The Dangerous Bait-and-Switch That Is Critical Race Theory

A proper education is one of the most important gifts that we can bestow upon children. It is not simply because a proper education is one of the main factors in high wellbeing. It is because it gives us critical thinking skills, helps us make correct decisions, makes us less susceptible to the influence of others, and improves our understanding of the world. A proper education in history is specifically important because it helps us learn from past mistakes, as well as successes. It becomes problematic when something as paramount as an education in history is politicized because it distorts truth. 

Nonetheless, that is what is happening in the U.S. education system. I am sure that by now, many have heard the term "critical race theory", or CRT for short. You can read the analysis I wrote last year on CRT for more background, but let me summarize the debate as follows. 

CRT is a theory "about how socially constructed racial identities are intertwined throughout all our legal and social structures to create and reinforce a system of white supremacy." Proponents of CRT claim that CRT is simply a way for us to better understand how racism shaped the United States. Opponents of CRT see it is a radical ideology that is dead-set on creating division based on race and is not interested in teaching an objective view of history. 

If CRT were solely about teaching history accurately and making sure that the less-than-ideal parts of U.S. history are not whitewashed, I would be all for CRT. Children should not be learning a watered-down or bastardized version of U.S. history. By the time children have completed high school, they should know all about U.S. history: the good, the bad, and the ugly. As reading a recently released article from The Federalist entitled "No, Critical Race Theory Isn't About Teaching 'Slavery Is Real'" reminded me, CRT is actually a bait-and-switch that we should all find to be disturbing. 

CRT attempts to do away with rational thought and objectivity. This is not something that CRT advocates exactly hide. Stephen Sawchuk, who is the Associate Editor of Education Week, pointed out in his article praising CRT that CRT is a subset of critical theory that emerged from postmodernist thought and is meant to question and criticize "universal values, objective knowledge, individual merit, Enlightenment rationalism, and [classical] liberalism." This is not only problematic because these are values I hold dear. It is because it means rejecting such phenomena as critical thinking, the scientific method, or the sort of objectivity that reminds us that 2 + 2 = 4. I think CRT needs to be postmodern because it would not survive scrutiny under logic or critical thinking. CRT puts activism ahead of finding the truth, which makes it that much more difficult to find solutions to the problems that CRT advocates purport to care about. After all, how can you fix a problem if you cannot accurately diagnose it? 

The idea of accurate diagnosis gets into another issue with CRT, which is that CRT lobs unfalsifiable accusations of racism. When I say unfalsifiable, what I mean here is that CRT advocates assume a conclusion about something (e.g., the pervasiveness of systemic nature of racism in society) or someone (e.g., whether all white people are racist) without having to provide any evidence for their claim. To apply that to CRT, it does not first prove whether racism took place. It simply assumes that racism is there and jumps straight to asking "How was this situation racist?" For CRT advocates, you do not have to prove something or someone was racist. It is a belief, an axiom to be held as sacrosanct. As this article from the Foundation of Economic Education points out:

The problem with this [assumption of racism] is that human interactions are inherently messy and subjective. We treat each other all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons. In this type of environment, if you look for a phenomenon in an interaction you will find evidence for it; even if the phenomenon doesn't actually exist in that interaction...A scholar will look at complicated interactions and will weigh the evidence in search of the truth. An activist will dig for anything that supports their pre-existing dogma. 

None of this is a surprise since CRT rejects critical thinking and is unkind towards teaching students how to think. Rejecting reason not only comes with the price of halting progress, but it comes with a warped sense of priorities and problem-solving. While I would argue that lockdowns played a major role in the increase in of riots and "mostly peaceful protests," I would also argue that CRT contributed to the tension quietly in the background. After all, if the problem is systemic racism and the system is so "rotten to its core" that it oppresses colored people and keeps them down, then the only solution is to fight fire with fire and use violence to tear it down. 

Ibram X. Kendi, who is one of the most brazen advocates of CRT, openly admitted that "the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." I don't think Kendi even realizes the irony of such a solution, but what the CRT mentality does is continue a perpetual cycle of discrimination instead of finding a solution to put an end to the discrimination. 

