Are the Inflation Reduction Act's Climate Goals Plausible?
A 40 percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 is possibly achievable.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), hammered out through negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and unveiled last week, has been hailed as the "most important climate action in U.S. history." Why? Because it "reduces carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030" below the level emitted by the U.S. in 2005, according to a press release from Senate Democrats.
The consulting firm Rhodium Group, after cranking the Act's provisions through its econometric model, concurred: "Our preliminary estimate is that the IRA can cut US net greenhouse gas emissions down to 31% to 44% below 2005 levels in 2030…compared to 24% to 35% under current policy." The policy shop Energy Innovation's analysis agreed: "We find that the IRA is the most significant federal climate and clean energy legislation in U.S. history, and its provisions could cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 37-41 percent below 2005 levels."
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell to six gigatons in 2020 from their 2005 peak of 7.4 gigatons, a 19 percent drop. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below their 2005 levels implies cutting another 1.6 gigatons of emissions in the next seven years or so. Does this seem plausible? Neither the Rhodium Group nor Energy Innovation's black box analyses break out how this would be achieved.
So let's make some very rough calculations to see that if that goal is at all plausible. First, consider the four categories of GHG tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency: fluorinated gases (largely coolants), methane, nitrous oxides, and carbon dioxide.
Fluorinated gases: In May, the U.S. Senate approved the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol that phases out fluorinated gases by 2036. Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, the U.S. commits to cutting fluorinated gas production by 70 percent by 2030. This should roughly cut its carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from 189 million tons to 57 million tons—that is, by 132 million tons.
Methane: The IRA includes a carrot consisting of $850 million in incentives to monitor and mitigate methane leaks and a stick imposing a fee of $1,500 per ton of methane leaking from oil and natural gas facilities. At the Glasgow climate change conference last year, the Biden administration promoted the Global Methane Pledge, in which 121 countries agreed to cut their methane emissions 30 percent below their 2020 levels by 2030. In 2020, U.S. methane emissions amounted to the carbon dioxide equivalent of 650 million tons. Cutting that by 30 percent would reduce those emissions by nearly 200 million tons.
Nitrous oxides: Agricultural production is responsible for 74 percent of U.S. nitrous oxide emissions, mostly from the application of organic and synthetic fertilizers and raising livestock. It will take lots of different relatively small-scale interventions to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Nevertheless, let's make the heroic assumption that the $20 billion allocated by the IRA to the agricultural sector can help meet the same target set for methane emissions. That is a 30 percent cut of agricultural sector nitrous oxide emissions by 2030. Such a cut would amount to the equivalent of about 95 million tons of carbon dioxide.
So adding up prospective cuts of fluorinated gases, methane, and nitrous oxides totals a GHG reduction equivalent to about 430 million tons of carbon dioxide. That would mean that cuts in carbon dioxide emissions must be around 1.2 billion tons by 2030. It is worth noting that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell by 1.4 billion tons between 2005 and 2020. In other words, to achieve the goal of cutting overall greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 suggests that a roughly equivalent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would have to take place in about half the time. In 2020, most U.S. carbon dioxide emissions arose from electric power generation (1.4 billion tons) and transportation (1.6 billion tons).
A 2021 analysis of power generation trends by the U.S. Energy Information Administration calculated that the carbon dioxide emissions in that sector fell 32 percent from 2.5 billion tons to 1.7 billion tons between 2005 and 2019. Over that period, the percent of power generated by coal fell from 50 percent to 23 percent, whereas the portion produced by burning natural gas rose from 19 percent to 38 percent. When burned, coal produces about twice as much carbon dioxide as does natural gas. The agency attributes 65 percent of the decline in carbon dioxide emissions to switching from coal to natural gas generation. About 30 percent of the decline resulted from increases in renewable power generation.
Modeled pathways for reducing carbon dioxide emissions vary, but let's run through an exercise using specific greenhouse gas emissions numbers to see what might be possible. First, posit that by 2030, coal-powered generation is phased out while keeping natural gas generation. If coal-powered generation is entirely replaced by renewable power generation, that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 770 million tons. So additional cuts amounting to 430 million tons would be needed to get to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below their levels in 2005.
