The EV Subsidy Windmill’s Hot Air

A seminal new study examines global climate efforts & concludes that, if you “Follow the Science,” Biden’s Climate Policy Is a Fraud.”  That’s because it claims “green pork barrel has had no impact on emissions.”

The hard fact of the matter as related recently by WSJ columnist Holman Jenkins, is that the science has been so negative on the underlying premise of government’s supposedly “essential” role in saving the planet via massive taxpayer subsidies that “Even Democrats don’t want to hear about climate change.” There’s a reason, Jenkins noted, why the “words were barely mentioned at the DNC convention and every transcript I examined omitted the once obligatory Biden modifier ‘existential.’” And that reason being “isn’t a mystery.” Opined Jenkins: “Joe Biden’s policies are having not the slightest effect on climate change & yet somebody will still have to pay Ford’s $130,000 in losses per electric vehicle in the first quarter … [which] … is equal to $64.80 per gallon of gasoline saved over four years of average driving. And yet, this amounts to a ludicrously costly subsidy to somebody else to use the gasoline that EV drivers are paid to forgo.”

The bad news to Joe came in the form of that fore-mentioned study published in the prestigious “Science” journal. Says Jenkins, it examines 1,500 “climate policies adopted around the world & finds only 63 or 4% produced any emissions reductions.” The columnist spelled out the flaw in green advocates’ logic: “Taxing carbon reduces emissions. Subsidizing ‘green energy’ doesn’t.”  Btw, the recent study was foretold way back in 2012 by University of Oregon’s Richard York when he asked “Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” His answer: “Not when net effects are considered.” And even a 2013 National Research Council study funded by the Obama-Biden Democrats came to the same conclusion. Yet, he were are tilting more than ever at EV windmills.

Davd Soul