heritage Foundation – Climate Investigations Center. No too far south of a million dollars.

One of the links in the article shows a chart showing hurricane activity from information supplied by the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meterology Laboratory. It purports to show that there has been no increase in major hurricanes. But note this from here: National Climate Assessment

'There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high-quality satellite data are available.,,,, These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The ability to assess longer-term trends in hurricane activity is limited by the quality of available data. The historic record of Atlantic hurricanes dates back to the mid-1800s, and indicates other decades of high activity. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the record prior to the satellite era (early 1970s), and the further back in time one goes, the more uncertain the record becomes.'

That can plainly be seen from examining the figures. For example, from the period 1850 to 1900 it shows a total of 213 hurricanes. Whereas for a similar spread of years from 1970 to 2020 there are are only 76. An almost threefold drop in hurricane activity? Obviously the figures back from a certain date can't be trusted.

Notwithstanding that, and despite the obvious fact that the numbers in the 19th century are obviously over reported, we get an average number of hurricanes per year as follows:

1890 - 1939: 1.4
1940 - 1999: 1.6
2000 - 2022: 1.8

An obvious increase. This is from a discussion we already had on the same subject back here: What a relief

Following on from that, and as per the link above which stresses that we should be using more accurate data from the last 50 years, there is, apart from an anomaly in one decade, undoubtedly an increase inn the more severe hurricanes from 1970 (category 3 and above).

1970s 4
1980s 5
1990s 5
2000s 7
2010s 3
2020s 4*

* only 4, but this is only for the first three years of the decade. It will obviously be a lot higher.

One other thing, our climate denier chum from the Daily Signal wrote this:

'Even if America stopped emitting carbon overnight, global temperatures would decline by less than 0.2 of a degree Celsius by the year 2100, according to government models.'

The aim of reducing carbon is to limit further increases in the temperature. The Paris Accord's stated aim was to keep global warmimg down to a maximum of 2 degrees above the industrial levels. Not to drop it 2 degrees. Maybe the writer didn't realise that a drop of 0.2 degrees is completely unobtainable. He doesn't appear to understand that which he is writing about.

 

[Valletta]

Where do you see Biden proposing a carbon tax?

Zinke Introduces Resolution Condemning Biden’s Carbon Tax Plan

Today, Congressman Ryan Zinke introduced a resolution expressing Congressional disapproval of President Biden’s planned carbon tax. The Resolution cites the negative impacts that would come with implementing a carbon tax. If enacted, a carbon tax would exacerbate the increasing energy costs...

zinke.house.gov

I support Congressman Zinke's resolution.

 

[Valletta]

The article is by the Daily Signal which is the media outlet for the Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank you linked to in the op. They are climate change deniers and receive funding from Exxon: Heritage Foundation – Climate Investigations Center. No too far south of a million dollars.

This global warming movement is from the left and as I have mentioned before takes on some aspects of a religion. As with many of these movements the leaders rarely follow what they preach--John Kerry jetting around the world is a good example. It is now called climate change because the predictions of world calamity under "global warming" did not take place. Now they are more clever and put there predictions thirty years or so i in the future so it will not harm their careers. We are told virtually everything will cause harm and hasten climate change:

Now scientists say wearing JEANS is bad for the environment

They might be a wardrobe staple, but now scientists warn that even a simple pair of jeans could be as bad for the environment as driving 6.4 miles in a car every time you wear them.

www.dailymail.co.uk

No plan that does not include China, and the article points out how bad the Chinese are, has any chance of success, yet they proceed in order to milk as much money from the United States as possible.

 

[Bradskii]

It is now called climate change because the predictions of world calamity under "global warming" did not take place.

You need to educate yourself about what's happening. Your ignorance of the changes that have taken place, which are either intentional or through simply being ill informed (I vote the former) invalidate all the posts you make on this subject.

I could spend some time pointing those changes out and educating you as to all the problems, but you aren't interested in listening. So it would be a waste of both my time and yours.

I have noticed that quite a few of your fellow naysayers have, over the last year or so, changed their political based arguments from 'It's not happening!' to 'we're doing the wrong things to combat it!'

So please try to keep up. The small minority which you belonged to has shrunk even further. People who are still complaining that nothing is wrong are like the people I used to see wearing placards that said that then end is nigh. We've passed the point where people like you are being listened to. They are now looked upon as being...quaint? Maybe the wrong word. But I think you know what I mean.

 

[rambot]

https://zinke.house.gov/media/press...-resolution-condemning-bidens-carbon-tax-plan
I support Congressman Zinke's resolution.

Where do you see biden proposing it?

No point in having another piece of "chemtrails legislation". ...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I support Congressman Zinke's resolution.

The resolution (which I have read) says nothing about any proposal that exists, just lists a bunch of claimed harms and then the resolution that it shouldn't be done. A claim from a member of congress that the president of the other party is going to do something is hardly evidence that the president plans to do it. This "evidence" is useless.