Joe Biden’s proposed plan “to meet the existential threat of climate change” by achieving a “carbon pollution-free” power sector by 2035 proceeds from faulty scientific assumptions, according to energy policy analysts and a Princeton physicist.
The former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee unveiled his plan to “build a modern sustainable infrastructure and an equitable clean energy future” on July 14.
The proposal to replace carbon-emitting power sources with wind and solar energy by 2035 is one of seven “key elements” of the plan which draws heavily from a task force Biden formed with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who had previously challenged Biden for the nomination.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) primary architect of the Green New Deal in the House, and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) served as co-chairs for the Biden/Sanders Task Force, which released its recommendations on July 8. The task force opens with a series of proposed green energy initiatives aimed at “combatting the climate crisis” and “pursuing environmental justice.”
The Green New Deal refers to a package of climate change proposals Ocasio-Cortez introduced as a resolution in the House and that Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced in the Senate in February 2019. Markey’s version failed to advance in the Senate. The Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion or $600,000 per household, according to one study.
Although the task force does not explicitly reference the Green New Deal, like Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal it calls for the United States to achieve “net zero global emissions” by 2050, as does Biden’s official plan. The task force recommends eliminating emissions from power plants by 2035 to achieve this goal.
“To reach net-zero emissions as rapidly as possible, Democrats commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035 through technology-neutral standards for clean energy and energy efficiency,” the task force says.
“We will dramatically expand solar and wind energy deployment through community-based and utility scale systems. Within five years, we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems and 60,000 made-in-America wind turbines.”
The Biden plan also calls for “carbon-pollution free energy in electricity generation by 2035” and for making use of wind and solar technology as an alternative to fossil fuels.
The Biden plan envisions a “clean energy revolution” that will “spur the installation of millions of solar panels—including utility-scale, rooftop, and community solar systems—and tens of thousands of wind turbines—including thousands of turbines off our coasts.”
The task force and the Biden plan repeatedly invoke the phrases “carbon pollution” and “climate crisis” while making the case for “net-zero carbon emissions.”
But William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics emeritus at Princeton University, challenges the suppositions about carbon dioxide standing behind the task force recommendations and Biden’s plan. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is beneficial to life on earth, the Princeton physics professor explained in an email.
“It is depressing to see the Democratic Party, once a champion for Americans who believed in truth, honesty, and fair play, hijacked by ignorant and cynical climate fanatics,” Happer said.
“Carbon dioxide is not carbon pollution but a benefit to life on Earth. Climate change is not a ‘global emergency.’ Most of the alarmist claims about climate are vicious propaganda, disguised as science.”
“Fellow Americans, don’t drink this toxic cool aid!” Happer said. “If implemented, these climate plans will cause great harm to our environment and will turn our beloved country into a miserable eco-dictatorship. America will no longer be the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave.’”
What Science Says
The Democratic Party officials who authored the recommendations also claim President Trump has “denied science” while refusing to embrace anti-emissions policies.
However, Kevin Dayaratna, a research fellow and principal statistician at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C., finds that science is on the side of climate skeptics who do not accept the premise of theories that link human activity with catastrophic climate change.
“Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas,” Dayaratna said. “I do not believe it is a pollutant in the sense that soot and smog are pollutants. However, even if you do believe that CO2 is a pollutant, it makes more sense to focus on free market solutions to reducing emissions that will not destroy jobs in the process. The natural gas revolution, for instance, has reduced emissions without unnecessarily raising electricity costs for everyone.”
Dayaratna also agrees with Happer’s assessment that CO2 has benefits that go largely unheralded.
“CO2 is a key element of photosynthesis and thus has agricultural benefits,” Dayaratna said. “In fact, we find that these benefits have been vastly understated in social cost of carbon modeling, which my co-authors and I have sought to address in a recently published peer reviewed research.”
Dayaratna is the co-author of a recent study with Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington D.C., that makes the scientific case for the EPA to vacate its 2009 “endangerment finding” that enables the agency to regulate CO2. Dayaratna and Michaels conclude that the endangerment finding is based on faulty modeling that should not be used to set regulatory policy.
The Epoch Times contacted the Biden campaign by email and asked if the campaign could clarify if Biden views CO2 as a dangerous pollutant and asked if the campaign could comment on the relationship between the task force recommendations and Biden’s “clean energy” plan. The campaign did not respond.
But Dan Kish, a senior vice president for policy at the American Energy Alliance based in Washington D.C., sees a palpable connection between Biden’s formal proposal and the task force.
“Joe Biden’s energy plan was sprung from the loins of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who headed up his task force,” Kish said in an email.
“But the Green New Deal has its roots in much, much more than energy, as her chief of staff let slip to the Washington Post, when he said, ‘it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.’
“It turns out that Joe’s plan is not so much about energy as it is about power…the power over people’s lives and the economy. And nothing would give the government more power than controlling everyone’s energy supply.”
Long Term Advantages
Derek Walker, vice president for U.S. Climate at the Environmental Defense Action Fund, sees advantages to Biden’s plan, which he views as a “bargain” for the U.S. economy when compared to the impact of climate change.
“The Biden plan is a commonsense path to increase clean energy, create millions of good-paying, union jobs in manufacturing and infrastructure across the U.S. and reduce carbon pollution in line with what the science says is necessary,” Walker said in an email. “Compared to the rising cost of climate change impacts, these investments are a bargain for our economy and will make communities across the U.S. more resilient in the long term.”
The Environmental Defense Action Fund is the advocacy partner of the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit group headquartered in New York.
Other green groups that have expressed support for the Biden plan include the Sierra Club, which has offices in Oakland, California, and Washington D.C. Ariel Hayes, the political director for the Sierra Club released the following statement taking aim at President Trump while crediting Biden for showing a “willingness” to listen to environmental activists.
“While Donald Trump spreads lies about windmills, tries to block legislative efforts to advance electric vehicles, and ignores the millions of Americans working in clean energy, Joe Biden is presenting a vision to invest in and grow an equitable clean energy economy,” Hayes said in her statement.
“The Sierra Club is encouraged by Biden’s proposal, which shows he is listening to the continued calls from activists and organizations across the country demanding a bold and ambitious plan that meets the size and scale of the crisis and completes the transition to a clean energy economy.”
‘Make Red China Great’
Kish, the policy analyst with the American Energy Alliance, expressed concern about the geopolitical implications of Biden’s energy plan, which he said could be described as a “Make Red China Great” energy plan since China is a top producer of wind energy parts and solar energy panels.
“Instead of using America’s God-given energy that has made us the largest oil and gas producer in the world and energy independent for the first time in 70 years, Joe’s program would cost trillions of tax dollars and trillions more in increased energy prices for Americans to buy Chinese solar panels, windmill parts, and batteries,” Kish said.
“Along the way, his green energy donors who import Chinese products will get even richer by feasting on the shattered dreams of working Americans.”
Where China is concerned, the Biden plan contends that Trump “has held American workers from leading the world on clean energy, giving China and other countries a free pass to outcompete” the United States “in key technologies and the jobs that come with them.”
“His promise to sign the U.S. up to the UN’s Paris Deal which leaves China to do whatever they want for 10 years as their coal consumption skyrockets to dizzying heights to run factories making solar panels Joe would subsidize means further misery for working American men and women as they would pay more and more for energy while China gets a free pass, while they labor at jobs made scarce by higher energy costs,” Kish said.
“Selling out America to Red China and unaccountable UN bureaucrats is a slap in the face to Americans who believe their children deserve a better future.”
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The political opinions that are expressed in the re-published articles from other information media are not necessarily shared by the editors of ReporteroCubano.Net. | Visit the source for more information