Government Making Appliances Costlier and Crummier in the Name of Going Green

Prior to the 20th century, families commonly used washboards to wash clothes, cooked over a coal- or wood-fired stove, and had to rely on iceboxes for food storage. Inventions like the refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, microwave, and washing machine became signs of human progress. What was once grueling, manual labor became much more manageable. These appliances saved people time, helped improve health and hygiene, and raised the standard of living for millions. It was only a matter of time before government regulations began to stifle progress for appliances. 

A recent report authored by Senior Fellow Ben Lieberman from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), entitled Free the Appliances, provides a compelling examination of how these regulations evolved from responses to the oil crises in the 1970s into the cumbersome regulatory framework that they are today. As we will see shortly, this CEI report details how these appliance efficiency standards have become a nightmare for the everyday American. 

CEI emphasizes how this regulatory framework expanded far beyond its initial energy-saving intentions, evolving into a broad set of environmental mandates that prioritize climate goals over consumer interest and practical appliance performance. I have covered two such instances previously here on Libertarian Jew, both of which were from the Biden administration in 2023.

A proposed gas stove ban would have limited consumer choice, imposed unnecessary restrictions on appliances that are efficient and cost-effective, and undermined individual freedom by dictating what homeowners could use in their own kitchens. Biden's water heater standards are similarly perturbing. They raise upfront costs significantly for consumers, especially lower-income households. Meanwhile, these standards offer minimal energy savings and do not provide a fair return on investment (ROI). While these are some of the more high-profile instances, CEI covers other instances in which consumers have been subjected to the unintended consequences of these appliance efficiency standards:

• Dishwashers: To comply with water-use restrictions, manufacturers compensate by increasing the cycle time. This regulation costs consumers more than $8 million a year while providing an annual energy savings of $17. Meanwhile, the standards result in about an extra hour per load while compromising the wash quality.
• Refrigerators: Since DOE regulations began, the average life of a refrigerator went from 19 years to 12 years, mainly due to the energy-saving features.
• Furnaces: Because of these standards, the average furnace costs an extra $1,500-$3,000. The DOE calculates a lifetime energy savings of up to $1,635 over 21 years. The issue there is the average furnace lasts 15-20 years. Saving money over a lifetime is far from certain. Even if those savings materialized, the high upfront costs can strain household or business budgets before those savings are realized. 
• Air Conditioners: Trying to recoup the loss of upfront costs for efficiency standards on air conditioners is even worse than with furnaces. A compliant air conditioner unit costs $1,500-$5,000 more on average. For hot/humid areas like the Southeast, the DOE calculates a savings of $1,853 for an ENERGY STAR unit and up to $6,724 in the best-case scenario. The problem is that the calculation is for 18 years, but the average A/C unit lasts 10-15 years. In the Southeast, it is theoretically possible, but far from guaranteed, to get your money back in the long-run. For the rest of the United States, don't count on that net cost to be in your favor.  
• LED Lightbulbs: In 2024, DOE regulations increased efficiency requirements for LED and general service lamps. This is phasing out many current bulbs (e.g., incandescent) and forcing customers to purchase higher-cost alternatives. According to the DOE, the requirements will increase the average price of an LED bulb from $2.98 to $5.68 (p. 5-33). In turn, this can reduce product choice, cause compatibility issues, and disrupt the lightbulb market. 

Conclusion: The High Cost of Feel-Good Environmentalism

In summation, these appliance efficiency standards are a class example of feel-good environmentalism in which politicians and regulators feel virtuous but do little good for consumers or the environment. Whether it's a $5 LED lightbulb or an extra $3,000 for a furnace, these costs are significant and often fail to materialize in a meaningful way. Far from empowering the average American with choices or savings, these regulations are a way to check of a feel-good box while ignoring real-life consequences. 

Moreover, these regulations can compromise quality, whether it is refrigerators that wear out faster or dishwashers that take longer to clean. The promise of a greener future comes at the expense of functionality and consumer choice. Consumers are forced to trade off reliability and performance for regulatory mandates that cannot guarantee significant savings in the long run. 

As I have brought up with plastic straw bans and recycling, these efficiency standards are little more than environmental brownie points created to support a certain moral high horse. If all countries opted to adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement, it would have only reduced global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius. This is my way of saying that every American adhering to these efficiency standards would do nothing of statistical significance to slow down increasing global temperatures. If overpriced appliances is all consumers get out of these regulations, then the only thing "green" happening is the money going out of our wallets as we pay more for these half-baked regulations. 

Trump’s $625 Million Coal Cronyism: Fueling Failure of the Dying Coal Industry

Residential electricity prices have been surging in the United States. Since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, U.S. citizens have dealt with around a 30 percent increase in electricity prices, according to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. Such a rise makes it more difficult for the everyday American to afford basic necessities. In line with his presidential campaign promise to lower electricity costs, President Trump has come up with a solution: taxpayer subsidies for coal plants. 

Last week, Trump's Department of Energy announced that it was going to commit $625 million to revitalizing the coal industry, whether it is for recommissioning coal plants, retrofitting coal operations, or for coal power projects aimed at making energy more affordable. For the DOE, this $625 million will help keep "electricity prices low and the lights on without interruption." The press release then said "Coal built the greatest industrial engine the world has ever known, and with President Trump's leadership, it will help do so again." Much like with manufacturing, Trump is clinging to a past that cannot repeat itself in the present moment. 

I understand that $625 million in a $6.8 trillion budget might seem like a small amount to quibble over in the grand scheme of things. If Trump ramping up tariffs or immigration policies shows anything, it is that his subsidies could plausibly go beyond the initial $625 million. However, it is a matter both of principle and the fact that this amount will still cause economic harm to the everyday American. Let us set aside for the moment that this $625 million will be paid by taxpayers to benefit utilities and coal companies. The bigger question is whether it is worth spending money on salvaging the coal industry. 

As I pointed out in 2017, the U.S. coal industry is on the decline. EIA data show that this trend has continued since my 2017 piece. Why is that the case? On some level, environmental regulations have gotten in the way of the coal industry market expansion. However, the main factors behind coal's decline are market-based, as this report from the Cato Institute illustrates. Demand for coal has declined in no small part due to natural gas and renewable energy becoming less costly to produce, not to mention the development of such storage solutions as lithium-ion battery storage and iron-air batteries. As the demand for clean energy continues to increase, coal demand will continue to decline. 

While the subsidy targets supply by bolstering coal infrastructure, its effects could ripple into the demand side if utilities are nudged to favor coal through capacity contracts or guaranteed purchases. In theory, it could arguably decrease price while increasing supply. However, that will probably not happen. 

