Short-Sighted Climate Policy Is Making Us Poorer, Our Lives Less Pleasant

Anybody who has ever played chess knows that winning is extremely difficult if you are not thinking at least several moves ahead.

Yet, many Americans applaud, or at least meekly accept, every move by their leaders without regard to whether it contributes to winning the game. [emphasis, links added]

People are constantly being conditioned to admire the act of sacrificing a piece, as a kind of virtue-signaling gesture, regardless of whether it moves us closer to victory.

As a result, politicians constantly exploit this public myopia to win votes, paying little heed to whether a particular policy or initiative is sensible and will make a meaningful difference in achieving the goals that are important to their constituents.

Such short-sightedness is on vivid display when it comes to carbon emissions.

There is no doubt that carbon dioxide (CO2) is accumulating in our atmosphere, and despite some debate as to the degree and its consequences, there is a broad consensus that slowing and eventually reversing that trend is a worthy goal.

Unfortunately, the climate extremists (such as these, for example) who now dominate public discourse, want to throw all prudence and judgment to the winds.

They are urging politicians to implement “revolutionary” policies that have no likelihood of achieving the overall goals, oblivious to the pain they inflict while ignoring more effective alternatives.

We are struck by the utter futility of some of these actions.

Ten U.S. states will require all new cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks sold to generate zero tailpipe emissions by 2035; several jurisdictions in California have tried to prohibit the “installation of natural gas piping within newly constructed buildings”; and Australia has moved to ban gas stoves and heating.

Such initiatives will hardly make a dent in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions while failing to consider the financial and lifestyle impacts this will inflict on the public.

At the same time, China and India are commissioning enough coal-fired power plants to more than offset all of these climate change “triumphs” many times over.

The pièce de résistance of the climate change hysterics is the push for electric vehicles (EVs). The astronomical cost includes trillions of dollars of subsidies to enable the sale of vehicles that would be completely unaffordable without them.

In addition, impending unsustainable losses by their manufacturers increasingly deprived of profits from well-liked traditional cars and trucks will threaten jobs and economic stability.

Even at the cost of such disruptions, the climate “benefits” will be small or even negative.

All the upbeat predictions by the proponents of EVs willfully ignore the gross uncertainties and variabilities in assumptions about emissions and the costs involved in mining, manufacturing, charging, and decommissioning the batteries.

They ignore that critical raw materials are mostly obtained from nations hostile to our interests and in [unachievable timeframes].

Their “analyses” also presume that consumer behavior can be coerced toward smaller cars, less driving, and limited EV ranges. Finally, they ignore the costs and challenges of rapid charging, a necessity for driving greater distances.

Today’s reality is that EVs are mostly for more affluent drivers who enjoy the performance benefits of these vehicles and are typically second or third cars driven at half the mileage of gasoline-powered cars.

Arguments to the contrary based on the number of EVs being produced conveniently ignore that 80% of those vehicles are in China.

A simple way to think about the problem is that the average twenty tons of CO2 emitted to mine minerals and produce the EV batteries are not offset by eliminating tailpipe emissions until more than ten years of typical driving.

Worse, averages are misleading, and the most popular EVs in the U.S. have bigger batteries and are causing this emission “breakeven point” to recede further into the future, if it can be reached at all.

Moreover, the electricity for charging is not carbon-free. No current trends significantly alter that reality, given the cost and logistical challenges of renewable energy. Nor is account taken of the vast cost or emissions from creating the necessary charging infrastructure.

In another example of myopic policy, renewable energy in the forms of wind and solar is touted as a route to salvation.

Advocates rarely, if ever, are transparent about the costs associated with intermittency, transmission from remote locations, the profligate waste of land, the challenges of offshore wind, skyrocketing maintenance issues, and ecological damage.

Renewables have a place, but the subsidies to them often are futile efforts to make the uneconomic seem virtuous.

At the same time, we are virtually ignoring highly cost-effective opportunities such as small-scale nuclear power plants that could even be exported to countries where they might displace emissions-intensive power plants.

If even a fraction of the massive EV and renewables subsidies were directed to nuclear innovation and expansion, the climate would benefit far more, faster, and with less disruption and waste. …snip…

The mainstream media revels in narrowing their readers’ focus to the individuals the policies are designed to help while paying scant attention to the much larger numbers who pay the price.

The solution to this miasma? We must reject politicians whose willful myopia will make us poorer and our lives more difficult, and instead embrace those willing to make unpopular but evidence-based policy choices.

Top photo by form PxHere

Read the full post at Issues & Insights