The [Biden-Harris] administration is awarding $3 billion in grants to update and electrify port infrastructure across the U.S., which it says will translate to cleaner equipment, cleaner air, and thousands of new port jobs. [emphasis, links added]
Twenty-seven states and U.S. territories are set to get $3 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding, much of which will go toward new electric or hydrogen-powered freight-handling equipment and infrastructure.
The plan calls for the deployment and installation of new trucks, locomotives, ships, shore power systems for docked ships, and solar power generation, which together are expected to eliminate more than three million tons of carbon emissions over a ten-year period.
More gains are expected as old diesel-powered equipment is retired.
This would represent a modest reduction in port emissions. For comparison, in 2019 the three largest ports in the U.S. combined reported more than 2.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions.
[CCD Editor’s note: The combined carbon emissions for the three largest U.S. ports in 2022 (latest data) was 4.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year. If the total carbon emissions eliminated are three million tons over ten years, that amounts to 300,000 tons per year. That’s about $1,000 per ton!]
The funding and the demand for new tech it drives are expected to help support some 40,000 new union jobs, including more than 6,500 manufacturing roles.
Many ports set to receive money plan to train workers on the new equipment and develop plans for engaging with their local communities.
Read rest at MSN
There are three things wrong with the effort to reduce emission at the ports. The most important is that carbon dioxide is not causing warming so all money intended to reduce its emissions is wasted. Second, they assume all the new equipment will be getting all its energy from non-carbon sources. As with electric cars, much of the power will be generated using fossil fuels. Last, doing the math, the cost of the jobs created is $75,000 for each. Though this is not as bad as other government initiatives, it is still excessive.
Can profligate Dem spending be retracted with a change of administration? Ballooning debt is unsustainable.
What can happen is the new (Trump) administration no longer give away billions in boondoggles like this by not allocating the money. So far a small amount of the monies allocated to Mayor Pete’s charging stations so the new admin just doesn’t approve more. Happened when the Harris/Biden admin came into office.
Ok, thanks.
Lets start putting all World Leaders on Wind and Solar only and make them go only on wind and solar