Coal plants are uneconomical relative to natural gas and renewable energy, especially given that about a quarter of coal plants are expected to retire within the next four years. According to financial services firm Lazar in its 2025 report on energy costs, coal costs $69-168/MWh, which is more than natural gas ($48-$107 MWh), solar ($38-78/MWh) and wind ($37-86/MWh). 

This subsidy would most likely create a crowding out effect that makes it harder to develop alternative energy sources. This has happened before with fossil fuel subsidies crowding out renewable energy (Monasterolo and Raberto, 2019). This takes place because energy subsidies "adversely affect price signals and lead to misallocation of resources" (Hartono et al., 2020). Even the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation, which is generally pro-coal, recognizes that coal subsidies calcify the industry and stymie technological progress for coal. 

We should not be allocating taxpayer dollars to a dying industry. Biden threw billions at green and renewable energy, which I also criticized. Trump is now doing the same with coal. Regardless of political affiliation, the government has no business in subsidizing energy, especially if the goal is to keep energy prices low. We can delve into regulations in the coal industry and what their effects are on energy prices, pollution, etc. Odds are that if I scrutinized each regulation individually (see 2017 example here), I would most probably conclude that the government should regulate less than more, although you never know. Even so, if the idea is to let market forces determine which energy source is best, that also means that the government should not be using subsidies or any price supports instead of picking favorites. If nostalgia powered the electric grid, coal would be king. That is not how economic reality works. Propping up coal would only burn through taxpayer money while doing nothing to lower prices.  

Grounds for Repeal: Why It's Time to Ditch Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is a proposed budget reconciliation bill that is making the news with such provisions as removing the tax on overtime, funding Trump's harmful deportations, increasing the SALT deduction, removing the tax on tips, or cutting Medicaid. There is another OBBBA provision that is making the news: CAFE standards. 

In the OBBBA, the fines for the automobile fuel milage standards known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are set to $0. This makes CAFE standards compliance voluntary while indirectly nullifying the standards without explicitly repealing CAFE standards. CAFE standards were part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. These standards were created in response to the 1973-74 oil embargo in order to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. CAFE standards are currently set at 53.4 miles for passenger cars and 38.2 miles for light-duty trucks. 

Over time, CAFE standards came to serve another purpose: reducing greenhouse gases (GHG). The idea behind CAFE standards is to incentivize cleaner and more efficient technologies, which were supposed to benefit consumers through lower fuel costs. So why am I happy CAFE standards will de facto no longer be in effect? In short, because it is an inefficient law with unintended consequences.

CAFE standards will not help save the planet. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that CAFE standards will reduce CO2 emissions by 605 million metric tons from 2026 to 2050. While that sounds like a lot of metric tons, the truth is that 605 million metric tons is the equivalent of six hours of global CO2 emissions in 2021. Given that there are 8,760 hours in a year, never mind a 25-year period, CAFE standards will do virtually nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.

CAFE standards have killed people. CAFE standards create an incentive to manufacture lighter vehicles because it is easier to achieve these standards with lighter vehicles. While lighter vehicles might be good for energy efficiency, they are less safe because the risk of vehicular death increases when a lighter vehicle collides with a truck or SUV, as opposed to a heavier vehicle in the same crash. For each 0.1 mile per gallon (MPG) increase in CAFE standards, there has been an increase of 150 deaths (Jacobsen, 2011). Other studies with more lenient standards have found that CAFE standards increase vehicle deaths (see Anderson and Auffhammer, 2013; National Academy of Sciences, 2002; Crandall and Graham, 1989). It would be an a fortiori assumption that stricter CAFE standards, combined with increased traffic, kill more people. 

CAFE standards increase the price of new and used vehicles alike. As this study from the Mackinac Center shows, complying with CAFE standards entails a lighter vehicle weight, less acceleration, and technological upgrades, all of which are more expensive. A majority of those costs are passed on to the consumer, with an estimated cost of $24.1 billion of consumer costs in 2023 (Jacobsen, 2013). 

We have to remember that CAFE standards do not apply to the individual vehicle, but rather an average across the entire fleet of a given manufacturer. Even so, the standards have become so high that they incentivize greater electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing than would otherwise exist. The average EV costs about $7,000 more than a traditional gas automobile, which means that CAFE standards are both incentivizing EV manufacturing and increasing automobile prices.  

Not only that, used car owners are incentivized to hold onto their car longer, which constricts supply and drives up prices. In 2015 dollars, an increase of CAFE standards by 1 mile per gallon resulted a $164 increase in the average price of a large used car (Jacobson and van Benthem, 2015).

CAFE standards disproportionately harm the poor. 92 percent of U.S. households own a vehicle, which is to say that owning a vehicle is vital for the vast majority of Americans. This is significant since a car will cost a low-income household a higher percentage of household income than a high-income household. CAFE standards can very well make new vehicles out of reach for a low-income household, thereby driving them towards the used vehicle market and driving those prices up further. Additionally, energy efficiency standards are regressive because they require a high upfront cost. One study found that efficiency standards such as CAFE standards force low-income households to buy higher-cost vehicles, thereby being more regressive than an energy tax (Levinson, 2016). 

Postscript. To recap, CAFE standards will do nothing of statistical significance to save the planet. All the while, CAFE standards kill people while driving up new and used automobile costs, especially for low-income households. These unintended consequences make the case even stronger for consumers to have the freedom to choose how to buy, drive, fuel, and insure their vehicles. Granted, the OBBBA's provision is not quite as good as simply repealing it because Democrats can always regain power and increase the fines for violating CAFE standards. But it is nice to have at least some reprieve from a regulation that is as much of environmental feel-good policy such as plastic bag bans, the Endangered Species Act, or the act of recycling plastic.

The Overpopulation Debate: Does the World Need More Mouths to Feed?

I have been writing a lot about Trump's tariffs in the past few weeks, whether it is the auto tariffs, the so-called "reciprocal" tariffs, or the incoherent "logic" of the tariffs. I need a break from tariffs and write about a topic that has been sitting in my backlog for a while: overpopulation. Since the early 19th century, the global population has grown from 1 billion people to over 8 people. The United Nations estimates that the planet will reach its peak around the end of century with about 10.4 billion people. The concern that summarizes the overpopulation debate is whether the global human population is exceeding Planet Earth's ability to sustain everyone while causing ecological and social consequences along the way.  

This debate dates back to Thomas Malthus, who predicted that the global population would outstrip food production to the point of causing global famine. It looks like Malthus posthumously has egg on his face, pun intended. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the global population doubled in the past six decades while global agricultural production increased by nearly four-fold in that same time period. As Oxford brings up, much of that productivity was due to using technology to increase the yield output, which has dramatically reduced arable land use on a per capita basis. The famous Simon-Ehrlich wager was another example of how the resource scarcity argument was challenged. This bet eventually led to the Simon Abundance Index, which shows that we as a species are 509.4 percent more abundant now than we were in 1980. 

