October 23, 2024
For well over two decades, the interconnected causes of climate alarmism and energy transition have given their supporters a strong upper hand in American politics. Moreover, the proponents of these causes have had an equally strong, if not stronger, upper hand in the politics of all countries with advanced economies, be it in the EU or in Canada, Australia and others. Here in the U.S. in all that time, almost no politician—even those who claimed to support smaller government or less regulation in general—was willing to directly oppose claims of a “climate crisis” or calls to reduce “carbon emissions.” “to defend ourselves” or to achieve a “net-zero” energy economy through government coercion and massive subsidies. Most Republicans seeking office have been intimidated into backing away from these issues and postponing them unless they have actually openly embraced the left's energy program.
I have long said that this situation cannot last. The reason for this is that the proposed energy transition is not feasible and cannot possibly work; and attempting to achieve the impossible with government mandates and subsidies would inevitably drive up costs and otherwise directly impact the voters who would see them. At some point the voters would react. But when would that happen?
You may not have noticed, but in the current election, resistance to the insane energy transition policy has suddenly become a political success issue. For the first time, Republicans are explicitly using the now obvious consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidency.
Consider the issue of electric vehicle regulations. There is no doubt about Kamala Harris' current position on this issue when it comes to official government actions in which she has personally been involved. The Biden-Harris administration worked to develop some form of electric vehicle mandates from the day it took office, as part of the administration's “whole of government” approach to supposedly controlling climate change through regulations. Two important rules were introduced on this topic, which gradually crept through the regulatory maze. After years of litigation, the two rules became final on April 18 and June 7, 2024, respectively. This is not an old story, but something that happened a little over four months ago and was big news at the time. The two rules are currently in force. You can't argue that it doesn't exist, or that it's part of some long-standing talking points from previous Harris campaigns that she has since moved away from. I covered both of these rules in a June 8 post titled “The Latest on the Federal War on Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles.”
For those who aren't following this closely, let's take a look at the tender. The April 18 rule comes from the EPA and is titled “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” It is 373 pages in the three-column, single-spaced Federal Register format. The essence is to gradually tighten the permissible emissions of vehicles with combustion engines so that only fewer and smaller cars can meet them. The June 7 rule comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and sets fuel economy standards for internal combustion engine vehicles. The title is “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond.” This standard, often referred to as the “CAFE” standard, consists of 1004 pages in standard double-spaced font.
Although the rules are worded in terms of emissions and fuel economy standards, it is obvious at first glance that the standards are set in such a way that most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet them, implying a transition to predominantly electric vehicles by the early 2030s forced. In my June 8 post, I cited a March 25 analysis from Atlas EV Hub that concluded that the EPA rule alone could result in electric vehicles accounting for up to 69% of new vehicle sales by 2032:
The regulation will bring significant changes to the automotive industry and potentially put the United States on the glide path to full electrification. . . . Under this final rule, battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric light-duty vehicles could account for 32 percent of all new vehicle sales in the 2027 model year, increasing to 69 percent by the 2032 model year.
Sometime in late September or early October, the Trump campaign, sensing a political advantage, began running an ad in Michigan specifically stating that Harris was seeking a ban on gasoline-powered cars. The video of the ad can be seen at this link. Here are the first sentences of text:
Auto workers. Kamala Harris wants to abolish all gasoline-powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris' push to mandate electric-only cars backfires, and Michigan autoworkers pay the price. Mass layoffs have already begun. You could be next. President Trump is committed to protecting American auto workers.
On October 4, reported by the New York Post here, Harris responded at a campaign rally in Flint, Michigan with a statement:
“Michigan, let's be clear: Contrary to what my opponent suggests, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.”
Of course, Harris didn't give anyone the opportunity to press her on the matter or ask her to explain that the two new rules are not an attempt to tell people “what kind of car they can drive.”
Meanwhile, in the Senate on July 31, Ted Cruz proposed a resolution to repeal EPA and NHTSA rules, which Cruz rightly calls “the Biden-Harris gas car ban.” The resolution was ultimately voted on in both the House and Senate, forcing Democratic Senate candidates in close races to take a position and defend it. One of those was Michigan Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin, who currently sits in the House of Representatives. Here is her statement defending her vote to follow the rules. Abstract:
“In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards developed in close consultation with the Michigan auto industry and Michigan auto workers. After responding to legitimate concerns from our automakers, the government developed standards that were rigorous and demanding, but also achievable – and won the support of the auto industry and the UAW.”
From then on the statement goes on and on in carefully calculated dissimulation. It's fun to watch her squirm.
A very similar dynamic has developed in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey now claims to have always been a big supporter of fracking.
We are still at the beginning. Harris, Slotkin, Casey and others could still win their races. But however things play out this year, I expect that in two to four years the needle will have moved further toward energy sanity. Sooner or later, supporting expensive and unusable energy will be politically toxic. It can't happen soon enough.
Like this:
Load…
Comments are closed.