Posted on 03/12/2020 6:44:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
Members of the Republican caucus seem not to have learned the lessons of the 2018 election cycle: Climate change is a loser for Republicans trying to play the me too game by offering policies intended to demonstrate liberals arent the only ones fighting it.
Unless one already buys into the delusion that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutantits not, and Republicans should be smarter than to believe it isthen there is no reason the federal government should be intervening in energy markets more than it wrongheadedly already does to fight climate change.
To be fair, the climate bills offered by various Republicans in recent weeks are a far cry from the socialist, top-down lawsespecially the Green New Dealbeing pushed by radical Democrats, including each of the remaining Democratic candidates for the partys nomination for the presidency. There are no carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, or specific technological mandates in the Republican climate bills. Instead, some Republicans are pushing tree-planting programs and offering subsidies and support for particular technologies to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Some Republicans would subsidize the greater use of technologies to sequester carbon dioxide produced at power plants. Butas Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com, notes in an article on American Greatnessalthough it is technically possible to capture carbon dioxide and inject it underground, there is not enough space underground to store significant amounts of carbon dioxide produced each year permanently.
Additionally, the so-called carbon-capture process is expensive. The federal government and private utilities combined have already dumped approximately $10 billion down the blackhole of carbon capture and storage. Despite that investment, Milloy notes, Little-to-no CO2 has been stored. But lots of money has been wasted.
The same Republican proposals would also toss subsidies to technologies already in use by the oil and gas industry. Oil producers have long pumped compressed carbon dioxide, captured from power plants, into wells to enhance resource recovery. Indeed, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) often makes economic sense, with the oil produced covering the additional cost of using carbon dioxide to recover it. Operators already receive a federal tax credit of $35 per ton when they use this recovery method. So there is no need for additional support.
Arguably, government subsidies for the increased use of EOR will not actually reduce carbon dioxide levels, because EOR produces, on balance, a net increase in carbon dioxide. The additional oil recovered, when it is burned, will produce more carbon dioxide than the amount pumped underground to enhance well production.
Another Republican proposal is to plant a trillion trees. In truth, Ive only got a few complaints about the trillion tree bill. Active forest management has its merits. Many federal forests have more dead and dying trees than growing, thriving trees. Simply managing forests for sustained economic profit by allowing increased logging, along with required replanting, like states and private foresters do, would increase jobs, provide a sustainable supply of timber, improve air and water quality and habitat for species, and reduce the threat and high costs of wildfires. In the process, for those worried about it, it would increase the amount of carbon dioxide stored in forest soils and within the trees themselves, and prevent the massive release of carbon dioxide during wildfires.
Rather than a big government tree planting effort, however, the federal government should simply remove regulatory hurdles to the sustainable harvest of timber from suitable federal lands and, as required under existing law, have logging companies reforest them. There is certainly little justification for giving money to foreign governments to plant trees, as the bill does. Why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize often corrupt foreign government programs more than they already do?
In truth, these bills are less about preventing climate change, which humans cannot, in fact, control, than about giving Republicans political cover on the climate issue. Public opinion surveys, however, consistently show climate is just not a top issue for most people, and it is even less important to Republican voters than to voters in general. As a result, Republicans playing climate me too are likely to lose more support from their own base than they will gain from independents worried about climate.
As evidence, James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute (where I also work as a senior fellow), noted in the 2018 mid-term elections that more than half of 43 Republicans who were part of the Congressional Climate Solutions Caucus (CSC), a bipartisan coalition of federal legislators who supported climate change reduction policies, lost their reelection bids.
On an issue like climate change, one used by radical leftists and progressives to gain ever greater control over peoples lives, Republicans cant out-liberal the liberals. Nor should they try.
Today, no one in their right mind cares about this topic.
I care; they’re trying to starve/choke my forest.
LOL! Keep trucking, big guy :)
The corona hoax could potentially give cover to a lot of legislative shenanigans happening behind the scenes. Watch out for Sen. Mike H-1B Lee getting his “fairness to Indians displacing Americans” act. Never waste a crises.
I do not understand the barf alert. The author is rightly pointing out the falacy of the me too climate change pubbies and their wrong-headed policy proposals.
That was not a joke! My brother and I have a redwood forest
and logging is our business. Slow growth= reduced income.
The joke is Bloomberg and his respect for farmers.
Don’t forget GoVid - 535. It’s terrible worldwide. Joementia can save us.
“The joke is Bloomberg and his respect for farmers.”
Don’t worry mini can save us. The vaunted propagandists said he could give us all a million and have enough left over for lunch. Put a table cloth on the streets of San Francisco. The main course is coming out soon. See...see that wIaiter over there squatting?
Why didn’t YOU tell us mini. YOU coulda been a contenda...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBiewQrpBBA
Bobby dePsycho could lend you his platform shoes. Raging BS. Yeah...I’m talking to you toughguy.
Unshackling forest management from hidebound leftist ideology is a good idea for multiple reasons. If GOPers want to play that up for their political cover then good, but anything much beyond that is counterproductive posturing and pandering, and will be perceived as such by both sides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.