Last month, WV Senator Joe Manchin heroically stopped "Build Back Better" legislation that would have ruined America's and above all WV's economy.
Now The @NYTimes and others are pressuring Manchin to reverse his stance via the false narrative that coal miners support BBB.
🧵
In an effort to undermine Joe Manchin’s opposition to Build Back Better, the @nytimes recently published a "news" article trying to portray @Sen_JoeManchin’s rejection of BBB as opposed to the interest of coal miners by citing a union that represents a small minority of miners.
The @nytimes article by @jonathanweisman, entitled "Manchin’s Choice on Build Back Better: Mine Workers or Mine Owners," cites certain unions supporting BBB, but neglects to mention that less than ¼ of WV’s coal miners are associated with unions. This is journalistic malpractice.
The reason that certain coal miner unions support BBB is not because they have an answer to the obvious truth that BBB would destroy the WV economy. It is because these unions overwhelmingly represent retirees, not workers, and are seeking BBB handouts. alexepstein.substack.com/p/why-build-ba…
A key fact evaded by the "coal miners support BBB" narrative is that the UMWA must pay out dozens of times more dollars to retirees than its limited coal miner members pay in: in 2017, it was $600M out vs. $15M in. Hence the UWMA prioritizes BBB handouts over miners and WV.
BBB would be an unmitigated disaster to WV energy in 3 ways:
1. It would make WV electricity much higher cost and much less reliable. 2. It would sabotage WV's growing would production. 3. It would sabotage WV's growing natural gas production. alexepstein.substack.com/p/why-build-ba…
While supporters of BBB portray coal as inevitably dead, that is not true. While BBB would kill coal, without BBB coal has many decades left. Last year global coal demand rose faster than for any other form of energy. And in WV, coal is crucial to the state's industrial economy.
Low-cost, reliable electricity is one of WV's great assets. Thanks to its overwhelmingly coal-fired electricity, West Virginia has some of the lowest electricity rates in the country—second only to coal-heavy Kentucky on the East Coast.
Low-cost, reliable electricity saves everyone money and makes WV a hub of industry. The industrial sector uses over 40% of WV’s electricity.
Low-cost, reliable electricity also makes WV a major exporter of electricity to its regional grid, meaning more money from other states.
If BBB passes, WV will suffer the same fate that Germany, California, Texas, and many others have: prematurely shutting down many reliable power plants at great cost, paying for massive new unreliable solar/wind infrastructure at great cost, and facing huge reliability risks.
While every state will be harmed by BBB’s imposition of high-cost, unreliable electricity, WV will suffer especially—whether from fleeing industry or from deadly winters when the power goes out and over 50% of the population is relying on electric heat.
Contrary to claims that Joe Manchin has destroyed America's (and WV's) future by opposing BBB, he has protected our future by preventing an unprecedented destruction of our energy industry--the industry that powers every other industry. alexepstein.substack.com/p/intellectual…
All the media organizations spreading disinformation about Build Back Better being good for WV coal miners--by ignoring the devastating consequences to WV's economy, and by pretending that the handout-seeking leaders of retiree unions represent most coal miners--should apologize.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Republicans ran on a pledge to "terminate" the trillion-dollar Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, aka "the Green New Scam."
But their proposed budget keeps almost all the subsidies, while falsely claiming to save money through easily-reversed “phaseouts” starting in 4 years!
🧵
If you’re just joining the conversation about the IRA subsidies, here’s what you need to know: they are subsidies for inferior forms of energy that cost a fortune, raise energy costs, and make our grid unreliable—especially the solar/wind subsidies.
Canada has 3X the US’s oil reserves but less than 40% the production.
Why? Anti-oil politicians like Mark Carney who say they’re protecting Earth’s coldest country from global warming.
Here's the story of Canada's squandered oil opportunity—and how to reverse it 🇨🇦👇
*Canada has the greatest oil opportunity on Earth: > 3 times the reserves of the US, with lower production costs.*
Canada has 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves—by far the largest of any free country. And its producers can profit at $44 oil, vs. >$57 for US shale.
Canadian oil production is also continuing to get cheaper. Oil sands operating costs have dropped 19% over the past five years, and the industry—which is still fine-tuning how to coax oil-like bitumen out of oil sands—has substantial room for further cost reductions.
