Incredibly well-researched analysis of Biden's Green Wave initiatives, that takes an objective scientific look at both sides of the debate. (learned plenty of new English words too):
1. Paris Accord is nothing more than a nice gesture. It is politically infeasible for climate change purposes.
2. Energy practicality and politics are 2 parallel tracks which do not intersect. Every political cycle over the next 30 years will involve trade-offs and bargaining (e.g. 1997 Clinton joins Kyoto -> 2001 Bush withdraws Kyoto -> 2016 Obama joins Paris -> 2017 Trump withdraws Paris -> 2021 Biden joins Paris)
3. Long-term cost:benefit estimates of transitioning to green energy suffer from the "correlation does not equal causation" effect of all long-term estimates.
4. The definitions of costs and benefits of the green transition themselves are up for interpretation, eg. revamping the electrical grid for two-way transmission. Budgeting for that alone is a nightmare of permutations.
4. US fossil fuel emissions have already been declining even before Biden was elected. Mainly due to: i) improving the fossil fuel emission mix, e.g. coal -> natural gas; ii) US demographic and GDP growth being stagnant. Public policy is a non-factor in this climate change objective.
5. There is actually a successful precedent for renewable energy transition: the US military's ARPA-E programme - focusing on R&D for grid-scale storage, carbon capture, small modular nuclear reactors, decarbonizing the food and agriculture sector, and more. Unfortunately the new bill only allocates $1B towards funding its expansion, out of the total $2.3T.
0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)
Skip for now
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.