I do find the argument that technological development and human creativity can help us through natural resources management to be a compelling one because it is not based on a static model or zero-sum thinking. I find the technological progress in the agricultural sector to be on a good enough trajectory where I do not have too many worries. That does not mean I do not have any concerns about resources on the planet. 

The big one that draws my attention has to do with water. I first brought up the concern about water management in 2014, specifically with regards to water subsidies artificially increasing the demand of water to the point of people running out of water. If we, as a species, do not find a way to manage water efficiently, I fear that there will be wars over water in a way that there have been wars over oil in the past. Then there's matter of deforestation. While there is some reforestation going on, the net global trend is that humans are responsible for up to 10 million hectares of forest, which is the size of Portugal for context. Conversely, the regions with reforestation are the ones with greater economic development and freedom. Even with fracking, there is only a limited supply of fossil fuels that exist. Goldman Sachs predicts that we will not reach peak oil for another decade. 

Then there is the matter of infrastructure strain. There is a strained housing supply and increased homelessness in much of the world, but I first and foremost put the blame on land use regulations, rent control, and other government regulations that artificially restrict housing supply. Whether schools, hospitals, and transportation systems can handle the population growth is up for debate, as well. Keep in mind that the population growth is projected to happen in developing countries where these strains are most likely to be felt. The bigger issue with developed countries is going to be the lower birth rates. Why? Because as the population is aging, there will be greater economic and social challenges. One of those there will be fewer young people in the workforce to support older people, especially when it comes to retirement accounts such as Social Security. 

There are challenges to be had, regardless of whether there is a population increase or a population decline. I do not find myself unequivocally on one side or the other. As has been the case in the past, I do find that technological development will be a major component in the years ahead. I do think that it comes down to what progress comes out and how governments across the world respond. China's One Child Policy was a nightmare with unintended consequences, so maybe forced sterilization and coerced population control is not the way to go. 

Unsurprisingly, I am going to argue that the greater that red tape, regulations, and government programs can be reduced in size, the better we can handle the effects, whether it is reaching the population peak later this century or the countries that have or are going to see a decline in their populations due to declining birth rates. I do hope that ingenuity and technological progress triumph over the age-old economic question of how to manage resource scarcity, but time will tell. 

New Jersey and California Show How Plastic Bag Bans Increase Carbon Footprint

Groceries have been on my mind a lot lately. Last week, I examined whether states should be exempting groceries from the sales tax. Earlier this week, I discussed the pending merger between two grocery stores: Kroger and Albertsons. Now I am here to look at an environmentally-related topic of grocery store shopping: plastic bags. Environmentalists believe that plastic bags are bad for the environment because of their adverse impact. Aside from the energy and carbon footprint creating the bags, there is also the fact that they contaminate soil and water once they begin to decompose. 

This leads many to believe that the logical conclusion to this problem is to ban plastic bags. In 2014, California was the first state to ban single-use plastic bags. Since then, ten states have followed suit, including the state of New Jersey in 2022. I wrote on plastic bag bans in 2014, which was right around when California started its ban. I speculated about whether there would be unintended, adverse consequences as a result of the ban. It looks like I was correct to be concerned that the cure (i.e., the ban) would be worse than allowing for single-use plastic bag consumption.

International market research firm Freedonia Group released a research paper on New Jersey's plastic bag ban. This ban had mixed results. On the one hand, the number of plastic bags produced went down by 60 percent, to 894 million bags. On the other hand, the state's consumption of alternative bags increased plastic consumption for bags by nearly three-fold. Six times as much woven and non-woven plastic polypropylene was produced to make these alternatives. This increase in plastic polypropylene increased greenhouse gas emissions by 500 percent. 

If that were not bad enough, market research firm Freedonia also showed that 90 percent of the reusable bags in New Jersey had been tossed into landfills after two to three uses. As University of Michigan professor Sheli Miller pointed out, you need to use these thicker polypropylene bags at least 10 times to break even with the additional energy and material required. According to a 2018 study from the Danish government, the break-even point is higher with cotton bags: 52 times to offset the climate change impact and 1,700 times to offset all environmental impacts. 

Then there is the state of California. A report from PIRG earlier this year ironically called "Plastic Bag Bans Work" showed how the California case study did not work. Of course, the authors contend that a well-crafted ban works when they encourage reusable bags over single-use bags. The report shows that per capita disposal of plastic bags in California increased since the implementation of the ban. Why? Because the new "reusable" bags required four times the amount of plastic as the standard single-use plastic (p. 14). University of Sydney professor Rebecca Taylor found that Californians were replacing the single-use bags with thicker trash bags (Taylor, 2019), thereby reducing the environmental effectiveness. This ban has a similar result to the United Kingdom's mandatory five-pence fee on all plastic bags, as this Greenpeace report shows. Even the Left-leaning Los Angeles Times calls California's ban a failure.

These case studies get at two important points with regards to public policy. The first is that policies should be judged on their outcomes, not on their intentions. The second is that we should not base our assumptions of policy effectiveness on what people theoretically do. We should base it on how the policy plays out in practice. This was a mistake with the face masks during the COVID pandemic. Those who clung to their face masks thought that because mechanistic studies in a laboratory could produce positive outcomes, those same outcomes could be replicated in the real world. Assuming that people would consistently wear face masks in ideal conditions ignored human nature. The same goes here assuming that most people will reuse the heavier bags enough times to create a net-positive effect on the environment. 

Going back to Professor Miller, she illustrates how reusable is not always best for the environment. Every item has their tradeoff. Take paper bags as an example. Per a United Nations report, "Paper bags contribute less to the impacts of littering but in most cases have a larger impact on the climate, eutrophication, and acidification, compared to single use plastic bags." As already pointed out, reusable cloth bags need to be used considerable amount of times before creating a net-positive, an amount that many bags likely will not experience. There is also the bacteria contamination issue that comes with reusable cotton bags, especially since most rarely, if ever, clean their cotton bags. None of this gets into getting at such issues as consumption patterns or how we need to improve recycling infrastructures and technology. 

Without considering the environmental impact of substitutes, we end up with the ruinous results that we see in New Jersey and California. The plastic bag ban reveals itself as another example in a growing list of examples of what happens when governments apply broad economic bans on products it deems bad. Rather than assume that a plastic bag ban is good for the environment, the burden is on proponents to show that the alternative products used under a plastic bag ban is preferable to single-use plastic bans. 

The Endangered Species Act at 50: Should the Act Become Extinct?

This week is the fiftieth anniversary of President Richard Nixon signing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into law. This law is hailed as the most comprehensive law in preserving endangered species, which makes sense given how comprehensive it is in terms of the history of environmental conservation. As lauded as ESA is by environmentalists, I have to wonder if the ESA has been worth the cost. 