In addition to its massive proven oil reserves, Canada also has massive unexplored oil resources. Canada’s Northwest Territories may contain up to 37% of Canada’s total oil reserves, much of it light crude, which is even cheaper to extract and transport than bitumen from oil sands.
*Canada is squandering its oil opportunity, with < 40% of US production and much slower growth.*
Given Canada's massive oil reserves and lower production costs, Canadian oil should have been growing far faster than US oil—on a path to producing even more oil than the US does.
Instead, Canada is totally squandering its oil opportunity, with less than 40% of US production and slower growth since 2010.
Why Congress's new budget should eliminate all IRA "tax credits"
1. They are subsidies 2. They promote inferior energy 3. They raise energy costs 4. They make energy unreliable 5. They increase our debt 6. They make our economy less productive 7. They don't lower CO2 emissions
*Truth 1: IRA energy tax credits are really just subsidies*
Real tax credits let productive industries keep/reinvest more of their profits.
Most IRA "tax credits" are transferable tax reduction certificates that unprofitable industries trade for cash. I.e., subsidies.
A tax credit lets productive industries pay less tax on profits, which enables them to reinvest in additional productivity.
But most IRA "tax credits" support activities that are unprofitable on a free market—e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen—and therefore have no taxes to reduce with credits.
How can unprofitable activities be set to get a trillion dollars in IRA "tax credits"?
Because they are aren't really tax credits but *transferable tax reduction certificates* that can be easily sold for cash to profitable companies (and sometimes the government itself).
Giving a trillion dollars in transferable tax cut certificates to unprofitable activities that pay no taxes is no different than giving transferable tax reduction certificates to individuals who pay no taxes.
It's a trillion dollar subsidy, not a tax credit.
*Truth 2: Every IRA subsidy promotes inferior energy*
Every subsidy has lobbyists who say it's somehow improving American energy.
But the fact is, they are demanding subsidies because the energy they are pushing is inferior and couldn't survive or thrive on a free market.
The IRA's "45Y" and "48E" subsidies will give $241-901 billion to companies for "clean electricity," mostly intermittent solar and wind—which would be used far less in a free market because they are so unreliable. E.g., CA has chronic reliability problems from depending on solar.
The IRA's "45X" Advanced Manufacturing Production subsidies will give companies $132-193 billion to inefficiently manufacture batteries, as well as the solar panels and wind turbines that are created huge reliability problems on our grid and increasing the cost of electricity.
The IRA's "30D," "25E," and "45W" subsidies will give $117-393 billion to companies for EVs—whose mix of cost and (in)convenience most consumers won't pay market prices for, and therefore need huge subsidies as well as mandates to buy.
The IRA's "45Q" subsidies will give companies $34-210 billion to capture CO2 and pump it underground—a process companies would use very little on a free market since it's so costly. E.g., carbon capture for a coal plant costs 4 times the price of the coal!
The IRA's "45V" subsidies give companies $33-100 billion for hydrogen fuel—which would exist very little in a free market because it's so expensive to make. Hydrogen costs 10 times what gasoline does for the same energy! And favored "green" hydrogen is even more!
The IRA's "45Z" subsidies will give companies $43 billion for various "clean fuel" projects, mostly biofuels—which would be used far less in a free market since they are expensive to produce and compete with food for cropland.
The IRA's "25C" and "25D" subsidies will pay (mostly wealthy) property owners $28-276 billion to use government-favored "energy efficiency" technologies like solar panels and heat pumps that they wouldn't otherwise use or be willing to pay for.
⚠️ WARNING: The secret UN carbon tax that's about to fleece America
Next week, the UN votes on an ocean carbon tax that would spike the price of food, fuel, and everyday essentials—hitting US the hardest.
Here's what the admin and Congress can do to stop this in its tracks👇🧵
The UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) is supposed to ensure safe shipping around the world.
Instead, it's pushing a carbon tax on shipping fuel, with proposals ranging from $19 to $150/ton of CO2—the equivalent of adding $1.29 to the price of gasoline!
A $150/ton carbon tax on shipping would double fuel costs for large ships.
The marine fuel oil used to power most large ships costs ~$400/ton. Since burning one ton of marine fuel oil produces ~3.2 tons of CO2, a $150/ton carbon tax adds ~$480/ton—roughly doubling today's price.
Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natgas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA's bogus "endangerment finding."
In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a "finding" that GHGs "endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.