Climate Change Policies – Costly and Ineffective

George Rebane

Bjorn Lomborg (q.v.) enlightens us again about the realities of the much-ballyhooed policies to fight what is sold as preventable manmade global warming. (here)  The bottom line is that the agreed on policies of the recent Paris accords, and those to be adopted next month in Glasgow, are both enormously expensive and will not make a hill of beans difference in the future anticipated as calculated by the UN and reported in Nature.  We should also note that no one is even on track to meeting their Paris commitments signed under Obama.

If the whole country went carbon-neutral tomorrow, the standard United Nations climate model shows the difference by the end of the century would be a barely noticeable reduction in temperature of 0.3 degree Fahrenheit. This is because the U.S. will make up an ever-smaller share of emissions as the populations of China, India and Africa grow and get richer.

America’s goal, according to the Biden administration, is a 95% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, which will come in at a cost of 11.9% of GDP annually.  The Left claims that polls show Americans are all for reducing carbon emissions, and even willing to pay up to $200 annually to achieve that.  But the actual cost per person breaks down to $11,300 per person per year.  That means that the annual bill to an average American household of 2.53 people is over $28,500, and no one is willing to pay even close to that by almost an order of magnitude.

Polls are mostly worthless pieces of legerdemain because their questionnaires are ideologically wordsmithed, represent dynamic attitudes, and their results are misunderstood by their innumerate audiences.  Few would answer ‘No’ to ‘Do you favor policies to reduce future crop scorching temperatures and rising sea levels?’ or ‘Should CO2 levels be reduced to what we had in 2005 to stop global warming?’  With one-sided questions like these, no one knows either the effect or the cost of achieving the stated goals.  And yet the policy promoters in government and the media state with grave authority that ‘85% of Americans favor policies to significantly reduce future carbon levels’.  This then is supposed to be the public’s support for draconian increases in our taxes, economy stifling regulations, and added restrictions on our freedoms.  Sleazebag politics at its finest – “A nation ignorant and free …”.

Comments

[scenes]

"a 95% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050"

Are you serious? bwahahahaha. Why do they even say things like that? Also there's the 75M or so new people we'll have mostly due to more and more immigrants.

I thought that Biden's plan was to reduce it by 50% in 9 years. lol.

You know how it works. You shut down dirty sources of power with no replacement, gather up the dirty cars. Poor people are screwed regardless of how much 'equity' they build into the system.

[Don Bessee]

I can tell you senior fire fighters are dumbfounded by the banning of chain saws that are critical to fire fighting. Ya sure there are some electric ones but the batteries cost 4 grand and dont last long but worse die after a few dozen charges and how do you charge them in a smoke environment without an engine?

One guy told me about some socialist green who berated him for not having electric fire engines. Now that level of ignorance of what a fire engine does and the needs on the ground on a forest fire say so much about the ignorant luddites!

OH no forest management, no nat gas, no nuke, no small engines and you cant charge at home due to the brounouts. Oh what a relif it is the socialist greens dont think having kids is a good thing best those genes dont replicate.

;-)

[Scott O]

Don 7:20 - My neighbor is an EMT/Fire Fighter. He said they are going to electric fire engines and for a good reason. These are urban fire engines. They rarely go more than 10 miles from the station. Often less. The diesels just don't get get warmed up enough on those short runs and they often have to let them idle once back at the station to get them through the heat cycle for the particulate burn with the cats. And they don't last with that kind of use. Also, of course - they were offered a grant to offset the extra cost. Once those engines are in use, charging the small power tools will happen right off the truck. That's for urban. Rural is a whole 'nother ball of wax. CA residents will keep rebuilding the old gas power tools or just by a new one from AZ, OR or NV. CA can't even supply electricity for the residents and the electric devices currently in use. On top of that they want to import millions of illegals and try to make everyone buy electric everything. Good luck, suckers.

[scenes]

One thing I like about 'lectric everything is the lack of resilience in the system. You are single sourcing transportation, heating and are throwing away the buffering you get in the fuel chain. I expect that the push to abolish fireplaces will also continue.