Speaking of costs, let us start the conversation there. The think-tank Competitive Enterprise Institute released a thorough report in 2018 on the many costs that come with the ESA, including the bureaucratic process costs (see GAO report here) and recovery costs. In terms of annual government costs, CEI put the number at $1.5 billion [in 2018 dollars]. CEI also illustrated various economic impact report of the ESA regulations, with annual costs ranging from $0.8 million to $113 million per species.   

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) brings up a series of other considerations in its ESA research paper, including the ESA's effects on private property and landowners, litigation related to the ESA, the cost of listing species and the resulting economic impacts of the ESA, and the delays in listing, delisting, and reclassification of species under the ESA (CRS, p. 53).

Some could argue that the cost the ESA is worthwhile, even in spite of the high price tag. I have to wonder if the benefits of the ESA exceed the cost. I analyzed the ESA seven years ago. Much like I did then, I bring up what should be viewed as the primary metric of success. What if you go with extinction rate? As of October 2020, 11 species out of 2,400+ species listed under the ESA went extinct (CRS, 2021, p. 53). In 2023, this figure increased to 21 species. In either case, it would mean that over 99 percent of species under the ESA did not go extinct. One could argue that keeping species alive is a worth goal.

However, the ESA does not simply exist to prevent extinction of species. A major provision in Section III of the ESA defines conservation as "to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary." In other words, the Act itself states that preventing extinction is not enough. To be deemed successful by the Act's own terms, there needs to be recovery of the species under the ESA. 

As of October 2021, 54 species under the ESA were delisted due to recovery. By this metric, this would mean that the ESA's success rate is under 3 percent. That high failure rate does not consider the possibility that there are reasons outside of the ESA that species were successfully recovered. For example, the EPA's DDT ban prior to the passage of the ESA was more likely to positively contribute to the bald eagle population. Another example: plants do not receive the same level of protection as animals under the ESA, yet nearly two dozen of these species delisted were plants. Since a species can be re-listed, there are three instances of duplicates, thereby bringing the count down to 51 species.

As we see from the research conducted by environmentalist think tank Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) struggles to meet its recovery objectives by FWS' own assessments. 

The ESA is not a true success since most species remain on life support, much like it is not an example of success if human beings are perpetually dependent on welfare benefits. It might take more than 50 years to recover certain species, but the FSW data show that recovery progress under the ESA remains slow. Excess regulation in protecting species does not surprise me because it is something mainstream microeconomic theory would predict. If the government penalizes a certain behavior, there will be less of it. Who is being punished? Private landowners. 

As a report from PERC entitled A Field Guide for Wildlife Recovery illustrates, the ESA creates perverse incentives to preemptively destroy habitats before it attracts endangered species (PERC, p. 24). The ESA's provisions are exclusively punitive. They do nothing to encourage or reward habit restoration or other recovery efforts (PERC, p. 44). What I really enjoyed about reading this report is that suggested a myriad of alternatives to recover species, whether it is to streamline voluntary conservation programs for landowners, not limiting the states' flexibility to manage experimental populations, or compensate land owners for restoring habitat. 

Alternatively, privatization would work for fish and other species that could be farmed (e.g., the black-footed ferret). There is also the option of converting federal lands into fiduciary trusts. If you are going to reform the ESA, it needs to be done in a way that aligns the incentives of landowners with the interest of rare species. Otherwise, the ESA's punitive approach will continue to fail at its ultimate objective of recovering species.

9/21/23 Hodgepodge: Paper Straws, Train Privatization, and Italy's Latest Windfall Tax

Sometimes life tires us to the point where we cannot fully do what we expect of ourselves. That is how I feel half-awake after working for 10 hours, but I still wanted to post something. Rather than do a full-on analysis of a single political topic, I decided to go with the hodgepodge option of some articles I came across in recent weeks:

• Italy's windfall tax. A windfall tax is when the government decides to impose a surtax when a certain company or sector has large and unexpected profits. Last month, Italy imposed a one-time 40 percent windfall tax, which is capped at 0.1 percent of the bank's assets. According to an analysis from Tax Foundation, this tax will cost €9.2 billion to affected firms, which is three times of anticipated tax revenue. A windfall tax suppressing economic growth does not surprise me. A report from the International Monetary Fund shows that a windfall tax on the fossil fuel industry would boost the renewable energy sector (Baunsgaard and Vernon, 2022).
• Paper Straws Are Bad for the Environment. Last month, a study from the journal Food Additives and Contaminants was released (Boisacq et al., 2023). The authors found that paper straws contain higher levels of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These "forever chemicals" mean that it takes longer for paper straws to break down in nature than their plastic or steel counterparts. In short, these PFAS could mean that paper straws are worse for the environment. Another reason to add to my list of why plastic straw bans are a bad idea. 
• Florida and Private High-Speed Rail. This week, Florida is unveiling its new high-speed rail from Miami to Orlando. The libertarian Reason Magazine published an article using Florida's high-speed rail as a success story of privatization in high-speed rail, as well as point out that California's high-speed rail is a boondoggle in spite the massive federal subsidies the state has received. You can read the Cato Institute's handbook on Amtrak and how privatization helps with rail here. 

Net Zero Is a Pie in the Sky Solution That Is Far From Being Zero-Cost

Fighting climate change has been all the rage, especially from activists and politicians on the Left. According to this narrative, an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is causing a surge of natural phenomenon that threaten our way of life. If we do not do something fast to lower GHG emissions, our planet will either be destroyed or severely damaged. We need to act fast or else, say the climate change activists. 

That is where the Net Zero debate comes in. Net Zero refers to a balance between the amount of GHG emissions that are produced and the amount that are removed from the atmosphere. It is a goalpost to make sure that we do not go above 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This 1.5°C threshold is what many climate scientists believe is acceptable before crossing to a "point of no return" in terms of there being catastrophic and irreversible events. 

My questioning of the premise goes beyond my generally skeptical and inquisitive behavior. It certainly would not be the first time the environmental movement has cried wolf. The media has exaggerated climate change's effect on such phenomena as hurricanes or heat waves to peddle climate change sensationalism. As a matter of fact, I have enough skepticism of the apocalyptic view where I would state that climate change is not a crisis because the worst-case scenarios are based on low-probability climate modeling that makes unrealistic assumptions. This is why I view climate change as a manageable phenomenon to which we can adapt. For argument's sake, let's assume that climate change is a threat to all of mankind and that we need to cut emissions like mad if we want to survive. 

