The Greens Hijack Biden’s $3.5 Trillion Budget Proposal (That Could be a Blessing)

Deal or No Deal?

“Deal” means agreement among radicals. The Greens hijacked Biden’s already strained budget.

Clean Electricity Standard

Please consider Reconciliation Package to Include Clean Electricity Standard.

In an interview with The Hill prior to her tweet, Smith, who is crafting the clean electricity standard legislation with Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), said she had expected the standard to be part of the legislation.

The senator also told The Hill that while the details of the standard will have to be worked out in negotiations, she’s hoping to see a requirement for 80 percent clean electricity by 2030.

My goal is to get to 100 percent clean electricity as soon as possible. President Biden’s goal is to be doing it by 2035,” she said, referencing Senate rules that allow reconciliation bills to raise the deficit for no more than 10 years. 

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy has said that the clean electricity standard is among her priorities for the legislation. 

Smith said she’d include power coming from wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric or nuclear — and fossil fuels only when they use carbon capture technology to prevent their emissions from going into the atmosphere.

Smith also stressed the importance of the clean energy standard, calling it the “centerpiece of our strategy for addressing climate change.”

She said she opposes partial credit for unabated natural gas, which is less carbon-intensive than coal and oil, but still emits planet-warming gases.

Taxing Imports is Part of the Plan

The New York Times reports Taxing Imports is Part of the Plan

Democrats have agreed to include a tax on imports from nations that lack aggressive climate change policies as part of a sweeping $3.5 trillion budget plan stocked with other provisions aimed at ratcheting down fossil fuel pollution in the United States.

The move to tax imports was made public Wednesday, the same day that the European Union outlined its own proposal for a similar carbon border tax, a novel tool that is designed to protect domestic manufacturing while simultaneously pressuring other countries to reduce the emissions that are warming the planet.

Unlike the Europeans, who outlined their plan in a 291-page document, Democrats released no details about their tax proposal on Wednesday. Calling it simply a “polluter import fee,” the framework does not explain what would be taxed, at what rate or how much revenue it would expect to generate.

Carbon Emissions in Tons

Carbon Emission Percentages

Economic Madness 

The US only accounts for 14.5% of carbons and the EU another 8%.

It is well beyond crazy for the US and EU to propose to tax the word to reduce carbons by 55-80% by 2030.

Yet, that is the goal of economic illiterates on both continents.

EU Kicks Off Biggest Push Yet on Climate, Braces for a Fight

Meanwhile, in Europe, EU Kicks Off Biggest Push Yet on Climate, Braces for a Fight.

The European Union rolled out an ambitious climate plan to transform every corner of its economy on Wednesday, and braced for years of tough negotiations to turn it into reality.

Every industry will be forced to accelerate its shift away from fossil fuels in order to cut pollution by at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030. To achieve that, the bloc will bring new industries such as shipping into what’s already the world’s largest carbon market; ban new combustion-engine cars by 2035; impose new costs on dirty home heating; and force the aviation industry to emit less and pay more.

“Nothing we presented today is going to be easy. It’s going to be bloody hard,” European Commission climate chief Frans Timmermans said. But he said the “existential threat which is the climate crisis” called for radical steps.

EU officials are at pains to emphasize that the transformation must be fair. The bloc has earmarked 72 billion euros ($85.1 billion) in a new fund to help compensate those who lose out, with the money –which is based on current prices — coming from the expanded market for carbon emissions.

291-Page Document No One Can Explain

The EU border tax is scheduled for 2026. European officials propose a phase-in period to figure out how the tax would actually work in practice to give time for countries to prepare.

“Europe was the first continent to declare to be climate neutral in 2050, and now we are the very first ones to put a concrete roadmap on the table,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Blessing in Disguise? 

yes. To understand why, first let’s take a look at what is happening beneath the surface in the EU, then the US Senate.

Eurointelligence discusses Opposition to 2035 CO2 Phase-Out

FAZ writes this morning that there is opposition within the European Commission to the phasing-out of the fuel-driven motor car by 2035. Valdis Dombrovkis, Commission vice president, and Thierry Breton and Adina Valean, commissioners for the internal market and transport, favour a postponement to 2040. This debate reminds of us of the postponement of the exit from coal in Germany, which has been put back to 2038. What is happening right now all over Europe is that governments and the Commission are buckling under pressure from industry, and are choosing the soft option of delaying most of the adjustment to the next decade.