A March report from the American Public Power Association (APPA) notes that U.S. electric utilities have a total nameplate generation capacity of 1.2 million megawatts. Nameplate capacity is the maximum electrical generating output of a power facility. Coal accounts for 18.5 percent (232,000 megawatts) of that capacity, wind 10.7 percent (134,000 megawatts), and solar 5.3 percent (67,000 megawatts). However, since wind and solar energy is intermittent, it is not possible to simply switch out one-to-one coal generation for renewables capacity.
Given current electricity market conditions, the capacity factor of renewables is about half that of coal. So replacing coal would require building out around 460,000 megawatts of solar and wind generation capacity by 2030. APPA projects that about 30,000 megawatts of new solar and wind capacity will be deployed this year. Replacing all coal-fired generation would require more than doubling (65,000 megawatts) that rate of deployment for solar and wind power beginning next year. That is about the rate China achieved last year.
Again, even if coal power generation is completely phased out, 430 million more tons of carbon dioxide emissions would still have to be cut in order to reach the goal of a 40 percent reduction below their 2005 levels.
The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is the 290 million cars, trucks, and buses on American roads, emitting about 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2020. Notionally, to cut transportation emissions by 25 percent (400 million tons), that would mean that a quarter of the fleet in 2030 would have to be powered by electricity. Assuming a fleet of 300 million, some 75 million electric vehicles would then be on U.S. roads. One estimate projects roughly 50 million electric vehicles traveling U.S. highways by 2030. Perhaps the IRA subsidy of $7,500 per electric vehicle would be enough to entice Americans to buy that many electric vehicles between now and 2030. In fact, Bloomberg is reporting that the U.S. has just passed the inflection point where electric vehicles amout to 5 percent of new car sales.
Powering millions of electric vehicles would likely require the generation of more electricity, which would impact greenhouse gas emissions in that sector. On the other hand, managed charging and discharging to the power grid while vehicles are sitting idle in driveways and parking lots might be one way to address the problem of renewable power intermittency.
Of course, these very rough calculations do not take into account the costs and the inevitable regulatory roadblocks (we'll leave that to another time). But the modeled claims that it is possible to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below their 2005 levels seem plausible, if just barely.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fvck you and this nonsense.
This is supposed to be a Linertarian rag. Next, let’s examine if Stalin’s 5 Year Plan’s, or Mao’s Great Leap Forward are feasible. Just have the farmers produce iron for 8 hours a day, and their is still technically enough time to grow some food…
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Forget the liberty part -- the name of the site is "Reason". They could try doing some reasoning.
Amen!
Are the Inflation Reduction Act's Climate Goals Plausible?
No.
Oh, sure they are as long as you don't mind freezing in the dark while you starve.
-jcr
I mean, I think they could be, in the energy sector, if you were willing to:
- Set the end date at somewhere between 2040 and 2050
- Commit to building a TON of new nuclear power plants all over the country (fast track)
- Tell coastal progressives that - guess what - they get hundreds of very visible new wind farms up and down their coastlines
But the methane and nitrogen 'goals'? That's what the Dutch and Italian farmers are rebelling against currently. That's what toppled the government of Sri Lanka.
If this madness topples a few more governments I might get behind it.
No, even by those standards, the goal is not plausible. The cost is beyond what is available, the resources are not available to build the means, and the populace will not put up with the deprivation concomitant with even beginning to pretend to implement it.
I mean .... the article itself as much as admits this is fairy dust: "let's make the heroic assumption". No, let's not. Greens are Marxists who all make the same "heroic assumptions" of magic pixie dust. They have had a century and have only 100 million dead to show for their efforts.
Exactly.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/were-not-gonna-take-it
I’m positive that lots and lots of ‘smart’ people showed the ‘leaders’ of Sri Lanka plenty of models and graphs and projections ‘proving’ how great things would be if the country beat the rest of the world to the punch and jumped on the organic farming bandwagon. And I’m sure those same ‘experts’ spent more than a little time fawning over Sri Lanka’s high ESG score as if it were something tangible.
But ultimately, the bullshitter’s bullshit is exposed — typically via high-speed collision with reality. The real world never seems to conform to the promise of the computer model, and things go disastrously wrong. Lofty promises are replaced with grim realities, and imaginary fortunes vanish to reveal desolate grocery shelves. When this happens, an angry people rise up and withdraw their consent to be governed.