What would it actually take to reach Net Zero? Last week, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) released a study entitled The Challenges and Costs of Net-Zero and the Future of Energy answering that question. Here are some actions that would need to take place in a U.S. context (p. 16-17):

• Eliminate coal usage by 2030. While coal consumption has been decreasing since 2007, coal still accounts for 19.5 percent of U.S. energy consumption. This ignores an elephant in the room. China is the world's largest consumer and producer of coal. Even the Left-leaning New York Times admits that this is a challenge to climate change goals. 
• Renewable energy supply 100 percent in primary energy by 2050. In 1991, fossil fuels made up 85.6 percent of U.S. energy consumption. In 2021, that figure went down to 78.7 percent. While renewables grew by 5.6 quadrillion BTUs between 1990 and 2022, fossil fuels grew by an even higher 6.8 quadrillion BTUs. To replace the increase in fossil fuel consumption, renewable energy consumption would have to increase by sixfold over the next thirty years. That would include wind and solar needing to increase by fourteen-fold. Given the land use required for solar and wind, it presents considerable challenges (more on that in a moment). 
• Between 210 and 330 million light-duty electric vehicles (EV) by 2050. Last April, I criticized Biden's emissions standards that encouraged EVs too quickly. As of 2022, less than one percent of all vehicles are EVs. According to a report from Princeton University, anywhere between 6 and 17 percent of the vehicle stock would need to be EVs by 2030. To do that, the U.S. would need to triple its EV production to reach the lower end of that range. Seeing how EV manufacturers are struggling to produce enough EVs without going bankrupt, this seems too lofty of a goal. 
• 2-5 times more electricity infrastructure. To reach this goal, you would need 1.3-5.9TW of wind and solar to do it. To reach the low-bound 1.3TW, wind and solar farms would need to take up 260,000 square kilometers. To put that into perspective, that is larger than the size of Oregon, Wyoming, Michigan, or New England (IER, p. 21-22). 
• Going back to my EV emissions critique from last April, the United States already has a strained electric grid system. It would be a huge amount of change. You expect that we can quintuple the grid size by 2050?

This only gets into the scenarios needed for it to work. We would also need to increase the mining of lithium, graphite, cobalt, nickel and rare earth metals (IER, p. 35). If by some miracle we could make it halfway to Net Zero, it would still cost a decline in GDP of $7.7 trillion, 1.2 million jobs, an increase of household electric bills to $840 [in 2017 dollars], and gasoline prices increasing 236 percent (IER, p. 5). 

If you are looking for additional reading on Net Zero scenarios, the Energy Policy Research Foundation published a report in June 2023 showing how ridiculous and rosy the assumptions the International Energy Agency made in its Net Zero projections.

Net zero is as delusional as zero-COVID or the quixotic dream of chasing windmills. The truth is that fossil fuels still have a major role in energy portfolios. I believe that we should move to greener energy. The problem is that much of the environmentalist movement is anti-nuclear. Without nuclear power as a major part of the energy portfolio, we have de facto shut down the only viable path towards Net Zero that can meet energy demands. 

It sounds like an environmentalist wet dream to envision a world without fossil fuels. Doing so without nuclear at the forefront would be like holding a coal in your hand and expecting it to burn someone else. As long as the anti-nuclear crowd is driving the green agenda, activists and politicians will go after everything, whether it is our cars, stoves, or water heaters. We need to keep our guard up and remain skeptical of such environmental ploys, especially if the environmental movement continues to make such radical proposals under such tenuous assumptions. 

It Was a Hot July, But We Shouldn't Give Into Climate Change Hype on Heat Waves or "Global Boiling"

Last month was the hottest month that I can remember in recent memory. That is not simply anecdotal evidence on my end. The World Meteorological Association is positing that July 2023 is the hottest month on record. As we see below, global mean surface air temperature is above what it historically has been. If you read news from media outlets, we should not only be worried but downright terrified about how climate change is making extreme heat worse and very well bring the end of days. The Guardian opined that Phoenix's heat waves are testing the limits of survival. Washington Post said that this deadly heat are the alarm bells of a planet on a brink. The Atlantic asked how much longer the Southwest will be habitable. The Left-leaning Center for American Progress released a report on the health care costs of extreme heat. 

Since we are in an age of global warming, it makes sense that it is going to be warmer than it was in the Little Ice Age (16-19 c.). It seems tautological, to say the least. But it is more than the planet getting warmer. It is about whether more extreme heat is wreaking more havoc on the world. Last year after Hurricane Ian, I scrutinized the media hysteria on hurricanes as it pertained to climate change. It turns out that the media was ignoring that number, frequency, and intensity of hurricanes did not increase due to climate change. Furthermore, it turns out that hurricanes have not caused more economic damage when using normalized cost trends. I would like to know if the media is exaggerating the effects of heat waves in the same way they have with hurricanes or if this time is different. 

First of all, saying that this is the "hottest year on record" does not mean much when experts only have been collecting surface temperature data since the late nineteenth century (see NASA data below). There are literally centuries for which we do not have such detailed data. Nevertheless, let us use what data we do have. For context, they started collecting these data at the tail-end of the Little Ice Age. What we see with these NASA data are that the planet has warmed up by about 1° Celsius over the past 140 years. We started collecting these data at a cold period and entered a period in which the global temperatures have gradually increased over time. 

Scientists have gathered surface temperature data since the late 19th century and satellites have only gathered data since the late 1970s. Aside from surface temperature data and satellite data, we only have proxy measures that a 2006 study from the National Academies of Science called "low resolution." Let's take a look at one of these proxy measures: benthic carbon and oxygen isotopes from up to 66 million years (Westerhold et al., 2020). What we see below is that in prehistoric times, the Earth's global temperature was up to 12° Celsius warmer for millions of years. In spite of those warmer temperatures, the planet survived. One can infer from this proxy measure that we could withstand a bit more heat (more on that later). 

There is a factor in play with what we have since the 1880s: temperature readings are disproportionately taken in urban areas (Zhang et al., 2021). This is important since, as the European Commission points out, cities are often 10-15° Celsius warmer than the surrounding rural areas in no small part due to the urban heat island effect. As urban centers developed in the 20th century, so has the urban heat island effect. We need to keep this upward measurement bias in mind when discussing the modern temperature data we do have.

For what we do have on record prior to this year, the worst years include 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2021. In 2003, Europe had a nasty heat wave (Lhotka and Kysely, 2022). This still was not as bad as the Drought of 1540, not to mention other nasty droughts between the 11th and 15th centuries (Cook et al., 2015). This illustrates how extreme weather situations existed in pre-modern times, which is to say that hot summer days do not automatically mean climate change. 

As for the United States, we have data to show that the worst heat waves have not taken place this decade. Data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that the worst heat waves in known history comes from the Dust Bowl era in the 1930s, not this century. 

One more interesting chart on U.S. data, this one showing the number of warm spells. This chart below comes from the government's Climate Science Special Report. In Chapter 6 of the report, we see that the length of warm spells has decreased since the Dust Bowl era and started to pick up again in 1970s. The figure plateaued in the 21st century. 