As much as I would like to have a world without racism, having the intent of making the world a more racially just and equal place does not give CRT advocates the moral high ground. As Milton Friedman famously said: One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

When taken to its logical conclusion, obsessively focusing on race like CRT does is destructive and divisive. In the event what I wrote today was not compelling enough, I will direct you once again to the analysis I wrote on CRT last year to supplement today's analysis. I discussed how it lowers morale for students of color and how it can create resentment and/or lower self-esteem for white students. I also described how it will worsen race relations and make society more racist, which is contrary to the supposed goals of CRT advocates.  

I am not here to say that racism is gone or that race relations were or are perfect because none of that is true. I explained that concept when I argued last year why we should all celebrate Juneteenth. At the same time, CRT advocates react to racial relations in the U.S. as if Jim Crow were alive and well or if we were living in the antebellum South. Progress has been made since then and we should use that progress to bring us closer to giving all U.S. citizens the opportunity to live the American Dream. In case it has not been abundantly clear by now, there are a myriad of legitimate reasons to criticize CRT and to want it removed from the classroom. I would accuse CRT advocates as being intellectually lazy when they call anyone who is opposed to CRT a racist, but they don't care about objective truth, remember?

"Latinx" Is an Exclusionary Term: Another Reason to Do Away With It

Labels can be used to confine or limit, but they can also be used to describe someone or something. Finding a term to describe those of Spanish or Latin American descent has been quite the bumpy road. The terms Hispanic and Latin took some time in the 20th century to get used accustomed to, but it was not easy. Although used interchangeably in everyday speech, the words Hispanic and Latino refer to two different types of people. A Latino is someone who comes from a part in the western hemisphere that a) was formally colonized by Spain or Portugal, and b) where a Romance language, whether Spanish, Portuguese, or French, is predominantly spoken. Hispanic refers to someone from a Spanish-speaking country, whether that is Spain or a Spanish-speaking country in Latin America. So Latino is a geographical and ethnic designation, whereas Hispanic is more of a geographic and linguistic designation. 

If that did not make things murky enough, here comes the term Latinx. The premise behind the term "Latinx" was to create an inclusive option for non-binary and gender-neutral individuals of Latin or Hispanic origin. The term emerged in 2004 and was primarily used amongst academics and Left-leaning activists. The usage of the term started to increase in 2014 (Salinas et al., 2017) and became an entry in Webster's dictionary in 2018. 

There has been considerable pushback to the term "Latinx." Earlier this year, the mayor of Buenos Aires issued a public statement banning the use of "Latinx" or any other gender-neutral variant because it violates the rules of the Spanish language. The Uruguayan government released a similar memo in December 2020. In 2020, the Real Academia Española, which is the institution considered to be the gatekeeper of the Spanish language, called it alien to Spanish morphology. There have been initiatives in Peru and some states in Mexico to ban gender-neutral language in schools. 

While the term "Latinx" has been around for almost two decades, it still remains unpopular. In 2020, Pew Research pointed out how a quarter of Hispanics have heard of it, but only three percent use it. Earlier this year, Gallup estimated that 4 percent of Hispanics use it as an identifier. In December 2021, NBC pointed out a poll that shows that only 2 percent of those of Latin descent use the term "Latinx." Compare that to the 40 percent in the same poll that find the term "Latinx" offensive. 

It does not surprise me in the slightest. In 2019, I wrote a scathing piece where I took multiple issues with the term "Latinx." One of my main issues stemmed from the fact that the suffix "-x" does not grammatically or orally correspond with the Spanish language. Even if it were created strictly for a U.S.-based audience, it does not make sense to create the term "Latinx" because English has gender-neutral terms to describe this demographic: Hispanic and Latin. Also, after acquiring a major in Spanish, spending time in Spanish-speaking countries, using Spanish in a professional context, having multiple Spanish-speaking friends, and even having previously been engaged to a Hispanic, I can tell you that Spanish-speakers prefer their country of origin as a form of self-identification over a generic term such as Latino, Hispanic, or the obnoxious "Latinx." 

