In this issue:
- The cost of rejoining the Paris Climate Accords
- The consequences of banning new oil and gas leases on Federal lands
- Our precarious electric grid
The cost of rejoining the Paris Climate Accords
I have gotten questions recently about the economic costs of President Biden rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, so I created some talking points on this issue specifically.
The Paris Climate Accords is an immoral, self-destructive agreement that on paper commits the US to huge productivity losses in the short term and total economic destruction in the long term. Unfortunately, Joe Biden’s plan to implement the Paris Accords is far worse.
- In 2015 the Obama/Biden administration, without Senate authorization, committed the US to the Paris Climate Accords. The Accords called for a 28% cut in emissions by 2025 and at least an 80% cut by 2050.
- The costs of Obama’s Paris plan would have been enormous. The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates concluded that Obama’s plan would cause rising economic damage reaching $2 trillion a year—about $15,000 a household—by 2040.
- The costs of Obama’s Paris plan to industrial workers would have been particularly onerous. The nonpartisan National Economic Research Associates concluded that Obama’s plan would destroy 6.5 million American industrial jobs by 2040.
- Joe Biden’s Paris plan is far more more onerous than Obama’s: eliminating CO2 emissions from electricity by 2035 and eliminating all CO2 emissions by 2050. In fact, it’s impossible because all energy uses a lot of fossil fuel for mining, transportation, and high-temp heat.
- While Biden’s emissions elimination goals cannot be achieved, period, the attempt to achieve them would be devastating. Just one of Biden’s plans involves forcing Americans to pay $2 trillion–$15,000 a household–to begin a solar and wind-based grid that can’t possibly work.
- No cost estimates are possible for the impossible “net zero by 2050” goal. But the only nation to even try an independent cost-estimate, New Zealand, calculated 16% of GDP–the equivalent of $5 trillion a year US. That’s about $30,000 a household.
- Even $30K per household per year is an underestimate for Biden’s Paris plan, because it assumes he will seek the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. But on Day 1 Biden *increased* emissions by stopping a pipeline that would have reduced emissions and created 10K+ jobs.
- Here’s a full breakdown of why rejoining the Paris Climate Accords is un-American and immoral.
- Any proper decision to enter an international agreement must pass 3 tests: 1) It must be Constitutional. 2) It must benefit the United States. 3) It must be moral. Joe Biden rejoining the Paris Climate Accords without Senate authorization fails all 3.
The consequences of banning new oil and gas leases on Federal lands
I’ll write about this more soon, but here’s a high-level point that applies to this and many other Biden policies:
Policies that stop US oil/gas production don’t change growing global demand for oil/ gas, but do: 1) destroy American companies, 2) destroy American jobs, 3) decrease tax revenue, 4) decrease energy security, 5) increase pollution (more foreign production).
Our precarious electric grid
I have been reading an excellent book lately called Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid. It’s the best resource I’ve found so far explaining just how precarious and unfair our current electric grid is.
On this week’s Power Hour I interviewed the author, Meredith Angwin, about today’s grid, how we got here, and how to fix it.
Here’s the official description.
Our precarious electric grid with Meredith Angwin
On this week’s Power Hour Alex Epstein interviews Meredith Angwin, author of Shorting the Grid, on the precariousness of today’s electric grid.
- Why the so-called competition of today’s electric grid is a myth.
- The strengths and weaknesses of the old regulated monopoly system.
- Why “deregulation” increased costs and regulation.
- How today’s pseudo-competitive RTO (Regional Transmission Organization) works.
- How today’s RTO system devalues reliability.
- How New England’s inability during a cold snap to provide electricity without using massive amounts of oil (and some Russian gas) is a sign of things to come.
- What policies can improve the system.
- What the average person (ratepayer) can do to make a difference.
The last week has been, as expected, a very challenging one in the world of energy.
I’m grateful that I get to focus on high-leverage projects, like finishing my new book on fossil fuels and working with elected officials on their messaging.
Thanks especially to all the Accelerators who make this possible.
To Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Energy,