Republicans have filed a bill to block President Joe Biden's Climate Corps
A new House Republican bill targets President Joe Biden’s $30 billion taxpayer-funded plan for a Climate Corps.
If Biden’s initiative succeeds, the Climate Corps will train 20,000 young people “for jobs in the clean energy economy” focused on “advancing environmental justice, deploying clean energy, implementing energy-efficient technologies, and tackling climate change,” according to the White House.
However, Republicans have slammed Biden’s initiative as an attempt to deploy a “climate army.”
Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., who introduced the No American Climate Corps Act on Friday, said it is another example of the Biden administration “furthering its radical anti-American energy agenda.”
“Americans are struggling to make ends meet because of Bidenomics. Instead of recognizing that family budgets are already stretched thin by sky-high energy prices, President Biden is focused on deploying a climate army that will increase regulatory burdens on business owners and drive inflation across the economy even higher,” said Good.
The bill “prohibits any federal funds from being used for the purposes of creating an American Climate Corps or a similar program,” according to a one-pager explaining Good’s bill.
Biden announced his Climate Corps program Sept. 20 after a group of left-wing politicians had urged him to establish the program through executive action. Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., joined with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Judy Chu, D-Calif.; and Joe Neguse, D-Colo., in leading 44 of their colleagues on the effort.
Members on the Right, like Good, say they believe initiatives like this inflict hyperinflation, increase consumer costs, and deplete American energy capacity.
Good’s one-pager explains the initiative as an “attempt to mimic” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which expanded government in the 1930s during the Great Depression.
“President Biden and Democrats’ continued climate change-fueled war on American energy independence will cost over $500 billion in climate spending with the passage of bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Acceleration Act,” Good’s one-pager warns.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/11/03/biden-focuses-deploying-climate-army-republicans-warn/
***************************************************Washington, DC, ‘Energy Efficiency’ Program Forcing Locals to Reduce Energy Use by 20%
Everyone wants to pay lower electricity bills, and construction companies can insulate newer residential and commercial buildings to lower heating and cooling costs while those in existing structures may choose to install upgrades to create greater energy efficiency. So, why is it then that local Washington, D.C., officials are imposing draconian building efficiency mandates on district citizens, substantially raising the costs for families and businesses?
These mandated standards, which came into effect this year, are enforced through the Building Energy Performance Standards program, which requires that building owners establish energy-use benchmarks based on recent energy use or Energy Star scores (a federal energy efficiency scoring program).
These benchmarks and the Energy Star scores are reported to the district government, which then uses them to set the efficiency requirements. These standards require each building to reduce energy use by 20% or to meet a set Energy Star score for buildings of similar types. This process is conducted over six-year cycles, the first of which is underway. Standards will become more stringent with each cycle that is concluded.
All private and district-owned buildings over 10,000 square feet are subject to the mandate, regardless of age. This means that older, less efficient buildings, including multiuse housing and schools, will be held to the same standards as newly constructed buildings, which will result in much higher costs for existing structures to come into compliance. As pointed out in a recent study on decarbonization efforts in New York, retrofitting existing structures is significantly more expensive than the upfront costs for building to the standards in new construction.
Even something as simple as replacing old windows with Energy Star-compliant ones can cost up to $2,000 per window. Another study estimates that the cost of retrofitting to achieve energy consumption reductions similar to what will likely be required by the Building Energy Performance Standards would be between $2.50 and $3.75 per square foot for residential buildings and up to $8.50 per square foot for commercial ones. Other studies show costs can be much, much higher.
According to the district’s Department of Energy and Environment, the goal of the standards is “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption by 50% by 2032.” The first question needs to be, to what end? According to the Sustainable DC 2.0 Plan website, the objectives are twofold. The first objective is to address climate change. The second is to address the economic and social needs of residents.
Let’s look at climate first. According to one analysis, the standards would result in an annual “greenhouse gas” reduction of 1.05 million tons of carbon dioxide. That might seem like a lot until you compare it the 6,340.2 million metric tons emitted by the United States each year.
Still, one could argue that the district should do its part and if everyone in the country reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by half, as called for by the the district’s plan, then we could make a real difference.
But they would be wrong.
According to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician, Kevin Dayaratna, eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would reduce temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100—and that’s assuming one accepts the underlying assumptions of global warming alarmism.
In other words, despite the district’s official rhetoric, neither its building efficiency standards nor anything else in its extremist agenda would have any effect on global warming whatsoever.
