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.

THREAD
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.

nypost.com/2021/01/15/joe…
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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Epstein

Alex Epstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexEpstein

4 Jan
If the US shouldn't rejoin the Paris Climate Accords, what should we do?

First, recognize reality: there is climate change but no climate crisis. Fossil fuels' overall impact is incredibly positive.

Second, liberate oppressed non-carbon alternatives, above all nuclear energy.
The only way to lower CO2 emissions and benefit America is developing ways to produce low-carbon energy that are truly reliable and low-cost. Are China and India going to stop using fossil fuels so long as they are the lowest-cost option? They won’t and they shouldn’t.
America can lower emissions and energy costs by decriminalizing nuclear energy. Nuclear is actually the safest source of energy and the only way to provide reliable non-carbon electricity anywhere in the world. Yet politicians are overregulating it to death.
Read 5 tweets
4 Jan
Reason #3 why Biden should not rejoin the Paris Climate Accords: it is immoral. A moral international policy is one that expands human flourishing and human freedom. Paris is a path to outlawing fossil fuels, the way to provide affordable, reliable energy for billions of people.
Global CO2 emissions are rising, and not because of the US (1/6th and falling). They are rising because billions of people in the developing world are bringing themselves out of poverty by using fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.
The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can’t come close. That’s why China and India have hundreds of new coal plants under construction.
Read 12 tweets
26 Nov 20
Q: Won't a carbon tax reduce CO2 emissions without hurting our economy?

A: No. A carbon tax would raise energy prices, make every American industry less competitive, and offshore our CO2 emissions to the countries that outcompete us.
Any policy toward CO2 must recognize that CO2 emissions are a global issue--and that that global emissions are rising because of the developing world's increasing use of fossil fuels. The US causes less than 1/6 of global emissions—and falling.
The developing world overwhelmingly uses fossil fuels because that is by far the lowest-cost way for them to get reliable energy. Unreliable solar and wind can’t come close. That’s why China and India have hundreds of new coal plants under construction.
Read 17 tweets
26 Nov 20
Q: Won’t Joe Biden’s energy plan create enough “green energy jobs” to offset millions of lost jobs in the fossil fuel industry?

A: No. By making energy unreliable and unaffordable for every American industry, the Biden Plan would create mass "green joblessness."
"Creating jobs" is only a good thing if those jobs are productive jobs. If the government pays people to produce inferior products and services or pays people to produce inefficiently, that is "welfare work" that hurts American consumers and American competitiveness.
Many of the jobs created by the Biden Plan would involve building new, unreliable solar and wind infrastructure. This infrastructure can't replace our reliable power plants--it will just add a lot of new costs that consumers and industry have to pay. Classic welfare work.
Read 11 tweets
25 Nov 20
Q: Aren't we in a rapid free-market energy transition from fossil fuels to solar and wind?

A: No. The 3.7% of American energy that comes from solar and wind is due mostly to *anti-market* policies that force utilities and consumers to buy unreliable, cost-increasing energy.
Claims that we are in a rapid transition away from fossil fuels are wrong.

In the past several decades, solar and wind have gone from providing virtually 0% of American energy to 9.6% of American electricity and just 3.7% of American energy overall.
Solar and wind's 3.7% market share is not due to the free market but rather *anti-market* policies that force consumers to use unreliable solar and wind even though they drive up energy costs.
Read 9 tweets
27 Oct 20
Biden: “Climate change is the existential threat to humanity. Unchecked, it is going to actually bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It’s real. And we have a moral obligation.”

Reality: This is hyperbole. It's fake. And we have a moral obligation to use more fossil fuel.
Fact: Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1 degree Celsius, mostly in the colder parts of the world.

Source: energytalkingpoints.com/climate-crisis/
Fact: Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have not only contributed to mild and manageable warming, they have also caused the benefit of significant global greening. Thanks to fossil fuels the Earth is far greener than it was just 40 years ago.

Source: energytalkingpoints.com/climate-crisis/
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!