It is all too easy to forget what is at stake in the attempts by the Obama Administration and climate alarmists to implement climate alarmist policies in the US. One of the primary issues is whether the US would be wise to greatly increase the cost of energy used in the US by making it both much more expensive and much less reliable. A number of developed countries have already done so with very adverse results. China, India, and most less developed countries are doing little, if anything, along these lines on the reasonable argument that this would damage their economies, which they realize is where they need to make the most progress. But no one seems to consider that these policies would also cause immense damage to the US economy.
One of the primary reasons for the high US living standards has been very high energy use per person–one of the highest in the world. This high level of energy use minimizes human effort to provide goods and services by assisting humans by substituting mechanical energy and even automation. Making this use much more expensive, as the climate alarmists advocate, threatens to greatly damage our high living standard. This, in turn, endangers the environment by reducing the resources available for environmental preservation. It has been shown that the environment is best looked after in high income countries and worst looked after in lower income countries. Humans naturally place a higher priority on necessities rather than less immediate needs such as environmental protection.
Climate Alarmist Policies Have Already Had Very Adeverse Economic Effects on Other Developed Countries
We have already seen the economic effects that climate alarmist policies have had in other developed countries. The effects have been horrendous everywhere that they have been seriously implemented. And the same thing will happen here in the US if they should be adopted widely here.
Climate alarmists always claim that environmental protection measures have not had serious economic consequences and that climate alarmist policies will be no different. But this is nonsense since it depends on the magnitude of the resources used and the actual benefits that the measures have. What is being proposed now would have much more serious economic effects than any previous environmental measures.
The chief beneficiary of effective such US climate alarmist policies would be China. President Trump appears to even suspect that the economic impact of climate alarmist policies is the chief purpose behind China’s support of climate alarmist policies. Thus they may hope to surpass the US economically by getting the US and other developed economies to self-destruct their economies.
The effects of greatly increasing the costs of energy in other developed countries have been spectacular, as illustrated in two charts (here and here) used a couple of weeks ago. European electricity prices have doubled and even tripled. Citizens of particularly alarmist-oriented US states are paying much more than people living in other states. The state of South Australia has become the poster child of the resulting reduction in electric grid reliability with their continuing grid failures caused by using unreliable sources of electricity such as wind and solar.
What Have These Alarmist Policies Actually Achieved?
And what have these high cost and low energy reliability states and countries achieved? Much less than nothing. Humans and the environment would be much better off with both higher temperatures and atmospheric levels of CO2, not lower. So in the unlikely circumstance that these measures were actually successful in lowering both, these results would be bad, not good.
Fortunately, President Trump has taken some of the actions needed to reduce the effects in the US, but he needs to do much more if the US is to avoid most of the adverse effects of climate alarmist policies. The most important is to withdraw the USEPA GHG Endangerment Finding so that the expensive, counter-productive climate alarmist policies required by this Finding cannot be brought back at the next change in Administrations.
The President is ending the calendar year on an upbeat note. Major reduction in taxes on business’s, making America a more business friendly habitat. This should inspire new investments and hiring.
They added repeal of obamacares tax. They tacked on oil drilling in Alaska to spur business there. This also starkly indicates the weakness of the CIC.
It has been pretty much revealer the Russian collusion narrative was a democratic scam run by Comey’s FBI. Isis has taken lumps.
The stage is set for a big 2018 for the President. He can keep draining the swamp and besting the Fake News industry. Convening a science debate on climate seems in keeping with his agenda. Look for it to happen! Stay tuned to Doc’s blog!
No, Just beau, Ruckleshausc’ cancellation of DDT was not a meaningless gesture that accomplished nothing. It led to the deaths of scores of millions in Africa and elsewhere in areas of the world plagued with malaria
Cancellation of Ddt use inside the United States Accomplished nothing constructive.
Spartan79, you may suggest some nations in Africa followed the example of the United States and also cancelled use of DDT, resulting in deaths from malaria in their nations. This may well be true.
My comment was more limited, pertaining to the weakness of the rationale for The US action by Rucklehaus. it is the unpersuasive science that DDT has in common with climate change.
+10
Mr. Pruitt has an opportunity to become a fantastic Administrator of the USEPA by faithfully following laws and holistic science in lieu of merely courting the plaudits of liberals. this is a considerable challenge. It is not just to replace poorly conceived programs or regulations, but to replace them with the invention of more sensible and economy respectful programs, while supporting states as independent innovators.
Consider the example of cancellation of DDT by administrator Rucklehaus during the Nixon Administration. This had no sensible scientific rationale and was pure chemophobic short term populism. Pesticides are still prevalent within farming. Banning DDT was Fake News theatre that accomplished nothing.
If Pruitt convenes a public debate about CO2, he may introduce the novel idea that environmental science issues are actually not as simple as activists wish them to be and should not just be delegated to the Environmental Industrial Complex. Future Administrators should convene debates or their preliminary decisions be subject to Congressional review and approvals or rejections.
Repealing the Endangerment Finding and documenting the reasons why is intrinsically of service to rationality and good governance. This raises the rationality bar for when the Loony Left next gains the presidency. The Leftists can try to reinstitute CO2 endangerment someday, but there will then be a helpful record of why this is inappropriate. The way to counter irrationality is via countervailing rationality. This is why convening a blue red debate is valuable. Obama and other democrats are against this of course, showing yet again their true colors.
I am reluctant to favor combusting fossil fuels on behalf of photosynthesis. I understand the collateral benefits to greenery, which are indeed welcome. But there has been so much shoddily informed adocacy against CO2, I cannot must passion in favor of more CO2 emissions. Yes, call me too dispassionate. The earth is more than four billion years old and has looked after itself without help from puny me for quite a long time, I am encouraged to note.