Biden’s Green Agenda Wishlist Will Require Major Societal Changes

The Biden administration has committed the U.S. government to reach a host of carbon emissions goals over the next several years. While these goals were set using executive orders (which are only as good as the next occupant of the White House), a broader net zero emissions program, established in 2021, addresses how the entire U.S. economy can reach the magic net zero target by mid-century.

The exact cost of such a move has always been fuzzy, and the specific, permanent changes in how we live and work needed to reach these goals have been even more obscure.

The International Energy Agency, however, has been far less reluctant to say what it thinks is required for nations to fulfill the emissions and warming targets their politicians have pledged to meet. In a recent report, the IEA says that fossil fuel use must be cut. A lot:

In the updated net-zero scenario, a huge policy-driven ramping up of clean energy capacity will drive fossil fuel demand 25% lower by 2030, reducing emissions by 35% compared with the all-time high recorded in 2022. By 2050, fossil fuel demand falls by 80%. As a result, no new long-lead-time upstream oil and gas projects are needed. Neither are new coal mines, mine extensions, or new unabated coal plants. Nonetheless, continued investment is required in some existing oil and gas assets and already approved projects. Sequencing the increase in clean energy investment and the decline of fossil fuel supply investment is vital if damaging price spikes or supply gluts are to be avoided.

In other words, demand destruction, by whatever means, is in the future if the politically agreed upon reductions are to be met. At the same time, employing powers and capabilities they have yet to display in any way, governments will manage to increase green energy production to avoid unpleasantness.

It would be a neat trick even for the most authoritarian of governments to pull off. But for a collection of (variably) functioning democracies, kleptocracies, autocracies, theocracies, and outright failed states, such a balancing act would be nothing less than miraculous.

But not if we all get along or something:

“Keeping alive the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires the world to come together quickly. The good news is we know what we need to do – and how to do it. Our 2023 Net Zero Roadmap, based on the latest data and analysis, shows a path forward,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “But we also have a very clear message: Strong international cooperation is crucial to success. Governments need to separate climate from geopolitics, given the scale of the challenge at hand.”

In other words, it's not going to happen. That sounds, and very much is, a cynical take. But give the IEA a degree of credit for saying the part about fossil fuels out loud. The transition, whatever its final form, to a greener energy future would always take more time, money, and permanent changes in lifestyle and activity than the political class could ever publicly admit. Like the pols do on a host of other issues, they promise a seamless transition to a brighter future, where no sacrifices are necessary, and prosperity awaits.

Does that mean we should abandon alternative energies? Absolutely not. Diverse energy sources should be a national goal – particularly those that do not rely on the whims of potentates and politburos to deliver.

Just don't pretend getting there will be cheap, easy, or consequence-free.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.