Biden signs suicidal ‘No Coal’ pact, while rest of world builds 1,000 new plants

Since 2000, the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the world. U.S. emissions are down 21 percent, while the rest of the world has increased its emissions by 47 percent. Clearly, America “showing leadership” reducing carbon dioxide emissions is leading to nothing other than the rest of the world free license to jack up their own emissions.

The Biden administration has just signed an economic suicide pact that would require the United States and six other Western democracies to shut down its coal power plants by 2035, while China, India and the rest of the world currently have more than 1,000 new coal power plants in the planning or construction phase. The no-coal pact allows all nations but the Suicidal Seven to continue using as much affordable coal power as they like.

Climate activists often point to China as a climate role model, noting that China manufactures more wind and solar power equipment than any other nation. China, however, isn’t stupid enough to use much of that equipment. Realizing that conventional energy – and especially coal power – is more affordable and reliable than wind and solar power, China manufactures wind and solar equipment, sells the equipment to America and Western Europe, and then powers its own economy primarily with coal power.

In America, government intervention has already caused the shutdown of many coal power plants and the construction of expensive wind and solar projects. In more than half the states, renewable power mandates require a certain percentage of electricity in the state to come from wind or solar. Federal laws and regulations punish coal power at nearly every step of coal mining and utilization. Massive subsidies for wind and solar allow wind and solar providers to charge substantially reduced prices for their product at taxpayers’ expense.

Even with government tipping the scale so heavily in favor of wind and solar power, the so-called green transition is coming with an enormous price tag. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there was a 21 percent increase in wind and solar power since Joe Biden took office in January 2021 through the end of 2023. At the same time, electricity prices also rose by 21 percent. Prior to Biden taking office, the long-term electricity price trend was an increase of approximately 1 percent per year. The green transition has increased the pace of electricity price inflation by 700 percent. And that doesn’t account for all the wind and solar subsidies that are hidden in our tax bills.

There is little reason to believe we are on the verge of a climate crisis. A good resource documenting this good news is ClimateRealism.com. Yet, even if a climate crisis were imminent, unilateral coal disarmament is a foolish way for America to approach carbon dioxide emissions.

Since 2000, the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in the world. U.S. emissions are down 21 percent, while the rest of the world has increased its emissions by 47 percent. Clearly, America “showing leadership” reducing carbon dioxide emissions is leading to nothing other than the rest of the world free license to jack up their own emissions. Even if the United States and the rest of the Suicidal Seven could somehow eliminate all of their emissions, it would have little impact on the global trend.

Ultimately, Biden’s pact to eliminate American coal use will further ramp up inflation. After all, energy is an important cost component in almost every product bought and sold in the economy. In addition to the inflation impact, Biden’s pact will force American businesses into a major competitive disadvantage versus businesses in China, India, and the rest of the world, which will be paying substantially lower energy costs than American businesses.

Under Biden’s plan, we will end up sinking vast economic resources into eliminating coal power and as much carbon dioxide as possible from the American economy. Even then, we will still be looking at global emissions continuing to rise. At that point, Biden’s plan is for America to assume the lion’s share of global “climate reparations” and financial bribes to induce China, India, and the rest of the world to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. After sabotaging our own economy with higher energy prices, we will literally borrow money from China in order to then bribe China to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions.

It would be hard to think of a crazier domestic energy policy.

James Taylor ([email protected]) is president of The Heartland Institute.

Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.

For more on the U.S. electric power system, click here.

For more on coal, click here.

Related Topics:#CarbonDioxideEmissions #ChinaCoalMines #EnergyInflation #HeartlandDailyNews #HeartlandInstitute #JamesTaylor #USNoCoalPact

Up Next

Red States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates

Don't Miss

Federal government continues to reject golden opportunities to export LNG

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Venezuelan Migrant Says She’d ‘Return’ To Country After Living In Housing Taken Over By Venezuelan Gang

International / 2 hours ago

ISIS supporter used Canada in terror plot to massacre New York City Jews, motivated by October 7th Hamas attack on Israel: FBI

Brownstone Institute / 2 hours ago

The Curious Case of Mark Zuckerberg

Business

ESG will impose considerable harm on Canadian workers, doesn’t reflect the reality of how markets actually work

Published on September 1, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman, Jack Mintz, and Bryce Tingle

The ESG movement—which calls for public companies and investors in public companies to identify and voluntarily implement environmental, social, and governance initiatives—will cause substantial harm to the economy and
workers, finds two new essays by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Investor support for ESG is starting to wane, which isn’t surprising as the considerable harms ESG mandates pose come to light,” said Steven Globerman, resident scholar at the Fraser Institute and author of It’s Time to Move on from ESG.
The essay summarizes the arguments against imposing top-down ESG mandates. In particular, evidence shows that (1) ESG-branded investment funds do not perform better than conventional investment funds, (2) companies that proclaim to pursue ESG-related activities are not more profitable than companies that do not, and (3) mandating ESG-related corporate disclosures imposes additional costs on public companies and diverts resources away from productivity-enhancing investments, harming workers.