"the populace will not put up with the deprivation"
I don't know, man.
We The Populace have, and are, already putting up with a lot of bullshit I wouldn't have thought we'd tolerate.
I don't like what we the populace have put up with, but I can understand it as the result of one vote every few years being meaningless and everybody wanting some of those sweet government benefits everybody else is getting.
People will not put up with starving in cold dark houses. Look at the farmer revolts in Europe, and Sri Lanka's rebellion. Look at how Biden got away with all sorts of shit, but not inflation, especially gasoline doubling and seeing food go up practically every time you shop.
Doubling?
A gallon of gas where I live was $1.68 in December of 2020.
In July of 2022 it was $5.05.
That's 300.6%.
Why would an "inflation reduction" act even HAVE climate goals? Never mind that the act won't reduce inflation, either...
We do lots of things in lots of bills that have no apparent relationship to the primary purpose of the bill.
It would be nice to have a system in place where the legislators were restricted to only include such items as are directly impacting the main goal of the bill. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to make it happen, though.
Instead, everything is practically an omnibus.
My libertopia charter allows anyone to challenge any law for defects, and if a jury of 12 random people cannot unanimously agree it is clear, consistent, and relevant and minimal per stated goals, it is voided in its entirety. Part of the "entirety" bit is to discourage omnibus bills, especially renewals. If all laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, etc are renewed in a single law (such as quibbly definitions of theft or assault), any single defect would undo them all.
The Iron Law of DC Bill Names.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/did-the-ministry-of-truth-name-the
Looking at what’s actually in the bill, it’s no surprise that inflation isn’t improved, because this bill has very very little to do with inflation. It’s likely titled that because 1) The Iron Law of DC Bill Names and 2) So politicians can repeat “Inflation Recovery Act” a million times while campaigning for the midterms, tricking their constituents into thinking the politicians are actually doing something about inflation. Even this dumpster-fire of a CNN article could find few good things to say, claiming the bill would lower CPI by 0.33% in the fourth quarter of 2031. (If you believe government knows enough for that number to be anything but a wild guess, you need to read more Screaming into the Void)
How dare Reason do analysis to see if legislation can achieve its stated goal? Only leftists do that.
GFY
The most - unLibertarian legislation possible, and this is supposed to be a sarc gotcha?
Here’s a hint, they don’t analyze if it is technically possible to reduce Monkeypox by shutting down gathering places of gay men, or decrease STD by outlawing sex work, or reduce abortion thru legislation, or clear the streets of San Francisco by prosecuting drug and petty theft. They don’t fact check anything Orban says, much less Hawley or Trump- unless it is an attempt to disprove. Not “well, maybe it is kinda possible” while ignoring the complete fascist takeover of our society necessary to do so
Exactly. They shouldn't analyze the legislation. They should be organizing militias to get ready for the revolution where good right-wingers murder leftists in the streets like Tutsis in Rwanda. Right?
You are such a lazy and stupid thinker you should apply for a job at reason.
Reason probably has a rule against paying someone for two full time jobs.
Yeah, this isn't the gotcha you think it is. Lessee, just this morning we've had Libertarians for Massive Government Healthcare Programs and Vaccine Distribution Schemes at Taxpayer expense, and now Libertarians for Government-Managed Economic Tweaks to Stop a Climate Problem that Isn't One.
A couple of weeks ago we had Libertarians for Massive Welfare State Expansions And Taxpayer Wealth Transfers to All Members of the Third World who do an Endzone Dive Across our Social Construct.
Reporting on things doesn't equal support for those things. Jeez.
As far as supporting "Vaccine Distribution Schemes at Taxpayer expense" goes, we must have read different articles. The one I read was about government fucking up vaccine distribution why not acting when it could have. It wasn't in favor of government distributing vaccines. It accepted the reality that government does, and then criticized them for fucking it all up. Where was the one saying that government is supposed to be the only supplier of vaccines? I must have missed it.
...distribution
whyby not..The one I read was about government fucking up vaccine distribution why not acting when it could have. It wasn't in favor of government distributing vaccines. It accepted the reality that government does, and then criticized them for fucking it all up.