One big power line goes down? Everyone is on foot and living in what is basically a tent. Maybe PG&E won't sell to people with bad social media scores. Don't like masks or Men in Dresses? No power for you MF.

Decreasing US share of worldwide greenhouse gas aside, which makes something of a mockery of this whole deal, that 95% number made me just hold myself in mirth. Hell, I think that both cows and airplanes each make 4-5% of the total. No doubt electric airplanes and vat-grown meat will save the day once we deal with chainsaws.

(don't get me wrong, I think that battery powered tools and automobiles are amazing. Over time, they'll probably win out).

[scenes]

I've never heard of EV fire trucks but they make a lot of sense in an urban environment once the spreadsheet makes the case. As little as they're used, it's purely a case of money and usability. I keep waiting for EV garbage trucks and local delivery vans, no doubt they'll come online over time.

Truth is, Chevrolet Bolt are probably optimal cars for most people if they didn't burn down your house and you can expect the prices to drop. Teslas are cool but mostly rode in on the back of government subsidies and as upper middle-class toys, but hopefully the EV biz can shuck off silly design decisions (*cough* Tesla door handles) and stupid-expensive insurance.

[Steven Frisch]

I'm pretty sure that this is the study Lomberg was referencing in the WSJ article, in which case, once again, when measuring cost one has to also count the benefits in avoided future costs as well.

When total cost benefit accounting is considered there are competing views to Lomberg's...

"All told, the bank estimates Biden's $2 trillion deficit-financed infrastructure plan could yield a GDP boost of between 2% and 9% in the short run and "considerably more" in the long run, adding that each 1% move in U.S. GDP growth should translate into roughly 3% to 4% growth in the earnings of S&P 500 companies."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2021/02/12/bidens-2-trillion-climate-focused-infrastructure-plan-means-for-stocks-and-the-economy/?sh=2dde746427b4

"While oil and gas firms may experience long term damage as a result of Biden’s climate plan, industrials and materials firms will likely be the biggest beneficiaries. This is because these firms will be used for infrastructure projects that the climate plan will need. Namely, Biden’s climate plan will spend close to $4 trillion on the construction of roads, bridges, ports and rail lines. The climate plan’s large investment in infrastructure will foster long-term economic growth as it is projected to lead to a 3.8 percent increase in GDP by 2024. In contrast, traditional infrastructure spending only has a multiplier effect of 1.5, which means that for every dollar increase in traditional infrastructure investment, GDP will rise by $1.50. "

https://businessreview.berkeley.edu/bidens-ambitious-climate-plan-what-does-this-mean-for-the-american-economy-jobs-and-investment/

[Steven Frisch]

Ooops. potential link to the Lomberg referenced Nature article....https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01128-0

[Walt]

Electric field mowers... Right. By the time you finish the first cutting, you will have to start on the second.

Battery powered chain saws? Up here???

There is a logger not far away looking for and ECO nut to shove that battery where the sun don't shine.

[scenes]

"Battery powered chain saws? Up here???"

To be fair, it would depend on the size. I've seen pro tree guys who limb and fell pretty big trees using electric, or they use both gas and electric. Quiet, only runs when cutting. Pretty cool.

OTOH, I'm not aware of any medium-sized or bigger chain saws (>18" let's say) that are battery powered. Nothing for loggers.

Essentially, like in most areas, battery will work it's way up the food chain. They're clearly winners as the power density cranks up. It'll happen eventually as there are a lot of clear advantages.

Hey, maybe we could invent pneumatic chain saws that run off of large portable windmills. I'll bet there's a government grant built into that somehow.

[George Rebane]

Re SteveF’s 208pm – Here we have yet another repetition of the socialist shibboleth about economic growth which essentially argues that in an economy can best be improved by using the government gun to substitute more expensive and less functional products and processes for the existing, well-functioning and cheaper ones competitively allocated by minimally regulated markets, This myth was given the lie back in the 1840s by Frederic Bastiat in his ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ essay which is a direct analogue of what progressives propose today. We saw a version of this touted by autocratic socialist politicians in riot-torn cities celebrating all the new jobs that would be created from the rebuilding and repair work that was now required to fix things up.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp

[scenes]

re:GeorgeR

You do have to wonder why central planning gives you optimal results. There are scads of funny stories from the Soviet Union about that sort of thing.

No access to 'Nature' so no opinion on article, maybe it'll show up on sci-hub someday.

I was led to this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/30/biden-calls-100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-heres-how-far-we-have-go/?arc404=true

Evidently some 30 year-old staffer who is actually writing these plans has decided 14 years is all that's needed.

lol. I love the chart directly under the title. I've seen things like that in former lives.

Heck, simply look at the numbers presented. Remember that improvements on the margin are already harder.

38% is 'clean'. Of that 19% is nuclear (yer not gonna see any new nukes). 7% is hydro (all the good places for dams are, well, dammed). 12% for the others and I'm not sure you can hugely increase wind power. I guess that the 12% is expected to 6x in size in 14 years.

As usual, power storage and backup is never dealt with. Another thing not dealt with is a wholesale change from natgas/oil to electricity for home heating/appliances/surface fleet.

[Walt]

Gotta disagree Scenes,, an electric saw may be just fine for the urbanite. (Just a limb or two)
But not for average rancher or property owner.
Just where do you charge the battery out on the back 40?

The only state where you can smoke grass,yet will have a real hard time mowing it.

I have a bett. powered drill, and a matching impact wrench.(they take the same one) 57 DAMNED bucks for ONE battery.
If it lasts 20 minutes of use, I'm lucky. Then a 1.5 hr. recharge time.
Not a very efficient use of time.

[Walt]

4.60 a gallon for reg gas in PV now. Up another dime from Monday.

[scenes]

"Just where do you charge the battery out on the back 40?"

More than one battery. Recharge off of your $100k electric F150.

Last guy I was watching take down a tree was limbing with an electric 100+ feet up and it looked like a brilliant idea. Like I said, I think they're great up to a certain size and they'll only get better.

I admit that I'm pro corded power tools, but they are a dying breed. It's a bummer to be tied to an obsolete battery line-up and you'd think that a wall plug would put more oomph into a tool. At this point I'd say that batteries rule for things like impact wrenches though, it's kind of a surprise. My take is to go cordless only on really small tools (M12 Milwaukee fer instance) and try not to buy things you don't use. I've got air stuff but it's a pain to fire up.

I figure that the way this region will go 'green' is to (a)have continuous Public Safety Power Shutoffs and (b) not allow gas or natgas generators. Everyone gets to buy some Powerwalls and 20 or 30 panels.

[Bill Tozer]

It’s the 1970s all over again, and Joe Biden is the new Jimmy Carter
The Washington Post

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/its-the-1970s-all-over-again-and-joe-biden-is-the-new-jimmy-carter/

[Scott O]

Frisch 2:08 - "Namely, Biden’s climate plan will spend close to $4 trillion on the construction of roads, bridges, ports and rail lines."
Roads and bridges are already paid for with existing tax structures. If CA could see their way to lower the cost of a mile of roadway back to what it used to be, we wouldn't need any new spending plans. Ports? You mean lots of dredging and construction around the bays? The Sierra Club is all smiles. You bet. And why the need for all these ports? So we can ship out all the new stuff we make to China?
Railroads? That's private industry. Why should we be handing the RRs money?
Ah - when you say RR - you meant Amtrak.
There's a black hole to throw money into.
"Amtrak takes you where you want to go!"
Yeah - the rail station - nah, that's not where I wanted to go. Even in France the trains are so unpopular, the govt is trying to ban short hop air flights inside the country.
And of course all of this construction will happen with diesel motors - ala CA HSR.
Let's face it - in the long run, all this pipe dream spending will benefit the labor unions, a few of the biggest businesses and a handful of well connected swells.
And the American public gets stuck with increased debt and a govt trying to force them to use modes of transportation the public doesn't want.
The Biden admin can't even make our economy run well now. The more the govt is involved, the more money is wasted and the ocean will still keep rising.