Among governments, France is leading to those who favour 2040 as an exit. A 14-year transition phase is beyond the life span of current management boards of car companies. It’s the next guy’s problem.

The other area of disagreement concerns interim targets. The original Commission proposal foresaw a 65% reduction until 2030. Realistically, that would only be achievable if manufacturers already start making and selling electric cars in large quantities by then. It will be interesting to see whether this number, too, will be watered down. If you pick 2040 as your zero target, it would be logically consistent to pick a lower reduction target for 2030 as well – in the order of 50%. That would mean that the whole timeline gets pushed back.

It is also important to remember that this is just the proposal itself. We would not be surprised if the EU Council waters it down even further.

Green Party Implodes in Germany

On June 26, I noted Green Party Implodes in Germany

An Infratest dimap poll, published June 10, debunked one of the more persistent myths about Germany – that it is naturally a green country. Germany has a strong Green party, but there is a specific history to that, one that one should not be confused with general attitudes in society.

Here are some of the highlights. Should the state outlaw behaviour that is particularly damaging to the climate? 53% say No. Are you in favour of higher petrol prices? 75% say No. Should the government encourage a shift from fuel-driven to electrical cars? 57% say No.

The Greens are back to where they were at the beginning of the year, at around 20-22% – which we think is where the current core support lies. 

The above snips from Eurointelligence. 

Reconciliation Odds

The price tag of infrastructure is $1 trillion or so. Pelosi says she will not pass a standalone infrastructure bill. 

The reconciliation package is another $3.5 trillion, and Bernie Sanders is arguing for $6 trillion. 

I fail to see how Senator Joe Manchin (D) from West Virginia (a coal producing state) will get on board with the incredible demands of Senator Tina Smith. 

Add Senator Jon Tester (D) Montana to that list of those questioning this madness. 

Potential Saving Grave

The more demands the extreme radicals place, the more likely the moderates will run away. In the US it only takes one moderate to avoid economic disaster. 

If Tina Smith and Nancy Pelosi insist on economic nonsense, Biden’s entire $3.5 trillion reconciliation package will turn to ashes. 

That is the potential saving grace of these economically mad proposals.

Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

14 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
conservativeprof
conservativeprof
2 years ago
Democrat train wreck coming at slow speed then accelerating rapidly. The Democrat answer to economics is simply far less consumption. Get ready to shut down your AC, spend far more for consumer goods, turn down your heating temperature, spend far more for housing construction, and reduce personal transportation. No one knows if 100% RE grid is feasible. What will a 100% RE grid cost? How will energy demand and supply be balanced when the grid entirely depends on the wind and sun? How will a totally 100% RE grid provide reliable power with highly increased demand from 100% EVs and electric heat? How will a totally 100% grid support periods of low RE generation (hot summer late afternoons and sunless winter periods) as well as extremely high RE generation (mid summer days  with solar and autumn nights with wind)? What will be the costs of enormous networks of lossy transmission capacity, over capacity of RE plants (to deal with very low periods of energy generation), large industrial energy storage capacity, complex control systems, and negative energy pricing? Forget nuclear power in the USA and most of Europe. The greens will not permit nuclear power. 20 years ago it was feasible for the enormous research and development for new nuclear power plants. Political power has made nuclear power not viable.
astroboy
astroboy
2 years ago
Three things about fossils fuels:
1) There’s a finite supply, especially of oil and natural gas. I used to be in oil exploration. If it were not for better computers and signal processing techniques we’d be in a very tight spot today. Twenty or thirty years from now, who knows? In the end, when it’s gone it’s gone.  It is true the US has about 1000 years of coal,  which is OK if you don’t mind strip mining Appalachia and having air that looks Beijing’s. We’re going to have to go to clean energy, might as well do it now rather than the last minute when it might be too late. To me, that means nuclear/fusion, hydro and geothermal in the US is pretty much tapped out, I’m not convinced solar and wind can supply what we need (although I could be wrong about that).
2) It is true that China produces the lion’s share of green house gasses. Solution: don’t buy any of the crap they make. You can debate on whether manufacturing jobs are going to come back to the US, but I haven’t heard anyone say that the US isn’t capable of manufacturing what it needs. China is not our pal and shipping our manufacturing capacity to them just so that the Walmart heirs can make more billions is a very bad idea. 
3) If you eliminate oil and gas, exports from the entire Middle East equate to exports from Finland, a country with four million people. Alot of people in the middle east hate the US, perhaps they’re justified, perhaps not. In any case, why sent dollars to our enemies?
These are three big reasons to go to clean energy, none of which is related to climate change. Now, whether the check Biden wants to write is a good idea to do that is another issue…..
conservativeprof
conservativeprof
2 years ago
Reply to  astroboy
No shortage of oil/NG. The shortage of oil/NG is a pricing issue. The alarms about oil/NG shortage have been rung for decades without fulfillment. If there is a true imbalance between supply and demand, market forces will provide alternative forms of power.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“The senator also told The Hill that while the details of the standard will have to be worked out in negotiations, she’s hoping to see a requirement for 80 percent clean electricity by 2030.”
Requirement without the means of getting there.
There were several days of flex alerts in L.A. recently. It used to be that people were asked to do laundry after 7 pm, but now the time has been revised to after 10pm.
New York City was having power availability issues recently as well, during hot weather.
Imagine it is 2030 and the U.S. power grid is like that of a third world country.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
If Pelosi is in on it, then it is likely to be full of those bogus “public-private partnerships”, which is a euphemism for corporate giveaways and subsidies.   Like Obamacare or Medicare Part D or EITC.   
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Nuclear is the future. Almost all nuclear plants are based on technology from the 1960s. If they lose cooling water, they melt down. Current technology has advanced to the point where the reaction requires cooling water to work, so if the primary loop fails, the reaction stops. And they can re-use the fuel rods, so disposal is far less of a concern.
Renewables have their place, but they’re impractical for much of the world. Wind and solar are unreliable. Hydroelectric is good, but it can only be built in select places. And we need to stop placing windmills on the tops of mountains. They’re ugly and ruin the scenery. I don’t know how any environmentalist thinks placing windmills on the tops of mountains is a good idea.
Dutoit
Dutoit
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
The problem with nuclear is that there is also a shortage in uranium.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Dutoit
Agree that nukes have to be part of the energy future. Uranium is a complicated market, for both economic and political reasons. But nuke plants don’t need that much., right? …fuel is only 5% of their operating cost, compared to 70% for gas. And here in the West (US and Canada) mines are mothballed at least partly because Russia and Kazakhstan  dump their product to undercut the market and stay dominant on market share.
whirlaway
whirlaway
2 years ago
Well, if Pelosi is for it, then it is likely to be some kind of a private sector giveaway, which is what most of the government programs from either right-wing party are anyway.   Like EITC is a subsidy for employers that pay low wages, and Obamacare is a government giveaway to private insurance companies, and Medicare Part D is a government giveaway to Big Pharma and on and on.
That said, the fact that other countries are not making much progress on going green, should not stop us.  It is crazy to not do anything just because the others aren’t.  After all, we didn’t stop from inventing the automobile because all other countries were still in the bullock-cart age, nor did we stop our moon landing program because most other countries were only flying weather balloons or toy rockets at most.   We took the lead and the others followed.  We should be the leader once again.
Dutoit
Dutoit
2 years ago
It is not easy to find if the main problems with the cost of energy will come from the fight against climate change or by the reduction and finally extinction of ressources. I think that the second will be the main problem.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
I agree with most of what you said, but that doesn’t mean some things aren’t going to change…and there will be a trend  in this general direction, of relying less on FF’s and taxing them more and lending lots of cheap money to purveyors of Green-ness, some real, no doubt some bogus. Money will be made. Fossil fuels might someday be used more frugally and sensibly
(Sorry I was just dreaming. I don’t really think that) .
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Just finished Marin Katusa’s book. It’s very good and on some things we have parallel thinking. The uranium story is very interesting and I wasn’t aware how much of it is controlled by Russia and Russian-controlled areas. France owns a big uranium mine in Niger and around 30% of their uranium comes from there. It’s no surprise that when the Sahel was threatened by the Tuareg rebellion  they would send in the troops.  
shamrock
shamrock
2 years ago
They haven’t even got the “bipartisan” $1t infrastructure passed. 
amigator
amigator
2 years ago
Tax or Tarif what’s the difference??

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.