Right, and as I posted in THAT thread, it seems that Libertarianism has simply given up. Accept that we're in a dictatorship, so just ask it to be a little more efficient.
As opposed to what? What were they supposed to say? A couple sentences about how the government shouldn't be in the business of vaccine distribution at all, and left it at that? Is that what it takes to be a true libertarian?
What they used to say in the old days: Here's a private solution to your massive government program.
Is there though? I think part of the point is that the government has assumed total control over this and the private sector can't do anything about it unless there are some massive changes in how health policy works.
So? Advocate the massive changes! That's what they used to do at one time.
Long gone are the days of saying, "Here's how the private sector could handle this Monkeypox issue without any government action whatsoever."
But I guess we've got Libertarianism Plus now.
So instead of reporting the news they should engage in wishful thinking?
Oh I will admit, we're not even in the wishful thinking phase any more.
See, there's your problem, again: you write so sloppily that no one, seemingly even you, can differentiate true sarcasm ,mere rage, actual useful facts, or anything else going on in that pea brain.
I again double dog dare you to pretend to mute me so I can triple dog dare you to pretend to unmute me. Your pretense of muting was the only entertainment you've provided in a long time.
He is such a myopic pea brained lunatic that is obsessed with sticking it to the Rs, he has no concept of how stupid he sounds here
Oh he knows.
The title of the bill is a blatant lie; I expect these numbers are as well.
Oh by the way, another name for CO2 is "plant food".
Get rid of enough CO2 and you get rid of the rain forest, which is supposed to be a bad thing.
Not a blatant lie. Just so horridly over-optimistic that it might as well be one.
Let's shut down all coal power plants over the next 8 years, ignore the increase in natural gas that will necessarily occur and pretend that there are no emissions associated with renewables.
Let's replace a substantial portion of gas cars with electrical and ignore the increased generation.
Let's also ignore that most of the efficiency reductions are non-repeatable. The low-hanging fruit is long gone and diminishing returns is in effect.
Don't forget to ignore the costs (financial and human suffering) from switching to a less reliable power grid while simultaneously increasing the load on it.
Also, ignore the fact that renewables are much less energy dense, so require massive amounts of land to produce equivalent energy. Also, ignore that the best places to construct these renewables happen to be some of the most fragile environments possible, the most at risk of disruptions, i.e. the southwest desert is some of best areas for solar, but desert environments are extremely fragile. Or the front range of the Rockies for wind, again extremely dry and fragile environments. Additionally these areas tend to be remote in relationship to large population centers, requiring huge new investment in transmission infrastructure, which further decreases efficiency, unlike gas which can be built in proximity to urban centers, reducing transmission loss.
Note: the environmentalists are already suing to hold up windmill and solar plants because of their location and threats to critical habitat.
One is left wondering what a plantless world must have existed before people burned fossil fuels to add all the CO2 to the air.
I am sure there will be plenty of CO2 and that human don't need to keep adding extra.
Are the Inflation Reduction Act's Climate Goals Plausible?
It doesn't matter. They'll impose the restrictions on us (not on themselves, mind you) whether they do anything or not.
the stated goals vs. the actual goals
two different things.
Will it achieve the stated goals? Absolutely not.
Will it achieve some or all of it's goals to control every aspect of your life? Some measure of success will happen for sure.
Of course the GHG reductions are plausible - we just need to kill off about 90% of humanity. That's a lot of people to kill but it becomes more plausible every day.
“Well, ackshuly, it can save just one life, so it is technically OK to outlaw everything”
The neat trick is to point to one life and claim it saved it while ignoring the billions it killed.
Just the people with private jets might make a measurable dent.
I'm not so sure about that. Socialists only managed to murder, what, 1-2% of the population last century? 90% now, and with double the population, seems a tad optimistic.
Would need some sort of mass delivery system. One which would be super effective because people would willingly seek it out. Hmm...
Something injectable……..
Perfect! Even better if you can delay and obscure the cause.
you cant achieve these reductions with out ramping up production so much that pollution and destruction from the production would cause greater harm. Maybe that should have been addressed. But thats okay we like causing harm for noble causes, thats what the Covid shut downs were all about. If you want to know what it will be like just look to Sir Lanka.
This production will happen in China. Don't worry about any pollution from this. It won't effect us.