But even if the standards were to reduce global warming, it is important to understand how the building efficiency standards would affect the economic and social needs of district residents.
Affordable housing is a growing problem in Washington and one that Mayor Muriel Bowser has prioritized. That’s good news given that the district has the fourth highest cost of living among America’s 100 largest cities. The bad news is that building efficiency standards will raise the cost of housing significantly.
According to a recent study that analyzes a similar mandate in Canada, the standards would increase home construction costs there by tens of thousands of dollars. Multiple studies show the same trajectory. The bottom line is that efficiency mandates increase property prices. Even the Energy Star program reports that such upgrades can result in rent increases of up to 16% and property sale prices increasing by up to 31%. Whether the district’s bureaucrats like it or not, efficiency mandates drive property prices higher, and housing costs will be sure to follow.
This is not because efficiency is bad but because mandates don’t allow property owners to choose the most cost-effective efficiency upgrades. A third-party study presented by the district’s Department of Energy and Environment shows that space heating upgrades can provide 32% of the Building Energy Performance Standards program’s projected savings while accounting for only 11% of projected costs. This would be an economically rational upgrade that doesn’t need a mandate because many people would voluntarily do it to save money. Air conditioning upgrades, on the other hand, provide only 6.5% savings at 16% of costs and would likely enjoy a much narrower market appeal.
Yet both are presented as contributing to meeting the energy standards mandate. Essentially, the most economically efficient upgrades would subsidize the more costly ones. The perverse result is that the less cost-effective options will likely never become more affordable because people will be forced to purchase them whether they make sense or not.
And if you fall under the energy standards and decide not to comply, the city could fine owners of its largest buildings up to $7.5 million. In other words, the district government’s efficiency ideas are so good that they are forcing citizens to comply—and if citizens don’t comply, they will pay dearly.
Everyone wants our cars to be fuel efficient and our homes to be energy efficient. These are preferences that nearly everyone shares.
But efficiency is often not free. It’s often the case that consumers pay more up front to achieve greater efficiency savings over time. For many families and businesses, the near-term costs are worth the long-term savings. However, it’s also true that many consumers, especially those with less financial flexibility, could use those extra dollars in the near term for more vital needs like food and housing. Additionally, as stated previously, some so-called efficiencies take much longer to pay for themselves, if they ever do.
Because greater efficiency is broadly desired, manufacturers will continue to work to bring costs down so that greater efficiency becomes more generally available and they can sell more products. Over time, products of all sorts become more efficient and less expensive. The benefits are obvious, and, left alone, the system works extraordinarily well.
But that is not what the district’s program is offering. By imposing efficiency mandates, the program will drastically increase the costs for new buildings and make owning older buildings much more expensive, raising rents and mortgage payments and upgrade costs for families and businesses alike.
And make no mistake, while the current program only applies to buildings of 10,000 square feet or larger, this program will expand to eventually include all buildings and homes.
The new standards are big government paternalism at its worst. They raise costs on individual families and businesses and empower district bureaucrats and special interests. But unlike when Washington imposes such measures on all Americans, district residents can vote with their feet.
Based on Washington’s failure to entice businesses and workers back into downtown post pandemic, that seems to be exactly what is happening.
************************************************
Behind a $500 Million Donation to ‘Finish the Job on Coal’
Billionaire philanthropist and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $500 million in September toward shifting electricity production in the United States to wind and solar energy and shutting down its coal- and gas-fired plants.
However, some experts say that Bloomberg’s millions, together with the billions being spent by the Biden administration, are paving a road to ruin.
“With 372 of 530 coal plants announced to retire or closed to date—more than 70 percent of the country’s coal fleet—this next phase will shut down every last U.S. coal plant,” Bloomberg Philanthropies stated.
The effort also aims to “slash gas plant capacity in half, and block all new gas plants.”
Many of those who study America’s electric infrastructure say this is taking us down a dangerous path.
“We’re following people here that are pied pipers,” physicist and energy analyst John Droz told The Epoch Times, referring to the literary character who led children to their doom through delusive enticement.
“This whole business of promoting renewables as a solution is completely unproven, scientifically.”
The transition is destabilizing America’s power grid, which could damage transformers and cause long-term outages, according to Steven Milloy, energy expert, news commentator, and publisher of Junkscience.com.
“We are in this nonsensical, headlong rush to wreck our grid,” he told The Epoch Times.