This same government report shows another peculiar trend. If we are to compare the highest temperatures between 1986 and 2016 versus that between 1901 and 1960, what we see is that the highs were warmer in the first part of the 20th century. If the massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to cause greater temperatures, why are we seeing most parts of the United States have lower highs than in previous years?

An important question to ask is what sort of impact heat waves have. One is that of droughts because heat waves can exacerbate drought, which has impact on agriculture and general water availability. I went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to answer this question. I did see multiple regions dealing with a low level of increased drought (IPCC, p. 10). What I did not see is a high level of drought that would correspond with the media sensationalism. 

 

What about people dying from extreme heat?  The Lancet published a study covering 854 European cities between 2000 and 2019 (Masselot et al, 2023). The study found that extreme cold was way more likely to kill than extreme heat (more than ten times likely), as we see from the study's chart below. Take a look at the x-axis of the chart. 

What is the difference? The scaling for extreme cold deaths is not the same as that for extreme heat. The scaling is about 1:6, which is to say that the authors of the study exaggerated the excess death rate by about sixfold to make their point. If you make the scaling equal by using a 1:1 scale, you see an even more obvious picture, which is that extreme cold is way worse than extreme heat. Based on figures in the Lancet study, Bjorn Lomborg was able to extrapolate that rising temperatures are able to save over 150,000 lives a year. The truth is that the largest source of temperature-related mortality is the extreme cold, not extreme heat.

And if that were not enough, there was decline of around 50 percent in global heat wave deaths between 1980 and 2016 (Formetta and Feyen, 2019, see below). Not only are the fatalities much smaller than extreme cold deaths, but heat-related fatality rates have been on the decline. Another study showing heat mortality data for the United States shows a similar decline in heat-related mortality (Sheridan et al., 2021).

This is not to say that there is no cost to warmer summers. What we do see in the data is that the concern is nowhere near where it needs to be to justify panic. That is because climate change is not an apocalyptic disaster. We have seen environmentalists use fear and alarmism multiple times where the event did not pan out, whether that was it deforestation, acid rain, the death of the Great Barrier Reef, a nuclear winter, or Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring. If people stopped using worst-case, low-probability models to justify the fears, we would not be in such a panic. Climate change is a manageable problem. How do we manage it? Adaptation is our best bet because it has already worked. 

As already illustrated, weather-related deaths have decreased about 96 percent in the past century, even with population growth. Instead participating in a secular form of self-flagellation, we should embrace the technology we have to make our lives better. We can do more to mitigate the effects of warmer summers with air conditioning, fresh drinking water, swimming pools, and electric fans. We could fight the heat waves by asking for subsidies on air conditioners, painting streets white to reflect the sunlight, or working towards cheaper energy (especially nuclear power). These are superior policy options compared to dealing with climate change by forcing electric vehicles on the American people, gas stove bans, implementing cap-and-trade, or using really strict water heater energy efficiency standards. Do-good policy beats feel-good policy and looking at the data for what they are beats the sensationalism around so-called "global boiling." 

Biden's Water Heater Energy Efficiency Standards Would Put American Homeowners in Troubled Waters

The Biden administration has been on a crusade against climate change. Its weapon of choice has been regulations. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included electric vehicle provisions and clean energy tax credits, neither of which will do anything significant to reduce global temperatures. Earlier this year, one of Biden's Consumer Product Safety Commission commissioners suggested the ludicrous idea of a gas stove ban. In April, Biden proposed electronic vehicle (EV) emission standards so strict that they illustrate the flaws of advocating so much for EVs. 

Now we have Biden's Department of Energy (DOE) proposing energy efficiency standards on consumer water heaters. If successful, these regulations will compel "that most common-sized electric water heaters to achieve efficiency gains with heat pump technology and gas-fired instantaneous water heaters to achieve efficiency gains through condensing technology." The latter regulation is designed to push more people towards electrification. The Biden administration's DOE calculated that the regulations would save consumers $11.4 billion per annum. It makes it seem like a win for fighting climate change. Here are some issues I take with that assertion.

I am going to forget the fact that these sorts of rosy projections tend to overstate benefits while understating costs. Industry data show that the average installation cost for a heat pump versus an electric water heater is up to $2,800 more expensive. How long it takes for the consumer to recoup savings depends on climate, house size, and number of occupants. Based on DOE estimates, it can take anywhere between a few months and eight years to break even. 

Even if someone experiences a modest savings of $20/month, odds are most households would rather not pay extra money upfront for the more expensive unit. 57 percent of Americans do not have enough to cover a $1,000 emergency. Especially with the monetary and fiscal policy that brought this inflation, what makes you think most households have an extra $2,800 laying around to pay for a water heater that complies with these DOE standards? This does not get at the fact that the same industry data show that a gas water heater is cheaper in the long-run than an electric water heater. 

I have other reasons to think prices will go up as a result of these proposed regulations. The leading water heater manufacturer, Rinnai Corporation, stated that the proposed standards are not feasible for its noncondensing line and that they will "force consumers to choose less efficient water heating solutions such as tank style water heaters." That means supply of water heaters will be constricted, which will drive up prices. Rinnai President Frank Windsor also warned that in addition to higher energy bills, there will be shorter appliance lifespans. This means higher repair costs, as well as that the DOE's projections are based on rosier assumptions about longer appliance lifespan. 

The Right-leaning National Review illustrations functional considerations for a water heater: "The heat-pump water heaters are a compelling choice for those living in hot climates, but for those living in places that get colder, it isn't as great of an option. The unit essentially functions as an air conditioner because after it suck in hot air from the room, it then blows out cold air." The article points out another issue: "The heat-pump water heaters require seven feet of clearance, which means they are not a good option for people who have water heaters in rooms with low ceiling or underneath staircases." In other words, a heat-pump water heater is not an optimal choice for all households. People should have the right to purchase whichever water heater best fits their circumstances. 

I am already skeptical about the monetary benefits for the climate since most of our energy still comes from fossil fuels. Only with an electric grid with predominantly renewable energy could this possibly work, and we are still a long ways from that objective. But let's get at a more essential question: What about the carbon emissions reduction these standards are supposed to bring? 

The DOE calculates that it will reduce carbon emissions by 501 million metric tons (p. 15). 501 million sounds like a large number, but that number needs to be put into greater context. I asked a similar question with the IRA last year: How much will this policy actually reduce global temperatures? After all, the rationale for these efficiency standards is that reducing global temperatures will mitigate the effects of climate change. If it does not reduce global temperatures significantly (certainly at the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold that has people worried), then we should seriously question why the DOE is implementing these regulations in the first place.