( Also, they are communists and don't care)
For every 1 ton we cut, China will produce 5 tons.
No.
A 40 percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 is possibly achievable.
Sure, with a 90% reduction in economic activity.
Note the headline and article treat "plausible" and "possible" as interchangeable. They are not. What is possible is not at all plausible once you factor in the Sri Lanka revolt, EU farmer revolts, the EU energy deficit, and fiscal reality. They simply will not happen.
Yes, this is the winner. Our government is rushing full speed ahead with what's already failed in Europe, and they're aware of how it failed, and the pain it's caused, yet they are going to repeat it here. Seems almost appropriate that they're pushing gun control at the same time, doesn't it?
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell to six gigatons in 2020 from their 2005 peak of 7.4 gigatons, a 19 percent drop.
Amazing what happens when you simply close your borders and tell everyone they're not allowed to leave the house.
And yet atmospheric co2 went up during that period. Strange how cutting our output didn't help.
That's because the world's population (including a significant chunk here in the US) reverted to open fires for cooking and household chores. Funny that.
Lol
Almost all the decrease was driven by the private market, i.e. switching from coal to cheaper and less polluting natural gas, increased gas mileage (driven by consumer demand far more than government fiat CAFE limits) increasing production efficiency, etc. Upgrading our grid, increasing transmission efficiency would contribute to decrease GHG, and is necessary for increasing numbers of electric vehicles, but it's rarely mentioned. It also would decrease fires, blackouts, brownouts, etc.
A 4% cut sounds plausible (with probably no detectable impact on the actual climate).
A 40% cut sounds like a pipe dream (with again probably no detectable impact on the actual climate, but with a lot of pain caused by power outages during hot and cold weather.)
it's just fucking unnecessary.
By how much will global temperatures drop of emissions are cut 40%.
I guess it depends on how willing the rest of the world is to go along.
China, India, Africa? I guess we need to elect more John Fettermans who pledge to "make people listen?"
Depends on the Sun...
Likely it will not drop at all. We are past the point of stopping climate change. Efforts today are limiting that change and adapting to the change. Both are important.
Of course, these very rough calculations do not take into account the costs and the inevitable regulatory roadblocks i.e. '....you have a cancer and we'll need to operate immediately but I want to stress I'm did not use or consider any precise scientific measurements (we can do that after I've removed a few things) or take into consideration anything that has taken place in the past......'
If we care about global emissions these rules will increase it. Because other countries won't give a shit, comparative advantage will shift the population from dumb ass countries that impose the rules to countries that don't have any rules. Total output of pollutants will go up.
Of course, these very rough calculations do not take into account the costs and the inevitable regulatory roadblocks
Talking about the costs is very important. That's the rub of any decision in life.
It's achievable in a "fuck the middle class" kind of way.
The EPA site linked in the story…
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#allsectors/allsectors/allgas/gas/all
…is a great tool. You can analyze emissions by type, industry, year or year range, state, etc.
Solar is limited in winter and useless under ice & snow. We learned in the Midwest last year that wet+cold=ice and icy blades lose aerodynamic lift and don't turn. Attempting to de-ice them would be an environmental disaster. Offshore wind would work on the West Coast, but blizzards on the East Coast range all the way down to Virginia and are going to shut down all solar and wind precisely when it is needed most for life-saving heat.
Nobody is going to provide the capital expenditures needed for gas & coal infrastructure that cannot be replicated by green power in winter unless the government is willing to guarantee it stays profitable the other 9 months of the year. So government investment in 'green' power means government subsidy of gas & coal.
Not very libertarian or very green is it?
“Notionally, to cut transportation emissions by 25 percent (400 million tons), that would mean that a quarter of the fleet in 2030 would have to be powered by electricity.”
Powering the fleet with electricity does not cut transportation emissions, it moves them to the arbitrary category of “generation,” while adding an additional transmission cost to that category. (As the following paragraph essentially admits.)
Ronald Bailey has written some very cogent articles in these pages. This is not one of them.
Again, fuck Ron Bailey with a rusty hammer and sickle. He needs take a long walk off a short ice shelf, or at minimum go write for Vox,
Bailey is a tranny (transhumanist), the most progressive (and pathetic) ideology possible.
