The Biden-Harris administration has spent more of citizens ‘ cash on climate plans than any earlier U. S. management. However, according to a recent study, the majority of climate policies passed in the last 25 years, including those passed by the Biden-Harris administration against American businesses and consumers, have n’t been effective.
The study, published in the Journal of Science, evaluated about 1, 500 climate policies implemented between 1998 and 2022 by 41 OECD countries ( The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ). The study found only 63 policies ( about 4 percent ) that, combined, had successfully “reduced total emissions between 0.6 and 1.8 Gt CO2”. Experts believe that the 41 countries they studied will have the highest CO2 emissions by 2030, surpassing the Paris Climate Agreement goal by 23 billion metric loads, given the low success rate.
Notably, the study discovered that subsidies and regulations, two widely used tools, are often effective at reducing emissions. According to research, a carbon tax view was more effective at lowering pollution. As the Wall Street Journal blogger Holman Jenkins summarized:” Taxing coal reduces pollution. Subsidizing’ natural strength’ does n’t”. This is not a novel finish. In addition, according to Jenkins, a 2013 National Research Council study sponsored by the Obama administration ( when Joe Biden was the vice president ), concluded subsidies were a “poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases and achieving climate-change goals.”
However, the Biden-Harris management kept throwing more tax money on these unsuccessful approaches. The Inflation Reduction Act ( IRA ), the administration’s most outrageously misleading name, was introduced in the administration’s Green New Deal in 2022, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the decisive vote in the Senate following the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ( IIJA ) from 2021, which pledged over$ 110 billion in climate and energy funding. Over the course of the next ten years, the IRA claimed to have allocated$ 369 billion to climate change and energy. However, the latest Congressional Budget Office’s prediction of the IRA’s weather tax breaks through time 2033 has now jumped to a remarkable$ 428 billion, a swift 16 percentage increase than the IRA initially planned.
The main source of IIJA and IRA climate funding is through subsidies, which have been shown to be the least efficient method for lowering CO2 emissions. The Biden-Harris administration basically sold taxpayers an expensive lie with a cost of more than$ 500 billion between the two pieces of legislation. The two acts also caused the nation’s highest inflation rates in a long time. Since 2023, the inflation growth rate has been declining, primarily as a result of the Federal Reserve’s series of painful interest rate increases. However, the prices of food and housing remain elevated for ordinary Americans.
The Biden-Harris administration’s effort to compel Americans to switch from gas-powered to electric vehicles ( EVs ) is a prime example of its spendthrift climate policy. To accelerate this transition, the IRA offers up to$ 7, 500 for new passenger EV purchases, up to$ 4, 000 for used EV purchases, and$ 40, 000 for commercial EV purchases. The , Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ( IIJA )  , also allocated$ 7.5 billion to the Biden administration to build 500, 000 commercial charging stations nationwide to boost the transition to EVs.
However, the reality is that by the end of May this year, the Biden administration had , built only eight charging stations nationwide. Due to this slow progress, American consumers who purchased EVs are now depressed and frustrated. They are dealing with a number of issues, including the lack of charging stations, the rising electricity prices, and the slower depreciation of used EV prices.
The EV market has been severely impacted by the weak consumer demand for electric vehicles, which has led to significant losses for American automakers. Ford Motor Company reported that its EV division lost$ 1.3 billion in the first quarter of 2024, which is roughly twice what it lost during the same time in 2023.  , To put these numbers in perspective, Ford lost nearly$ 130, 000 per electric vehicle. The company announced it would postpone the production of a new electric version of its best-selling pickup, the F-150 in order to stop the financial bleeding of its EV division. Ford’s domestic competitor, General Motors, lowered its EV production goal for 2024, and forecasted the US EV sales in 2024 to be around 8 percent of the industry, a long distance away from the Biden-Harris administration’s goal of having 50 percent of all new vehicle sales be EVs by 2030.
Do n’t expect Harris to “follow the science” and stop wasteful spending on climate change if she is elected president of the United States, even though private companies will make painful adjustments based on market conditions.  ,
Harris’s reticence and history suggest that her climate change strategy would be even more radical than Biden’s. As a U. S. senator, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N. Y., and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Harris promised to spend$ 10 trillion to convert the U.S. economy to a zero-emission economy by 2045 and promised to do so as a presidential candidate between 2019 and early 2020. She also advocated for the establishment of a climate and environmental justice accountability office, which would be similar to the environmental justice unit she established as San Francisco’s district attorney.
Despite her campaign attempts to portray her as becoming more moderate, Harris has not abandoned her previous radical left-wing policy proposals. More importantly, Harris has not put forward any detailed centrist policies.
At the recent Democratic National Convention, Harris, in her acceptance speech as the party’s presidential nominee, filled the air with plenty of platitudes and little substance. However, she did make a hint about her climate policy by referring to climate change as a fundamental freedom, exhorting,” the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” In stark contrast to her speech, Harris is a member of an administration that has attempted to restrict Americans ‘ freedom to drive gas-powered vehicles or cook on gas stoves.
The Harris-Walz campaign, as pointed out by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, has shamefully used the word “freedom” to “disguise that Democratic policies seek to restrict liberty across American society”. In the upcoming election, voters who want to avoid the government’s wasteful spending and a violation of individual rights should not fall for the Democrats and Harris ‘ lies.