What's overlooked in this drive to close coal and gas plants is America’s ability to keep the lights on. And while neither the Biden administration nor Mr. Bloomberg has produced a cost-benefit analysis for their plans, analysts say we can look to places such as Germany and Texas, which have taken the lead in transitioning to wind and solar, for a preview of what's in store.
German energy economist Lars Schernikau has assessed the results of his country’s “Energiewende” (energy transition) and warns Americans to not follow Germany’s example.
"Wind and solar do not seem to work; otherwise, after 20 years of ‘Energiewende,’ power prices would be lower and Germany would not be in trouble,” he told The Epoch Times.
Germany spent hundreds of billions of euros to build wind and solar facilities since 2002, doubling its power generation capacity and boosting the share of renewables to 60 percent from about 10 percent. However, its electricity production has been flat, while the cost of electricity skyrocketed.
Wind and solar don't increase output proportionately because of their significantly lower “capacity factor,” or the percentage that's actually generated versus capacity built.
The capacity factor for wind and solar is about 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively, compared to roughly 92 percent for nuclear and 50 percent for coal and natural gas. That many utilities prioritize buying power from wind and solar facilities rather than from coal and gas plants artificially inflates the capacity factor for wind and solar, even from these low levels.
For all the billions spent, Germany’s “Energiewende” has delivered an increasingly unreliable electric system at a cost to consumers that's higher than virtually every other developed country.
The process of shuttering coal and nuclear plants has left the country at the whim of the weather and unfriendly neighbors, such as Russia, and also dangerously short of dependable power that can be adjusted to meet fluctuations in demand.
Before the current trend of closing coal plants, electric utilities in the West typically ran their power generation systems with a 20 percent installed reserve margin over expected peak demand, to ensure that they could always meet consumers' needs.
That margin ensured that the electric grid would still function even during unpredicted events, such as a winter freeze in Texas or a summer heat wave in California.
Depleting Reserves to Balance Renewables
The transition to renewables is now eroding that safety margin. Germany, where peak demand is around 80 gigawatts, once had about 100 gigawatts of reliable, dispatchable capacity; now, reliable capacity is down to 80 to 85 gigawatts, according to Mr. Schernikau.
“That means they are actually at the margin," he said. "As soon as you get close to the margin, whether your reliable power supply equals or is barely above your peak power demand, you're running into trouble, which is exactly what Texas has done.”
**********************************************
Costing the earth: support for climate action and renewable falls
It might be tempting to look down from on high in the renewable energy transition on the protests of ordinary people worried about the cost and discomfort of change, but evidence is growing that this would be a mistake. Cost overruns and delays are making the federal government’s target of achieving 82 per cent renewables by 2030 appear increasingly unlikely. Together with engineering and financial concerns, there is a public revolt by those who feel they can neither afford it nor understand the need to destroy their piece of nature to save the planet.
This is a phenomenon not confined to Australia. It has been a feature of renewable energy deployment from the start. What has changed is the scale of the ambition and the pushback. It is important that government and industry understand what is happening and where it might lead. Early signs of unravelling are snowballing through Europe where governments in Britain, Germany and France are walking back their ambitions on net-zero, which peaked in the lead up to the 2021 Glasgow climate conference.
Cambridge University academic and social commentator Rob Henderson has explored the concept of “luxury beliefs”, which he says are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class while often inflicting costs on those less well off. Henderson is controversial for his views on a range of issues but it is possible to see the public swell of support both for renewable energy and climate-change action in terms of them being a luxury belief. Pro-climate action helped propel the Albanese government, together with a raft of climate-focused independents, most notably the Teals, into office. The danger for the political class is that once a specific luxury belief loses social value, people are eager to discard it.
Public protests at the rollout of large-scale renewable-energy projects and the transmission lines needed to support them is a reflection of social licence under strain. Rising energy costs and less-certain supplies of electricity are now firmly a mainstream concern. Henderson argues that a core feature of a luxury belief is that once a believer is no longer insulated from the consequences of his or her belief, it dissipates. So, does greater public awareness of the size and cost of the challenge involving action on climate change signal the souring of a luxury belief?
For evidence, despite publicity about extreme weather events and negative impacts of climate change, research by global analytics firm Dynata holds some uncomfortable truths. It finds that Australia has one of the largest proportions of people globally who report not being worried about global warming. More than half of Australian consumers (58 per cent) are also unwilling or slightly unwilling to adopt a more climate-friendly lifestyle if it costs more money.