If the Progressives continue to hold both Houses after the November midterms, I believe the goal is achievable. There will be no industry. No one will be able to afford to drive... or eat for that matter so there won't even be wood fires at home, after the winter die off.
CB
Evidence, please.
10% inflation. You are quite the disingenuous cunt, aren't you?
Inflation was not due to climate mitigation.
You are quite the disingenuous cunt, aren't you?
Nah. I'm an ingenious cunt.
Energy doesn't affect inflation? Tell Germany that.
Your posts are confused. The question is, what is the cause of current inflation, not whether some future rise in energy costs owing to mitigation can cause inflation today.
You are a disingenuous cunt. The question is will the Green New Deal destroy industry and bankrupt the country. The evidence, 10% inflation as the government pours more and more money into the economy, shows that it will.
The petroleum industry is not the only business in the world, as much as the Republican party may rely on it for its funding.
It is certainly difficult to persuade anyone who is sure that climate change is either not happening or is unmitigatable (and there are Schrodinger types who appear to believe both at the same time) that steps to mitigate it are feasible.
And no one believes that is inevitable but not even remotely likely to be catastrophic?
I hope you die of a really bad sunburn that gets infected.
The people who know that climate change is happening generally think that there is a range of possible outcomes.
Do you insure your house and its contents?
I don't insure my house against solar flares. Do you play at anything but fallacy and nonsense?
You should calibrate your risk assessment to the fact that you stubbornly refuse to read any reliable sources on this subject but instead rely on comforting partisan propaganda. Give yourself an ignorant buffoon tax, for the children.
"It is certainly difficult to persuade anyone who is sure that climate change is either not happening or is unmitigatable ... that steps to mitigate it are feasible."
This is especially true when those who advocate for "action" against climate change refuse to take the only step that is currently feasible: nuclear power. If the people in power actually believed that we had a short period of time to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, they would be taking steps to build nuclear power plants like all our lives depended upon it.
Let me summarize this article. Garbage in, garbage out.
But.....but......Democracy!
"In May, the U.S. Senate approved the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol that phases out fluorinated gases by 2036."
Just ignore the fact that there isn't a safe (non-flammable) replacement available for the use of such gasses in AC and refrigeration systems.
Regarding the sign (Congress, Do Your Fucking Job) held by the bitch in the photo (big assumption based on nail polish, I know) I will assume in this context what she/ze really wants to say is "Congress, control me and everyone else". Democrats have reached Muslim levels of both ideological fervor and jihad-like submission.
Religious wars are never pretty.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sinema-signs-reconciliation-bill-after-dems-agree-protect-private-equity-billionaires
Current emission reductions have been largely the result of switching from coal to natural gas. Biden is killing the natural gas infrastructure. I expect carbon emissions attributable to the US to increase again. Of course, we may be exploring a lot of carbon emissions to China.
Natural gas is a euphemism for methane. It's not a solution to the problem of greenhouse gases, what with it being a very potent greenhouse gas. Your talking points were written on a napkin by oil executives over lunch.
R B. I'll give you that your numbers seem fine, but frankly, what's the purpose if the Chinese and Indians are building coal powered plants as fast as they can, and the Europeans are going to have to go back to coal for reasons we've all discussed at length this spring?
Yes, we can do it, but as you close with "the costs and the inevitable regulatory roadblocks", at what cost, and to what practical effect?
Whether we meet or goals or not the passage of the IRA will make progress and that is something to note. There is not a simple solution to man-made climate change what we can do is make progress and this bill will help that progress along.
This is just another version of "we have to start somewhere." No, we don't . There is no such thing as "man-made climate change" that actually affects more than a temporary alteration of local weather, and none of it is related to CO2 from our vehicles.
IF the Earth has warmed by 2 degrees F, then the surface seawater has also warmed by 2 degrees F. Warmer seas release their CO2, and the release of CO2 since the warming began would pretty much account for the CO2 rise we see today. If the seas have not warmed by the same 2 degrees F as the land, then there is simply no global warming.
Furthermore, the CO2 from whatever source is beneficial to our food supply, which will be compromised by turning so much farmland over to wind and solar set-ups. CC is not a problem, and we cannot alter it if we wanted to, not no how, not no way.