Last week, I read an article from The Conversation that was in Real Clear Policy. It was entitled "Stop using 'Latinx' if you really want to be inclusive." Not only do I have issues with the term "Latinx" because it is unnecessary, linguistically improper, or condescending. This article highlighted another reason to despise the term: its exclusive nature. Here were some gems I found in the article:

• If the term is truly inclusive, it gives equitable weight to vastly diverse experiences and knowledge; it is not meant to be a blanket identity. 
• Furthermore, if the goal is to be inclusive, the "-x" would be easily pronounceable and naturally applied to other parts of the Spanish language. 
• Individuals who self-identify as Latinx or are aware of the term are most likely to be U.S.-born, young adults from 18 to 29 years old. They are predominantly English speakers and have more college education. In other words, the most marginalized communities do not use Latinx (Pew Research). 

First of all, the term "Latinx" goes against the very concept of inclusivity. If you are going to use a term this broad to describe a group of people, it has to represent all of those individuals, not only some. More to the point, the inoperability of "Latinx" in the Spanish language excludes millions of Spanish speakers throughout the world. The suffix "-x" does not correspond to the Spanish language. Therefore, people cannot use the suffix in everyday conversation or written correspondence. By the way, the millions of Spanish-speaking individuals cannot use the suffix "-x" also includes the vast majority of the non-binary and gender-neutral individuals for whom "Latinx" was created. This would explain why the term "Latinx" is used by a small, elite subset of Latinos: the ones with a college education and high English proficiency. Part of why language evolves organically is because any modifications made over time would need to fit within the given language. The term "Latinx" fails at that spectacularly. In attempts to be more inclusive, the term "Latinx" ends up being significantly more exclusive. 

To quote Joaquin Blaya, who is a co-founder of the Spanish-speaking TV network Univision, in his objection to the term 'Latinx': "It's too weird. It's dumb. It's foreign. It's not Spanish." Blaya is correct on all fronts. The suffix "-x" is English-language speakers imposing an Anglophone norm onto the Spanish language, which is culturally and linguistically inconsiderate. The term "Latinx" is even clunky in English. Language is meant to be clear when communicated, which the term "Latinx" cannot accomplish in English; even more so in Spanish. In short, the term "Latinx" dishonors the Spanish language and its speakers while excluding way many more people than it includes. In case there were not enough reasons to relegate the term "Latinx" to the dustbin of history, the exclusiveness of the term is another one to add to the list of reasons why "Latinx" is a linguistic bastardization that needs to be discontinued. 

Media Continues to Exaggerate Threat of Climate Change: Hurricanes Are No Exception

At the end of last month, Hurricane Ian unleashed its Category 4 fury on multiple locations, including Cuba and Florida. This hurricane is likely to be the costliest since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. While people are recovering from the havoc, media outlets have decided that this disaster is a carte blanche to hype up the effects of climate change as it pertains to hurricanes: 

• Study finds that climate change added 10 percent to Ian's rainfall (AP News)
• Is Climate Change Making Hurricanes Worse? (Economist)
• How Climate Change Is Rapidly Fueling Super Hurricanes (Washington Post)

These are but a few examples of the media using clickbait to try to increase views during a natural disaster. Here is the question I would like to ask: are hurricanes actually more intense and frequent or are we hearing more about hurricanes and other natural disasters because the media decides to report on it more frequently and more intensely than it used to? 

Last November, I pointed out how using low-probability, worst-case assumptions from scary climate change modeling to drive environmental policy is ill-advised. A peer-reviewed study from Europe shows that economic losses and weather-related deaths have declined considerably since 1980 (Formetta and Feyen, 2019). If you notice the graph below from the aforementioned study, the declining trend also exists in costal flooding. 

A study from a University of Colorado professor also shows that the cost of natural disasters as a percent of global GDP has decreased from 0.3 percent of GDP to 0.25 percent between 1990 and 2017 (Pielke, 2018).

