Stop the climate cult in America.
Describing the mission of his National Review magazine in its inaugural edition on Nov. 19, 1955, the then not-yet 30-year-old conservative icon William F. Buckley wrote that his new magazine
“stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
Rishi Sunak, Britain’s Tory prime minister, seems to have bravely adopted at least some of that mission by challenging Britain’s radical climate agenda. It is a lesson for the United States.
Addressing Britain’s sanguine climate policy, Sunak said,
“there’s nothing ambitious about simply asserting a goal for a short-term headline without being honest with the public about the tough choices and sacrifices involved and without any meaningful democratic debate about how we get there.”
Mind you, Mr. Sunak is not what the climate cult types call a ”climate change denier”; far from it. But he understands that aspirations without means are merely pipe dreams. And he also understands that imposing climate mandates without public discourse or debate is antithetical to the democratic principles that underlie his republic, as it does ours.
What Are We Doing?
Unfortunately, the mismatch between means and aspirations, as well as the disregard for democratic principles, characterizes much of what passes for the national climate policies of both the United Kingdom and the United States.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that automobiles in the Model Year 2026 CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards at 55 miles per gallon for sedans and 39 mpg for trucks and light-duty trucks/SUVs. Those are enormous increases of 25 percent and 28 percent, respectively, just since 2020.
The clear intention in raising the CAFE standards so quickly is to force consumers into buying new cars that are either fully or partially electric, hybrids, or fully electric. But there is clear resistance, as reflected in this comment even from Kyle Bass, an avid environmentalist and chief investment officer of Conservation Equity Management, a private equity fund focused on “facilitating conservation investment.
State and local governments in so-called “blue” states have been even more aggressive in forcing radical lifestyle changes on the people in their jurisdiction. In New York, for example, it is something of a race to “make history,” with elected officials lauding the city’s status as “the first city in America to[[insert costly, new, crackpot, “green” energy notion here]. See this example lauding an expensive “congestion pricing” tax scheme the city will impose next year, whereby drivers who go below 60th Street in Manhattan will have to pay a congestion pricing toll of $26 to “reduce fuel consumed and pollutant emissions.”
Another “green” initiative bans new construction in New York City from having natural gas hookups, even though natural gas reserves are estimated at 300 years and natural gas burns far cleaner than many alternatives. New York’s legendary pizzerias, some serving pizza from coal-fired ovens for more than a century, will likely be forced to adopt electric pizza ovens. Another initiative will force New Yorkers to hold onto their garbage for up to a week for mandatory composting of organic waste, since the city’s plan only allows for compost pick-ups just once a week. Imagine the smell. And the vermin!
At least two council members are starting to pay attention to the mismatch between means and ends, and the enormous costs of compliance to their constituents, but they are well in the minority in the council.
Got Democracy?
Prime Minister Sunak stated, simply, that “it cannot be right … to impose such significant costs on working people, especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet, and to interfere so much in people’s way of life without a properly informed national debate.”
We should all cheer, “Hear! Hear!”
These new CAFE standards and other climate-related mandates weren’t decisions arrived at by referendum or consensus; they were decreed by bureaucrats. In New York, the City Council imposing mandate after mandate is dominated overwhelmingly by Democrats, and most of those are ”woke” progressives whose principal life experience is working in politics or at not-for-profits funded by the city. Their inexperience and inability to see anything beyond their altruistic objective personify the kind of thinking that overstates aspirations without regard to means—exactly as Prime Minister Sunak described in his talk.
The Means to Ends
So let’s look at means.
Few would argue that it is better to reduce hydrocarbon emissions, if we can, for the general health of the people, if not to achieve climate goals. But we also need to maintain an economy to feed, clothe, and house hundreds of millions of people and ensure our national security.
We cannot do those things if we overburden the nation’s electric grid. We cannot do those things relying on ”renewables” like wind and solar power—not even with the best of those technologies we have available today. And we cannot do that with Americans abandoning their gasoline-powered internal combustion engines in favor of electric vehicles (EVs) that most of them cannot afford and that require a charge from an overburdened electrical grid. We might be able to generate all the required electricity the climate cult demands with nuclear energy and a massive investment in the electrical grid, but progressives abhor the former and have made no provisions at all to pay for the latter.
