I am struck by your conclusion: “Not only would keeping the IRA be costly, it has no impact on emissions or the environment. SHOCKER. Per the CATO report: “As shown in Figure A1, the EIA’s reference case projects that all-sector CO2 emissions in the United States will decrease by 0.7 percent annually through 2050. In comparison, in the absence of the IRA, emissions would decline by 0.4 percent annually.”
Here is my conundrum. CATO is considered by some to be a biased source. While I don’t necessarily disagree with their results, are you aware of any peer-reviewed studies conducted independently that confirm CATO’s results? I’ve seen some stuff by B. Lonborg that would agree, but nothing in the literature. Can you employ the resources available to you through IWF or others to do a rigorous literature search?
Assuming that in fact CATO’s results are correct, the other half of my conundrum is straightforward: if the program produces negative results, that is, an increase in emissions, why was it pursued in the first place? Did the Biden Administration, the EPA, or other responsible federal agency ask the question, “gosh, will this work and what effect will it have?” This seems to be such a fundamental question that it beggars the imagination to believe it wasn’t asked!
Thank you very much for your great work ma’am. Please keep the hits coming!
The Biden administration invited figures like "climate savings" to justify full electric appliances mandates, even though the alternatives were more costly and, ironically harmful, to the environment than conventional appliances. That's one example.
Few have studied the enviro - or lack thereof impact - of IRA subsidies, even though utility-scale solar, wind, battery plants eat up a lot of land, still depend on petroleum/oil directly and indirectly, and use critical minerals sourced dirtier and less ethically than here in the U.S. They don't want those figures public. Right now, CATO has the best numbers. I'm searching for others. I'll have a comprehensive report on IRA subsidies soon and publish that/new info if I'm able to uncover it.
In the fertile tension between fiscal stewardship and ecological foresight, we are invited into a deeper reckoning—one that transcends mere policy preferences and touches the pulse of intergenerational responsibility. The article presents a compelling critique of the IRA’s green subsidies through a free-market lens, illuminating the vast financial scale and perceived inequities in benefit distribution. Yet, beneath the numbers lies a subtler truth: the choices we make now ripple far beyond budgets, influencing ecosystems, communities, and future economies shaped by innovation or erosion.
What is often framed as an economic burden may, in another light, be seen as a seed—one that, if nurtured with integrity and balance, might yield resilience in the face of climate uncertainty. As rural towns build new industries around renewables and workers rediscover purpose in transitioning fields, can we hold space for a conversation that honors both prudence and possibility? ♾️ What deeper value are we being asked to invest in, beyond the visible ledger?
Great article.
A series of wildfires can cancel out any purported CO2 reduction as well 😡🤦
Oh yes.
Here is a "fun" one courtesy of Gruesome Newsom's failed policies:
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/california-wildfires-wipe-out-over
I'm from California originally. I'm aware. Ha!
Nicely done, ma’am. Thank you!
I am struck by your conclusion: “Not only would keeping the IRA be costly, it has no impact on emissions or the environment. SHOCKER. Per the CATO report: “As shown in Figure A1, the EIA’s reference case projects that all-sector CO2 emissions in the United States will decrease by 0.7 percent annually through 2050. In comparison, in the absence of the IRA, emissions would decline by 0.4 percent annually.”
Here is my conundrum. CATO is considered by some to be a biased source. While I don’t necessarily disagree with their results, are you aware of any peer-reviewed studies conducted independently that confirm CATO’s results? I’ve seen some stuff by B. Lonborg that would agree, but nothing in the literature. Can you employ the resources available to you through IWF or others to do a rigorous literature search?
Assuming that in fact CATO’s results are correct, the other half of my conundrum is straightforward: if the program produces negative results, that is, an increase in emissions, why was it pursued in the first place? Did the Biden Administration, the EPA, or other responsible federal agency ask the question, “gosh, will this work and what effect will it have?” This seems to be such a fundamental question that it beggars the imagination to believe it wasn’t asked!
Thank you very much for your great work ma’am. Please keep the hits coming!
The Biden administration invited figures like "climate savings" to justify full electric appliances mandates, even though the alternatives were more costly and, ironically harmful, to the environment than conventional appliances. That's one example.
Few have studied the enviro - or lack thereof impact - of IRA subsidies, even though utility-scale solar, wind, battery plants eat up a lot of land, still depend on petroleum/oil directly and indirectly, and use critical minerals sourced dirtier and less ethically than here in the U.S. They don't want those figures public. Right now, CATO has the best numbers. I'm searching for others. I'll have a comprehensive report on IRA subsidies soon and publish that/new info if I'm able to uncover it.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts, and look forward to that next installment.
Personally, I find the fact that there were no apparent corroborating studies appalling.
Again thank you for your great work
In the fertile tension between fiscal stewardship and ecological foresight, we are invited into a deeper reckoning—one that transcends mere policy preferences and touches the pulse of intergenerational responsibility. The article presents a compelling critique of the IRA’s green subsidies through a free-market lens, illuminating the vast financial scale and perceived inequities in benefit distribution. Yet, beneath the numbers lies a subtler truth: the choices we make now ripple far beyond budgets, influencing ecosystems, communities, and future economies shaped by innovation or erosion.
What is often framed as an economic burden may, in another light, be seen as a seed—one that, if nurtured with integrity and balance, might yield resilience in the face of climate uncertainty. As rural towns build new industries around renewables and workers rediscover purpose in transitioning fields, can we hold space for a conversation that honors both prudence and possibility? ♾️ What deeper value are we being asked to invest in, beyond the visible ledger?
You sound like AI. Too robotic to be human... Hmmm
And too human to be AI
AI is a tool to create.
Now read the comment 😊