A separate new essay in the Institute’s series on ESG, Putting Economics Back into ESG written by Jack Mintz and Bryce Tingle of the University of Calgary, highlights how the current concept of ESG mandates being pursued in Canada are incompatible with basic economic theory and fail to understand how markets actually work. As a result, ESG mandates will (1) discourage new businesses from locating in Canada, (2) investors will be reluctant to invest in Canada, (3) Canadian companies will be less competitive than their international peers, (4) capital will leave Canada for jurisdictions without restrictive ESG mandates, and (5) economic growth will slow and workers will suffer as a result.

But these harms can be minimized if the definition of what constitutes ESG is expanded, securities commissions are not tasked with regulating ESG, but instead focus on ensuring market integrity, and if governments prosecute fraud in ESG branded funds, and likewise, governments impose liability for the use of ESG ratings, which have been found to be invalid and unreliable.

Crucially, both essays conclude that public policy objectives, such as those addressed by ESG initiatives, should be decided by and acted on by democratically elected governments, not private sector actors.

“There is no reason to believe that managers and business executives enjoy any comparative advantage in identifying and implementing broad environmental and social policies compared to politicians and regulators,” said Globerman.

“The evidence is clear—the private sector best serves the interests of society when it focuses on maximizing shareholder wealth within the confines of the established laws, not complying with top-down imposed ESG mandates that will harm the economy and ultimately Canadian workers.”

The ESG movement calls for public companies and investors in public companies to identify and voluntarily implement environmental, social, and governance initiatives—ostensibly in the public interest.
One school of thought supporting ESG is that doing so will make companies more profitable and thereby increase the wealth of their shareholders.
However, academic research to date has failed to identify a consistent and statistically significant positive relationship between corporate ESG ratings and the stock market performance of companies.
In fact, research instead suggests that adopting an ESG-intensive model might compromise the efficient production and distribution of goods and services and thereby slow the overall rate of real economic growth. Slower real economic growth means societies will be less able to afford investments to address environmental and other ESG-related priorities.
The second school of thought is that companies, their senior managers, and their boards have an ethical obligation to implement ESG initiatives that go beyond simply complying with existing laws and regulations, even if it means reduced profitability. However, corporate managers and board members cannot and should not be expected to determine public policy priorities. The latter should be identified by democratic means and not by unelected private sector managers or investors.
Given that there are indications that investor support for ESG is waning, it is apparent that the time has come for corporate leaders and politicians to acknowledge that it’s time to move on from ESG.

Read the Essay: It’s Time to Move on from ESG

Read the Essay: Putting Economics Back into ESG

Authors:

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Jack Mintz

President’s Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Bryce Tingle

N. Murray Edwards Chair in Business Law, University of Calgary

Business

Canadian Conservatives look to gather support for bill banning a central bank digital currency

Published on August 31, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-400, sponsored by Conservative MP Ted Falk, seeks to ensure that a central bank digital currency is never created and that Canadians will always be able to use physical cash in the settling of debts and other financial transactions.

Canada’s Conservative Party is looking to gather support for a bill that would outright ban the federal government from creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and make it so that cash is kept as the preferred means of settling debts.

The bill, dubbed the Framework on the Access to and Use of Cash Act, or Bill C-400, is sponsored by Conservative MP Ted Falk and already passed its first reading back in June of 2024. It is currently awaiting its second reading.

According to Falk, for “millions of Canadians,” notably “vulnerable folks in our population,” the use of “physical cash is essential to everyday life.”

“Likewise, charities, community organizations, and remote communities rely on cash to achieve their worthy goals,” he said while speaking of his bill.

“Finally, in a world where governments, banks, and corporations are increasingly infringing on the privacy rights of Canadians, cash remains the only truly anonymous form of payment.”

At its core, Bill C-400, if passed, would allow for a national framework to be made which would ensure that Canadians always have access to and can use cash. It would also amend Canada’s Currency Act to restrict the current finance minister’s ability to suddenly put out a call that all bank notes be recalled. Finally, the bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act to ban it from creating any form of digital dollar.

The bill also calls for ways to “incentivize businesses and creditors to accept payments made in cash,” as well as to “remove barriers and disincentives in relation to donations made in cash to non-profit organizations and community organizations without compromising efforts to curtail money laundering, fraud and other financial crimes.”

As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, an overwhelming majority of Canadians want the government and the Bank of Canada (BOC) to “leave cash alone” and not proceed with the creation of a so-called “digital dollar.” The feedback came after the BOC launched a public survey to gauge Canadians’ taste for a digital dollar.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has before promised that if he is elected prime minister come the next election, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.

As recently as a week ago he posted on X about protecting “cash.”

“Ban central bank digital currency, protect your freedom to use cash, and get the government out of your wallet. Proud to support @MPTedFalk‘s common sense Conservative Bill C-400 to protect the privacy & freedom of Canadians,” Poilievre wrote.

Ban central bank digital currency, protect your freedom to use cash, and get the government out of your wallet.

Proud to support @MPTedFalk's common sense Conservative Bill C-400 to protect the privacy & freedom of Canadians.https://t.co/NeqCsSS5fh pic.twitter.com/ft21ISLKdC

— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) August 12, 2024

Digital currencies have been touted as the future by some government officials, but, as LifeSiteNews has reported before, many experts warn that such technology would ultimately restrict freedom and be used as a “control tool” against citizens similar to China’s pervasive social credit system.

Prominent opponents of CBDCs have been strongly advocating that citizens use cash whenever possible and boycott businesses that do not accept cash payments as a means of slowing down the imposition of CBDCs.