Per the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation, even if the United States eliminated all fuel-based carbon emissions, it would only reduce global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius. If that is how little eliminating all carbon emissions helps, imaging how insignificantly tiny and minute these water heater efficiency standards are going to make a difference. It is basically next to nil. Plus, as I brought up in April, climate change is not the crisis the alarmists make it out to be. 

Why is the DOE going out of its way to burden the American people with these regulations? It surely is not because these efficiency energy standards help with climate change, which makes the DOE's motives here more suspect. Using the excuse of "it's to fight climate change" is giving the Biden administration the carte blanche to regulate anything with an electric plug or that fires up around the house. Any home owner that wants to go all-electric can do so at any time. There is no need for government fiat, especially since these regulations will do nothing of actual significance to lower carbon emissions. As such, the Biden administration should back off its war on home appliances and rescind its proposed rules. That way, we can get back to some actual common-sense environmental policy instead of feel-good environmental policy.

How Government Subsidies Caused Overfishing and Why Governments Need to Scale Back

Throughout history, fish have been caught and eaten by humans because fish can be a good source of protein and other nutrients. As important as they are to multiple cultures, we are reaching quite the dilemma with fishing, mainly that of overfishing. Overfishing is when the number of fish removed from all the bodies of water is greater than the species' ability to reproduce and replenish the losses. This is not to be confused with overfished, which is "the condition of a fishery that occurs when the spawning stock biomass of the fishery is below the level that is adequate for the recruitment class of a fishery to replace the spawning class of the fishery." So think of overfishing as a more extreme version of overfished.  

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 64.6 percent of fishery stocks were at biologically sustainable levels in 2019. This figure was 65.8 percent in 2017 and 90 percent in 1970. This means that 35.4 percent of fisheries are experiencing overfishing. As we can see below from data compiled by Oxford University, the percent of unsustainable fishing practices has increased since the 1970s. 

It is true that an increase in the global population attributes to overfishing, which helps increase demand. At the same time, the libertarian Mercatus Center reminded me with a recent article in its Discourse Magazine that there is a major culprit driving the overfishing: government subsidies. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) found that governments around the world spend $35 billion on fishing subsidies annually, and that $20 billion of those subsidies contribute to overfishing. An article in Marine Policy estimates that to be about $22 billion, $13.9 billion of which is from Asian countries (Skerritt and Rashid Sumaila, 2021). China, Japan, and South Korea are responsible for 44 percent of these subsidies on a global level. 

Another article in Marine Policy shows the types of fishing subsidies (Rashid Sumaila et al., 2019). The harmful subsidies in question here are the ones that focus on "capacity expanding" activities, including building fishing vessels and fuel subsidies for fishing fleets. It does not surprise me to see such subsidies contributing to overfishing. This is what happens when a supply-side subsidy is at work. As we see in the supply and demand chart below, a supply-side subsidy has two main effects aside from costing taxpayers money. The first is that it increases the quantity consumed, which in this case means increasing fishing capacity. These subsidies also decrease the price of catching fish, which makes fish more affordable. In other words, the supply-side subsidies are causing overfishing to take place. In 2014, I brought this up with how we subsidize water with supply-side subsidies. The prices remain low and all the while, we are draining a value resource all the quicker. 

If overfishing is so bad for marine environments, why do governments shell out so much money? As a 2018 article from Science Advances shows, 54 percent of high seas fishing would not be profitable without government subsidies. Since coastal fishing communities do not see the same level of economic development as urban areas, governments see these subsidies as a way to support local economic development and the country's food chains.  

This might sound like a noble cause, but it is quite short-sighted. Not only does it wreak havoc on our marine ecosystems, but it also helps us make sure that we do not have sustainable fisheries in the long-run. How do we deal with this debacle? Like a "good libertarian," a big part of my response is for the government to get out of the way since it is government that attributes to the overfishing. I am not the only one who thinks that government is the cause. The World Trade Organization is working on a treaty to help reduce these subsidies that induce overfishing, which is certainly warranted in this case. In 2014, I covered another idea that would help with sustainable fishing: property rights for fisheries. By focusing on less government and more market-based solutions, we can help save our marine environment.

What a Shock: Biden Proposed Emissions Standards to Encourage Electric Vehicle Purchases Would Backfire

This past weekend, we celebrated our 53rd Earth Day. It was meant to be a time to recognize legitimate environmental concerns. What has changed between that fateful day in 1970 and now? For one, there was a concern from the media and some scientists that we were all going to die from global cooling. This was hardly the only environmentalist crisis that has existed since 1970. There have been concerns about overpopulation, peak oil, copper, food shortages, pesticide residues, major species extinction, and the disappearance of the ozone layer. Notice how those fears either did not happen or were exaggerated. There is one other phenomenon that I would like to mention separately because it has dominated our news cycle. It will be brought up throughout today's piece, but the biggest environmental problem of our time that is mentioned constantly by media and politicians is that of climate change.

Environmentalists argue that if we do not significantly reduce the world's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon, the world as we know it will either be destroyed or considerably altered in an unpleasant way. Extreme heat waves, sea level rising, coral reefs disappearing, increase of adverse weather events, massive crop shortages, water drying up, species' habitats being destroyed. It sounds like a scenario in which the world would go to hell in a hand basket. The potential of such calamity is so high that governments are willing to intervene with whatever policies they deem fit to stop it that goes well beyond gas stoves.

What is the the Biden Administration going after in the name of climate change? Gasoline vehicles. A couple of weeks ago, the Biden Administration's EPA proposed "strongest-ever" emissions standards on cars and trucks. How strong? If these proposed standards become law, they would be strong enough where the EPA is estimating that 67 percent of vehicles sales in 2032 would need to be electric vehicles (EV) in order to comply with these regulations. 

If we want to go somewhere, we need to know where we are at first. That is not merely for travel, but also sound advice for making progress. According to data analytics firm J.D. Power, less than 1 percent of vehicles in this country are electric and that 6 percent of vehicle sales in 2022 were electric. Trying to get from 6 percent to 67 percent in a decade is quite ambitious. This is not to say there is no demand for EVs. EV sales have tripled in the past three years, but that is a far cry from everyone clamoring for an EV. Looking at February 2023 survey data from AP/NORC, 47 percent are not too likely/not at all likely to purchase an EV, as opposed to 19 percent who would be. While there is demand, there are considerations that make Biden's aggressive, and quite frankly impatient, goals a pipe dream. 