So what about hurricanes specifically? Are hurricanes killing more people? Do we see more havoc wreaked on the economy? The question about whether it harms the economy is more complicated because more people have been owning property in hurricane-prone areas. That is why using normalized cost trends is a way to make comparing hurricanes over time analogous, i.e., it becomes more of an apples-to-apples comparison. Essentially, the normalization process estimates costs from a historical storm if the same natural event were to take place in modern times. Using this normalization process, we can see that there has been no discernible trend in economic cost between 1900 and 2017 (Weinkle et al., 2018).

But at least there have been more hurricanes, right? Not so much. A report from the American Meteorological Society shows that the number of overall hurricanes and major hurricanes (i.e., Category 3-5) have been on the decline (Klotzbach et al., 2018). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that "there is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane history (IPCC, p. 1588)." 

Even better, we can consult the researchers over at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is the government entity responsible for such tasks as oceanic and atmospheric research. NOAA summarizes its findings in Global Warming and Hurricanes. Here were some of my favorite parts from the NOAA:

•  "There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes, there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity." 
• "After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era, there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts. The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s." 
• While the NOAA projects that the lifetime maximum intensity of Atlantic Hurricanes will increase by about 5% during the 21st century, NOAA also projects "substantial decrease (~25%) in the overall number of Atlantic and tropical storms." 
• "After adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive trend (not statistically significant) in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006." 
• "We conclude that historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes." 

In other words, reputable studies and government findings conclude that anthropogenic climate change has not caused more frequent hurricanes, more intense hurricanes, or greater economic damage. Furthermore, the NOAA shows that the lower of frequency of projected hurricanes will offset the slightly higher intensity of projected hurricanes. Not only have hurricanes not gotten overall worse over time, but we have become more resilient because we have done a better job at weathering hurricanes, as well as natural disasters more generally. Instead of unleashing a storm of misinformation to make a quick buck, perhaps more media outlets should try reporting facts, even if they end up painting a less catastrophic picture than a climate change Armageddon.

A Yom Kippur Lesson on the Stoic Dichotomy of Control and How to Take the Reins for the New Year

We are currently in another year of the Jewish High Holiday period, which starts on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) and ends after Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). It is within this ten-day period (עשרת ימי תשובה) that Jews traditionally lean into introspection, reconnection, and improving oneself. There are a sheer amount of services and prayers that take place during this holiday period. There is one liturgical poem (פיוט; piyut) that is read both on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that I want to focus on today: Unetaneh Tokef (ונתנה תקף).

The premise of this liturgical poem is that G-d is Judge and He is judging our actions. He has a Book of Life and a Book of Death. On Rosh Hashanah, it is written in which Book we will be inscribed. On Yom Kippur, the Books are sealed. As we see in the poem, the Books act as a metaphor of who is going to live and going to die in the upcoming year. When I analyzed this piyut nine years ago, the framework presented in Unetaneh Tokef is figurative because, well, this is a poem. As we will see, this poem has great insight, even though there are not literal Books. 

This is a poem that helps us to come to terms with our own mortality. One of the ways it inadvertently does so is by using the dichotomy of control. The dichotomy of control, which is most commonly associated with Stoicism, is the idea some things are in your control and others are not. This is true when you divide a task, goal, event, or occurrence into small enough pieces. The dichotomy of control framework has us categorize things into either being in our control or not. We are then to focus on what is within our control. This concept exists in the well-known Serenity Prayer:

G-d grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. 

This dichotomy plays out in Unetaneh Tokef. The piyut list a series of ways that people die, including by water, by fire, by hunger, by earthquake, and by plague, e.g., COVID-19. It also says that it will be determined who will be at ease and who will suffer, who will become poor and who will become rich, and who will be cast down and who will be raised high. We have no control of whether death comes from us. It is not a matter of if we will die, but how, when, and where. As for becoming poor or rich, that one is trickier. We can have control over our performance at work, but we cannot control whether economic conditions shut down our place of employment or certain other dynamics in the workplace. There are many external events over which we do not have control. After this list of events over which we have little to no control, the poem creates a "but" statement to counter a feeling of fatalism:

ותשובה ותפלה וצדקה מעהירין את רע הגזרה

But repentance, prayer, and charity avert the evil [severity] of the decree. 