At an average cost of $64,000, the cost of EVs the climate cult would have us all adopt is now, and will likely continue to be, well beyond the financial means of most Americans. They’re also extraordinarily heavy, going from hundreds to thousands of pounds more than gasoline-powered cars. That makes EV crashes far less survivable than their gas-powered counterparts and raises concerns about the structural integrity of roads, bridges, and vertical parking garages.
That’s to say nothing of how vulnerable an “all EV” economy would make us. First, the inputs necessary to make EVs are at risk as they come largely from a geopolitical adversary, China. Other EV inputs depend on mining in countries in the Third World where China is aggressively developing a geostrategic advantage, but where we have no other interest except for EV inputs. The United States simply cannot rely on that supply chain. Nor can we afford to further exacerbate our balance of payments deficit with China by buying their batteries or to go tit-for-tat with China for aid and investments in countries where we have no other geopolitical interests. Challenging China for these EV supplies could present grievous fiscal, geopolitical, and geostrategic challenges, even war. And for what? EVs?
Prime Minister Sunak, who accepts the hypothesis that human activity is responsible for climate change, may not be yelling “Stop!” in the manner Mr. Buckley described; he may simply be saying “slow down.” And reasonably so. For now, though, it is enough.
We need to ensure that the technology we have to fulfill the climate cult’s ambitious agenda is viable, affordable, and secure from a geostrategic perspective. Major elements of the “green” supply chain cannot be in the hands of those who would use it to force their political ends upon us. We learned that lesson with the OPEC oil shock in the 1970s.
But we are just starting to do that. NASA has developed a prototype for a light battery for use in aircraft. Small modular reactors—technological cousins of the type we use in our nuclear navy that have been used safely for nearly 70 years—are less costly, more efficient, and more easily deployed—as well as arguably safer—than their large counterparts.
But bringing those and other technologies to bear to power cities, factories, and, yes, EVs, will require another 30–50 years. In the meantime, we will have wasted trillions on technology that is effectively obsolescent the moment it comes online.
Listen to William F. Buckley: “Stop!”
Are consumers in the United Kingdom and the United States ready for such a rapid transition in climate policies, considering the practicality and impact on their daily lives?
He question is, are consumers ready for such a rapid transition? And more importantly, has there been enough public discourse and debate about this shift?
In the United Kingdom, Sunak has rightfully pointed out the lack of transparency and democratic debate in their climate policy. Aspirations and goals are important, but they need to be backed by realistic means and an understanding of the sacrifices involved. Simply asserting ambitious goals without considering the practicality and impact on the public is not a responsible approach.
The same can be said for the United States. The EPA’s mandate to increase fuel economy standards by such significant margins in just a few years is a drastic move. While the intention may be to push consumers towards electric or hybrid vehicles, there needs to be a consideration for the readiness and affordability of such vehicles for the general public. Without meaningful democratic debate and public discourse on these matters, we risk alienating and burdening the very people these policies are supposed to benefit.
Climate change is an important issue that requires action, but it should not come at the expense of democratic principles and the well-being of the public. Policymakers and governments need to engage in open and transparent discussions with the public about the costs, benefits, and feasibility of their climate policies.
We should not rush into decisions that have far-reaching consequences without thoroughly considering all perspectives and exploring alternative options. Just as Buckley’s National Review stood athwart history, yelling Stop, we need voices like Sunak’s in challenging radical climate agendas and advocating for a more measured and inclusive approach.
It is time for both the United Kingdom and the United States to prioritize democratic debate and public discourse in shaping their climate policies. Only through open dialogue and a consideration of all stakeholders’ opinions and concerns can we create policies that are fair, effective, and sustainable in the long run. Let us learn from Sunak’s example and ensure that our climate agenda is rooted in democratic values and the well-being of our citizens.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...