Climate change is not a crisis. This is a point I brought up in November 2021, as well as a point that was more recently made by Reason Magazine and Fraser Institute. This is not to say that humans have not contributed to shifts in the Earth's climate or that there are going to be changes in weather patterns that cause problems. What I am saying is that we are not on the brink of catastrophe and the world is not going to end if we do not do something soon. A recent study from Climatic Study shows that people who have better environmental knowledge have less "climate anxiety" and are less likely to succumb to alarmism (Zacher and Rudolph, 2023). If we stopped having models with implausible scenarios and fear-mongering dominate the conversation, we would realize that climate change is a manageable problem. For argument's sake, let's assume that the fear-mongers are correct. Even if we agreed that climate change were an imminent threat, Biden's vehicle emissions standards are still problematic.     

Rushing production could slow EV development. As Reason Magazine points out, automobile manufacturers are struggling to get the manufacturing process for EVs to scale. An electric vehicle is still a nascent technology. Like with other technologies, it is going to take time to figure out how to make the electric vehicle more cost-efficient. When the cell phone, television, and computer first came out, they were expensive luxury items that only the rich could afford. Over time, they became more cost-effective.

It took a while to develop the technology and infrastructure to build combustion-powered vehicles. Since electric vehicles are so new, we have not reached that stage in technological development to build EVs at scale. Ford lost more than $2.1 billion on its electric car division last year and is expected to lose another $3 billion this year. Axios noted that battery technology is still evolving, which says nothing about whether we can mine the critical minerals for the batteries. An attempt to rush production could result in putting out an inferior product to market versus a more carbon-neutral option that uses less scarce materials.

Then there is the matter of being able to supply electricity in an already-strained grid system. According to Biden's own Department of Energy, we would need to expand electricity transmission systems by 60 percent by 2030 and triple it by 2050 to meet the demands of renewable energy and greater electricity demand. For this to work, productivity in transmission production would need to increase a whopping twelve-fold from what it was between 2008 and 2021. As long as demand for electricity outstrips supply, EVs are not going to gain traction. 

Electric vehicles are more expensive than gas vehicles and have other costs. Aside from buying a house or paying for college, purchasing a vehicle is one of the largest purchases a typical American makes. When criticizing the so-called Inflation Reduction Act's environmental provisions last year, I pointed out that the average electric vehicle is about $16,000 more expensive. The price gap would plausibly diminish over time as the technology progresses. For now, price remains a major barrier to entry for Americans. The AP-NORC survey findings I mentioned earlier rank the cost as the highest obstacle. 

The price gap between an electric and gas vehicle goes beyond the initial purchase. Electric vehicles are more expensive to repair and insure. Many states have additional registration fees. Electric vehicles do not fare as well in cold weather. There are still costs to charging an electric vehicle. Maintenance expenses are fewer on an electric vehicle because they have fewer parts than a combustion engine vehicle. Even so, there still are maintenance costs. The lack of a charging station infrastructure, long charging time, and limited driving range relative to a combustion engine vehicle also create doubt in the consumer's mind (AP-NORC). Charging time, range, and overall cost of an EV have improved over time. Odds are they will still get better as time passes. At the same time, the current limitations are still prohibitive enough where they create barriers to purchase, especially for those living in rural areas. 

5-3-2023 Addendum: An analysis from Manhattan Institute reminded me that electric vehicles are not only going to cost a lot now. If Biden's regulations pass, the cost of vehicle ownership is going to increase. To comply with the regulations, automobile manufacturers can increase the cost of internal combustion vehicles. Two, increased demand for EVs is going to increase the inputs of EV manufacturing, especially the battery. Three, electricity costs will increase.

Electric vehicles have their environmental impact, too. It is true that electric vehicles do not consume gasoline or produce tailpipe emissions. That does not mean that electric vehicles do not come without environmental impact, as even the Left-leaning Slate concedes. There are multiple carbon-intensive inputs of manufacturing EVs, especially when it comes to the battery. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it takes six times the amount of minerals to manufacture EVs than it does for conventional vehicles. 

Mining for these rare earth metals for EVs gets complicated by the fact that as of the end of 2022, China accounted for 70 percent of the world's rare earth metals market (Statista). Sino-U.S. relations are not exactly great at the moment, but let us assume that China decides to cooperate. There are other minerals that need to be mined for that create environmental costs. 

Then there are the emissions from transporting the batteries from China to the United States. I am not here to say that EVs do not have the potential to have a net positive impact on carbon emissions, especially in the long-run. After reviewing a detailed piece from RealClear Investigations entitled 'Zero Emissions' from Electric Vehicles? Here's Why That Claim Has Zero Basis, I do know that manufacturing EVs is far from being a zero-carbon process. What I would contend is that the environmental impact of EVs is contingent upon some major factors, including the two below:

• The electricity for the electric vehicles has to come from somewhere. The origin of that fuel source has a huge impact as to whether the electric vehicles lower carbon emissions. As of February 2023, 60.2 percent of electricity comes from fossil fuels. If the electricity comes from carbon-neutral sources, then it will be better in terms of carbon emissions than if it were to come from fossil fuels. The catch is that demand often exceeds supply for clean energy sources, which is why fossil fuels (at least for now) will play its role in charging EVs.  
• There is the question of battery life. The technology is new enough where automakers have not had too many opportunities to replace depleted batteries. We do not have adequate data to answer this question. EV manufacturers are optimistic in saying that they can last 15 to 20 years. However, if it ends up being closer to 10 years or less, the financial and environmental cost of an EV can change, and not in the environmentalists' favor.

Postscript. In summation, Biden's proposed emission standards to incentivize (or rather, force) EV purchases is misguided in a number of ways. Whether it would be beneficial to the environment, certainly enough to significantly curtail carbon emissions, is in question. Since climate change is not the calamity that EV proponents make it out to be, it is as if the Biden administration is trying to implement a solution in search of a problem. If anything, it is a power-grab of the Biden administration because if GHG emissions are an existential threat, it would basically give carte blanche to the government to regulate the economy as they see fit. 

Then there is appreciating the irony that Biden's impatience could result in there being fewer EVs. You can throw all the money at a problem and create all the incentives (e.g., tax credits, subsidies, emissions standards) you want. If EVs really were cheaper and more efficient, you would not need to be forced into purchasing one. The truth is that EVs are currently more expensive than conventional vehicles because they are not as efficient or cost-effective to manufacture. I think of LED (light-emitting diodes) lights and how that took time for LEDs to replace the incandescent light bulb. They were expensive at first, but the price did drop and came with more performance improvements such as being more durable and lasting longer.   

I made a similar argument about electric stoves last January, and the truth is that EVs are not a viable option for many Americans. If the technology for EVs improves and EVs become more affordable, that is one thing. That would be market forces moving in a direction more favorable instead of government fiat essentially stating that most vehicles need to be electric. If EVs are truly meant to be a thing of the future, it will happen on its own time. As I have brought up numerous times on this blog, competition is what leads to innovation, not government edict. Consumers should be deciding whether purchasing an EV is right for their household, not the government. For the sake of American consumers, I hope this proposed regulation does not become law.