While there are a myriad of events and actions outside of our control, Unetaneh Tokef reminds us that there are things we can do to help mitigate the circumstances, whether they are our fault or not. The poem provides us with three solutions. As the Lubavitcher Rebbe aptly illustrates, the English translations do not capture the profundity of what these options actually entail:

• Repentance (תשובה). What is interesting about the Jewish concept of teshuvah is that it has the same root as the verb "to return" (לשוב). Rather than become a new person, one is "returning" to one's original self. In Judaism, that original nature is deemed good. I have theological qualms believing everyone is good deep down. I think being human means that there is potential to be good, but that is not the same as being fundamentally good. Perhaps that is what we are returning to: actualizing our potential to be good in the world. In any case, I still like the concept of teshuvah. Whether it is Greek tragedies, Calvinist predestination, Marxism, Freudian thought, or genetic determinism, there has been many schools of thought that believe that we are puppets of fate. What is great about teshuvah is that with effort, discipline, and will, we have the ability and freedom to change for the better. 
• Prayer (תפלה). There is a separate verb that means "to pray, request, beseech" (לבקש). The word comes from the reflexive verb "to judge oneself" (התפלל). While there is an element of interacting with the Divine, there is a major aspect of self-evaluation and self-judgment. This is not about a process of asking for what we need. This is about developing the self-awareness to become better people. 
• Charity (צדקה). The idea of charity comes from the Latin word caritas, which means "from the heart." The closest Hebrew gets to this idea is the word חסד. In Judaism, the word צדקה comes from the root of צדק: justice. We give not because we feel warm-hearted, but because it is the right thing to do. It reminds us that we have a responsibility to help out other human beings. It also reminds us that nothing ultimately belongs to us. While the concept of צדקה is traditionally about how one gives money, I believe that giving one's time or effort, or even extending a kind word, is also an extension of the concept of צדקה. Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler said that the extent to which we love is the extent to which we give. 

Through the actions of self-reflection, changing our behavior, and doing acts of kindness, Unetaneh Tokef teaches us that we turn abstract values into the fulfillment of what Jewish values are supposed to exemplify. By becoming better people through our thoughts, speech, and action, we can bring about a year of sweetness, joy, and abundance. 

10 Life Lessons I Took Away from the Movie "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once"

Generally, when I go to the movie theater, my main goal is to be entertained. Rarely does a movie inspire me. Even more rare is when a movie gets me to think profoundly about life, but that is what happened when I watched Everything, Everywhere, All at Once last June. The multifaceted movie has been so impactful that I am still thinking about it now. 

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once is an absurdist sci-fi comedy-drama that was produced by the Russo Brothers. The protagonist, Evelyn Wong, is played by Michelle Yeoh of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame. Yeoh plays a Chinese-American who is running a failing laundromat and dealing with a marriage nearing divorce and a constantly disapproving father. An inter-dimensional rupture unravels reality, and Yeoh's character has to use her newly founded powers to save the multiverse. The blend between dark humor and light humor led into an overall absurdism that did quite the job clarifying life for me. To be sure, this piece will make more sense if you have seen the film. Even if you have not, I part onto you ten lessons that I learned or had reinforced from watching the film Everything, Everywhere, All at Once. 

Warning: the following takeaways contain spoilers.

1. Nihilism is not the answer; kindness is. Yes, the world is a dark and cruel place. There is no shortage of injustice, unfairness, or inequality. While some aspects of our world have order and structure, other parts simply do not make sense. Why do good people suffer while there are evil people who thrive? Why do some people die and others live to see another day? I have come to accept a level of absurdism in this world, an absurdism that this embraces in full. The movie presents nihilism as an option vis-à-vis the Everything Bagel. While despair and hopelessness are tempting options, the movie steers us away from that. Even when we do not understand the seeming randomness of the world, kindness can be an anchor of light in a dark world. It is Buddhist thought, amongst other philosophies and religions, that teaches us that kindness and compassion are what make us human. 

