End All Energy Subsidies and End Them Now for Every Type of Energy
Doug Sheridan has another outstanding post up on his LinkedIn page. It includes a thought-provoking message that needs to be repeated indefinitely until it sticks. It is simply this: end all energy subsidies.
I repost Sheridan’s column in full below (emphasis added):
A shift is occurring in the fight against climate change—the world sees it's been sold a bill of goods. Renewables, EVs and batteries can't deliver meaningful reductions in emissions without driving up energy prices, unreliability... or both. The energy transition as planned won't happen. Here are our thoughts on a better way forward—
We support more baseload nuclear and natural gas—and, as able, geothermal and hydro—generation in lieu of coal, solar and wind. Streamline permitting. Build more load-following gas-fired generation to handle daily and seasonal variability, while prioritizing reductions in methane emissions that might undermine gas's environmental benefits. Wring out inefficiencies on our grid.
EVs, while fine for those who want them, should be optional—not mandated—so as to not overload grids or force EVs on those for whom they're not a good fit. Automakers need the freedom to offer traditional hybrid vehicles and other innovations that suit customer preferences.
Nations, especially wealthier ones, should discontinue subsidies for all energy sources, including wind, solar and other renewables, as well as fossil fuels. They should instead focus on smaller investments in basic R&D to help develop by 2050 technologies more effective at reducing emissions than what we currently have.
Climate activists should stop agitating for endless green gov't spending, subsidies and mandates, and instead put carbon taxes to the test of democracy via referendums every four years. A share of proceeds from any carbon tax could go to R&D for energy innovation, road maintenance, efficiency upgrades, or to citizens as a dividend.
Any carbon tax should replace and eliminate all national energy subsidies, mandates, etc. Nations may consider the impact of a carbon tax on trade and competitiveness, and explore border adjustments if they choose. Carbon taxes should automatically go to zero after four years, unless voters reapprove them.
Unless we develop better alternatives to address emissions, gov'ts will continue to run massive deficits fueled by green subsidies and spending. Since voters won't tolerate a high carbon tax, it will have to be set low. Even so, a $20/Mt carbon tax will prove a better solution than endless subsidies and mandates.
These strategies and initiatives won't get us to net zero—an unrealistic and unnecessary goal that's done more harm than good. But they'll bend the emissions curve enough to buy us time to make smarter decisions with better info and technology post 2050. More importantly, they'll reduce the chance we effectively bankrupt ourselves paying for expensive non-solutions to a slow-moving threat.
Sooner or later nations—their leaders and voters—are going to have to wake up to the fact that climate change is neither the immediate nor solvable crisis they've been led to believe. And that means we need to adjust how we approach and respond to it.
As you may have noticed, I didn’t mention carbon taxes in the message that I said needed repeating. No, I endorsed simply ending all energy subsidies. I firmly believe in this, but substituting a carbon tax for those subsidies is not the answer. My reasons are as follows:
The presumption behind a carbon tax is that CO2 is a problem pollutant. I don’t see it as either. It’s the stuff of life, in fact, as we know from our first science classes. Moreocver, there are numerous highly credentialed scientists who tell us we need a lot more of it. The case for a carbon tax is far from being made.
A carbon tax, while one of the theoretically better ways to allocate the hidden costs of carbon on society, also assumes there is a cost as opposed to a benefit, which is not proven. It raises, too, the question of how to fairly price the tax. The plain truth is that there is no way to do that without being totally arbitrary. That’s because we don’t know how much a ton of CO2 contributes to global warming or what the damages might be. It’s entirely guesswork, which means it’s ripe for abuse.
A carbon tax would simply create a bonanza for green energy grifters, with money thrown every which direction by politicians and bureaucrats with no benefits for taxpayers.
A far better option is end all the energy subsidies and end there, letting the free market work. If there are externalities with documented costs to society, than let that case be made but we’re still waiting.
#Solar #Wind #Electricity #NaturalGas #Nuclear #ElectricGrid #Subsidies #Coal