Compared with 12 months ago, about the time of the election of the Albanese government, 41 per cent of those surveyed said they were less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car and 36 per cent were less interested in renewable energy. Rising cost-of-living pressures can help explain the change in sentiment. Older generations said they were less likely to make financial sacrifices to adopt a more climate-friendly lifestyle: 65 per cent of Gen X and 69 per cent of Baby Boomers were unwilling or slightly willing. When it comes to adopting climate-friendly behaviours, people said they were more willing to sacrifice time and convenience than money. This was especially the case for younger generations.
Dynata’s research report draws on responses from 11,000 consumers across 11 countries including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, China, Japan and Australia. The results show that waning interest is not confined to Australia. In the US, 44 per cent of respondents strongly or slightly agree that they are less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car than a year ago because of inflation and rising costs. Forty two per cent strongly or slightly agree that they were less interested in renewable energy than a year ago.
In the United Kingdom, 43 per cent of respondents were less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car and just below one third (28 per cent) were less interested in renewable energy than a year ago. And if it cost more money, 57 per cent were slightly willing or not at all willing to make lifestyle changes.
The trend is also true in China where 37 per cent were less interested in buying a hybrid or electric car and 35 per cent were less interested in renewables. If it costs more money, 35 per cent of Chinese respondents were slightly willing or not at all willing to make lifestyle changes. The fall in support explains why Chinese president Xi Jinping puts energy security and coal-fired power ahead of environmental posturing and British Prime Minister Riki Sunak has applied the brakes to the UK’s net-zero transition. Political leaders in Germany and France have been quick to follow Sunak’s lead.
Implicit in Sunak’s retreat was a recognition that elite opinion had lost touch with the average person. “What I have concluded during my time so far as prime minister is that those decisions can be so caveated, so influenced by special interests, so lacking in debate and fundamental scrutiny that we’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country, that no one seems to be happy with,” he said.
Sunak said Westminster’s politicians did not have the courage to look people in the eye and explain what was really involved. Plans included a ban on gas heating, mandatory home upgrades for property owners, taxes on eating meat and compulsory car sharing if you drive to work. “Now I believe deeply that when you ask most people about climate change, they want to do the right thing, they’re even prepared to make sacrifices,” Sunak said. “But it cannot be right to impose such significant costs on working people, especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet, and to interfere so much in people’s way of life without a properly informed national debate.”
Australian politicians must closely watch what is happening abroad. Many of the imposts, including gas prohibitions and mandatory building regulations, are being introduced by state governments. New building regulations in NSW that mandate higher levels of insulation and double glazing that took effect on October 1 increase the cost of building a home by up to $50,000 at a time of rising political concern about a housing shortage.
Those pushing net-zero can expect the same sort of political disruption evident in Europe. Already there are signs the issue of nuclear power has become more pressing. Public sentiment is changing. And there is reason for government to take notice. In the 2023 update to its Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said much of the momentum was in small, modular clean-energy technologies such as solar PV and batteries, but these alone were not sufficient to deliver net-zero emissions. “It will also require large new, smarter and repurposed infrastructure networks; large quantities of low-emissions fuels; technologies to capture CO2 from smokestacks and the atmosphere; more nuclear power; and large land areas for renewables,” the IEA said.
Globally, electricity transmission and distribution grids will need to expand by approximately two million kilometres each year to 2030. Investment will need to climb to about $US4.5 trillion a year by the early 2030s from the current $US1.8 trillion. Despite the level of investment, carbon emissions from the energy sector reached a record high of 37 billion tonnes in 2022, one per cent above their pre-pandemic level.
Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen attend the opening of the Sun Drive Solar Manufacturing Facility in Kurnell, Sydney.
Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen attend the opening of the Sun Drive Solar Manufacturing Facility in Kurnell, Sydney.
For Australia, a sobering statistic is that China is building enough new coal-fired electricity capacity every six months to equal Australia’s total coal-fired capacity. Australia is only at the beginning of its journey to net-zero. Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen is developing plans for decarbonisation across the economy. Areas include electricity and energy, industry, the built environment, agriculture and land, and transport and resources.
Bowen says the “level and quality of dialogue and collaboration with industries, experts and citizens will set these plans apart from anything that’s been done before”.
“This is a shared endeavour: we must work together to do what’s both possible and practical to stop dangerous climate change and realise the economic opportunities of net zero,” he says. “The end result will be six net-zero sectoral plans that are robust, ambitious but achievable, and accepted by the broader community.”
Evidence abounds that maintaining public support is becoming the priority challenge.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment