Connect with us

Opinion

Biden, climate warriors can’t face costs of going green

Published

on

Biden, climate warriors can’t face costs of going green

In anticipation of the virtual Leaders Summit on Climate, a two-day global gathering of more than 40 world leaders, President Joe Biden declared that the United States had a “moral imperative” to adopt an “ambitious” goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

Such an effort, if we were serious about it, would entail massive destruction of wealth, a surrender of our international trade advantages, the creation of a hugely intrusive state-run bureaucracy at home, the inhibition of free markets that have helped make the world a cleaner place and a precipitous drop in the living standards of most citizens — especially the poor.

Of course, those who oppose the expansion of fracking and nuclear energy — most elected Democrats, it seems — aren’t even remotely serious about “tackling” carbon emissions, anyway. Around 80 percent of American energy is generated by fossil fuels and nuclear right now. Around 20 percent is generated by “renewables” — predominantly wind and hydropower (which is unavailable in most places).

Only around 2 percent of our portfolio consists of inefficient and unreliable solar power — this, even after decades of subsidies and mandates.

It’s always funny to hear people speak about solar panels as if they were some sort of cutting-edge technology. The discovery of the photovoltaic effect goes back to 1888. President Jimmy Carter declared a national “Sun Day” in 1978 and put 30 solar panels atop the White House. One of those panels is now on display at the Science and Technology Museum in China — a nation that is not only the top producer of solar panels and carbon emissions but also the one that would most benefit from the United States’ unilateral economic capitulation.

To reach Biden’s goal, the United States would need to envelop most of the nation in panels and windmills and then rely on enormous Gaian prayer circles — may she grant us sunshine and gale-force winds. We would be compelled to eliminate most air travel and cars — making new ones produces lots of carbon emissions — and retrofit every home, factory, warehouse and building in America to utilize this type of energy. We would need to dramatically cut back on our meat and dairy intake as well.

“The signs are unmistakable, the science undeniable,” Biden claimed. “Cost of inaction keeps mounting.” Now, I realize that people repeat these contentions with religious zeal, but the evidence is extraordinarily weak.

For one thing, there is action. Market innovations keep creating efficiencies all the time. For another, we live in the healthiest, most equitable, most prosperous, most safe and most peaceful era in human existence. Affordable fossil fuels have done more to eliminate poverty than all the redistributionist programs ever concocted.

By nearly every quantifiable measure, the environment is also in better shape now than it was 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. A lot of that is grounded by an economy that relies on affordable energy. Also, though every weather-related event is framed in a cataclysmic way, not that long ago, being killed by the climate was a serious concern for most people. Today, it is incredibly rare.

Progressives, however, regularly maintain that we are facing an existential crisis. One might point out that science’s predictive abilities on climate have been atrocious. But really, these days, “science” is nothing but a cudgel to push leftist policy prescriptions with little consideration for tradeoffs, reality or morality.

The Malthusian fanaticism that’s been normalized in our political rhetoric is also denialism. “Science,” as the media and political class now practice it, has become little more than a means of generating apprehension and fear about progress. It is the denial of the modern technology and competitive markets which continue to allow human beings to adapt to organic and anthropogenic changes in the environment.

Even people who mimic doomsday rhetoric seem to understand this intuitively. The average American says he or she is willing to spend up to $177 a year to avoid climate change, not the approximately $177 million per person it would cost to meet arbitrary dates to get rid of a carbon-energy economy.

The choice we’re given now pits a thriving open economy against an economy weighed down by centralized (and unratified) worldwide climate-change treaties such as the Paris climate agreement that put little burden on growing economies such as China and India and all of it on you.

What does that burden look like? After shutting down a large chunk of its economy in 2020, and spending trillions to keep those affected afloat and avert a depression, the United States emissions only fell by 13 percent. Imagine what 50 percent might entail.

When confronted with these nagging specifics, we often hear how these are aspirational goals. Why would we aspire to make life worse for billions of people?

Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

President Joe Biden failing US when it comes to COVID leadership

Published

on

Bidenomics is already starting to slam the US economy

President Joe Biden entered the White House with a huge gift from his predecessor: COVID vaccines produced in record time and being administered to Americans at the rate of nearly a million shots a day. But rather than getting the nation over the finish line, the new president’s leadership has proved a drag on progress by feeding vaccine resistance.

In particular, the feds’ sudden, evidence-ignoring 10-day suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine did serious damage in terms of vaccine hesitancy. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll just found that 20 percent of unvaccinated adults changed their minds about getting jabbed because of the pause. Doubt was even stronger in some demographics: 39 percent of Hispanic women said the suspension changed their views.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration put the pause on J&J after learning of just six cases of serious blood clots among the 7 million Americans who’d gotten the jab.

This wasn’t science but extremely risk-averse bureaucrats ignoring the overwhelming benefits to the public for the remote fear that they might be criticized.

President Donald Trump’s critics said the approval of even a single vaccine by the end of 2020 would be a miracle, but Operation Warp Speed delivered two jabs with a third on the way — in good part because Team Trump sat on the bureaucrats to prevent such deadly foolishness.

But Biden has other priorities; he couldn’t even be bothered to try undoing the damage from the J&J pause. The day it was announced, April 13, he gave two public addresses: one at a congressional tribute to a slain Capitol Police officer and one in the Oval Office before his meeting with Congressional Black Caucus members — on a favorite subject, “equity.”

“When we took office,” he said, “I signed the executive order — every single aspect of our government, including every agency, has, as a primary focus, dealing with equity. Not a joke.”

During his campaign, Biden said his top priority would be the COVID crisis. Instead, it’s turned out to be a dangerous game of trying to institute equality of outcome.

Heck, if he really cared about equity, he’d focus on boosting confidence in and distribution of the vaccines — African Americans have been getting jabbed at far lower rates than whites.

After Biden’s remarks, a reporter asked him about the J&J pause — giving him a chance to show leadership and calm the nation’s nerves over the vax.

That’s what UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson did when the European Union panicked over a similar blood-clot issue with AstraZeneca’s vaccine, urging all to heed the advice of the UK regulator, which rightly said the shot’s benefits far outweighed the risks. “The best thing of all is to vaccinate our population, get everybody out getting the jab, that’s the key thing, and that’s what I would advocate, number one,” he declared.

In grim contrast, Biden punted: “My message to the American people on the vaccine is — I told you all: I made sure we have 600 million doses of the MR — not of either Johnson & Johnson and/or AstraZeneca. So there’s enough vaccine that is basically 100 percent unquestionable for every single, solitary American.”

The nation’s top leader actually suggested one of the FDA-approved vaccines was “questionable.” No wonder confidence in all the shots has dropped.

But Biden fails on a larger scale, with behavior that says, “This crisis will last forever.”

Why? Well, a forever crisis justifies his bid to expand government permanently and lock in Democratic dominance. Sadly, that seems to matter more to this president than the health of the nation.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Beware would-be Manhattan DAs who think job is about protecting criminals

Published

on

Beware would-be Manhattan DAs who think job is about protecting criminals

We’ve slammed Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance many times for decisions such as refusing to prosecute fare-beating and other crimes whose cost to society is far more than monetary. But most of the Democratic candidates to succeed him make Vance look like Judge Dredd.

Last week’s NY1 debate featured a clean divide: Candidates Liz Crotty, Tali Farhadian Weinstein and Diana Florence want to protect the public by putting the bad guys on ice, but the rest seem to think the DA’s job is to keep criminals walking free.

Naïve ideologues Dan Quart, Alvin Bragg, Eliza Orlins, Tahanie Aboushi and Lucy Lang want to scale back prosecutions and accelerate decarceration of jails and prisons — reserving prosecution for those they disagree with.

Bragg, an ex-federal prosecutor, bragged that he had ever only prosecuted one misdemeanor — against men who blocked people from going into a Planned Parenthood clinic. Orlins, a public defender, would decriminalize almost all misdemeanors and defund the DA’s office.

Hmm: This week, authorities charged alleged Hoolies street gang member Dashawn Austin in connection with the fatal stray-bullet shooting of 1-year-old Davell Gardner in Brooklyn last summer. Cops didn’t have to go far to find Austin, as he was already at Rikers thanks to charges on an earlier murder, in March 2020.

Look: The Legislature is already rushing to empty the jails, from its still-insane “no bail” law (which even Mayor Bill de Blasio says remains critically flawed) to its recent move to decriminalize prostitution. That madness isn’t the only reason crime is surging, but it’s clearly part of it.

With shootings soaring, the last thing the city needs is a Manhattan DA who wants to accelerate the “no consequences for crime” trend. Yet most of the candidates are trying to win votes by vowing to protect accused criminals, not the public.

Yes, they claim their approach will somehow increase public safety (someday), but that magical thinking only suggests they’ve been taking advantage of pot legalization.

New Yorkers must vote for candidates who prioritize getting crime and disorder back under control or the “city that never sleeps” will be sleeping with the fishes.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Letters to the Editor — May 9, 2021

Published

on

Letters to the Editor — May 9, 2021

COVID uncertainty
The Post editorial about herd immunity makes several good points, albeit within the context of general uncertainty about the virus (“We’re Still Beating COVID,” May 4).

We have reason to be optimistic, but we have more work to do and still need to grasp the uncertainty of the virus.

The assumption that future mutations will be less dangerous is not scientific; mutation is random. Reducing the opportunities for the virus to mutate is good science and common sense.

Accordingly, a missing piece in your article is the damage done to public health by right-wing politicians and pundits who have discouraged vaccinations at a time when we need to work together.

The Post article blithely assumes that the many Republicans who are opposed to getting vaccinated will come around. I hope you are right, as that is what our country needs, but I worry you overestimate both the public spirit and the scientific intelligence of these people.

Chip Boyd
Cheshire, Conn.

Distrust in big biz
I agree with the broad thrust of Josh Hammer’s article about the disaffectedness of new conservatives toward big business, but I think that he slightly misunderstands the cause (“There’s No Stopping GOP-Big Biz Divorce,” PostOpinion, May 3).

Withdrawing support from big business does not necessarily mean that we are embracing government control. The pro-liberty, anti-government principles of conservatism are still consistent.

It’s just that we’ve realized that big business, at a certain scale, is indistinguishable from the government. A monopolistic corporation that uses its wealth coercively instead of engendering a free market— with the nodding approval of certain politicians who regularly lunch with the executives — is nationalized in all but name.

Robert Frazer
Lancashire, UK

Misleading mask
Miranda Devine’s column about President Biden’s meeting with former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalyn hits the mark (“Masking science,” May 6).

In his indoor meeting with the elder Carters, Biden is seen not wearing a mask. As soon as he leaves and goes out into the open air, he places a mask on his face. He refuses to show the nation any optimism that the COVID epidemic is winding down.

Biden is turning out to be the most masked man since the Lone Ranger. At a recent virtual climate summit with other world leaders, and with no one else in sight, Biden continued to cover his face with his mask. I guess he was afraid he might give his computer a virus.

Warren Goldfein
Mount Arlington, NJ

Court hypocrisy
The United States is worried because El Salvador has removed the magistrates of its Supreme Court’s constitutional chamber (“Salvador worries US,” May 3).

Secretary of State Antony Blinken claims an “independent judiciary is essential to democratic governance.” Is he hallucinatory or just in heavy denial?

What does he think will happen if his party succeeds in adding justices to the US Supreme Court? El Salvador is being more upfront with its actions than the United States.

Ellen Minaker
Queens

Celebrating moms
It wouldn’t be Mother’s Day without Cindy Adams’ beautiful salute to her mother (“In memory of dear mom,” May 6).

It bring tears to my eyes every time. Happy Mother’s Day to all those hardworking moms past and present, especially my momma, Nora Quinlan.

Margaret Clabby
Queens

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

Continue Reading

Trending