2. Go with the flow. This is not some hippy-dippy advice; it is a great lesson from the movie. Opening your mind and your heart does wonders. Change is one of the only constants in this world, yet humans have a tendency towards fearing change. Think of a flowing river. Does it make sense to paddle against the current or to go with the current? I cannot begin to tell you the number of times in my personal life where I fought what was going on in my life. It was stressful, it was emotionally exhausting, and it did nothing to improve my situation. You do not have to condone or agree with what is going on, but you can recognize it for what it is and to do so with as few judgments or self-criticisms as possible. That is the idea behind radical acceptance. It means we fight it or get angry less. I am not arguing for passivity, but working with what is. If we want to go in a certain direction in life, we need to know where we are at before we know where we are going. Going with the way the world is (i.e., go with the flow) makes it easier to instill change instead of wishing what was not the case (also see Point #9).

3. We are small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This is an extension of the first point.  The movie makes references to people as "specks of time." Even if seventy or eighty years seems like a long time to us, it is a blink of an eye in a universe that is millions of years old. We are all going to die one day. The universe is going to exist long after we are gone. This also does not factor into whether other planets have life on them or not. We very well might be one planet with sentient life amongst millions. We are small in the grand schemes of the size of the universe and of the existence of time. The only possibility for ultimate reality exists in an infinite being, as is depicted in such monotheistic religions as Judaism and Islam. 

I would argue that this was King Solomon's existential angst in the Book of Ecclesiastes. What is commonly translated as vanity in "All is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2) is the Hebrew word הבל. The word הבל literally means "breath." Life is all too short, much like a breath. King Solomon's gripe was not that there was no meaning, but that life is too short and we do not get to experience ultimate meaning. 

4. Do not despair because we can still find personal meaning. King Solomon struggled throughout the Book, but ultimately found meaning in fear of G-d and His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Even as we go through our own struggles, we need to find our own personal meaning in life. To quote French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre:

La vie n'a pas de sense, a priori. Avant que vous ne viviez, la vie, elle, n'est rien, mais c'est à vous de lui donner un sens, et la valeur n'est pas autre chose que ce sens que vous choisissez. (Translation: Life has no meaning a priori. It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.)

Existentialism teaches the importance of the human experience. Sartre teaches that we are responsible for our own meaning. We can try to find meaning in religion, our jobs, our relationships, our travels and other experiences, but it is up to us to find what is meaningful to us in the time allotted to us. We should treasure what we do have for the time we have it since we do not know when the end is. 

5. Our decisions are not as small as they seem. Per the previous point, it might seem like our decisions are insignificant in light of the inevitability of death. However, as we see throughout the movie, what seems like a small decision can have a ripple effect over multiple universes. Our decisions do not have that magnitude of an effect, or at least as far as we are aware. What the movie illustrates is that our decisions have more of an impact that we can imagine. 

6. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Oftentimes on a societal level, love is treated as something corny or schmaltzy to be a part of movies or fairy tales. But Burt Bacharach was right when he said that love is the thing that there is too little of in this world. This movie plays with the idea of conditional acceptance and what relationships would look like if love were less and less conditional. Towards the end, Evelyn says to Deidre that she is not unlovable because "there is always something to love." The movie does not argue that blindly loving everyone will solve everything. That might be because love is complicated and can be messy. It can mean giving the other person space, de-emphasizing yourself, or needing to let go. Nevertheless, there needs to be more love in this world, not less. 

7. The role of silliness and optimism.  Evelyn Wong's husband, Waymond, put googly eyes on everything he could find. Evelyn found them to be an annoyance, but this was Waymond's small way to encourage humor and happiness in life. Life is far from being sunshine and rainbows. There are plenty of difficult and arduous moments. Waymond's usage of googly eyes is his way of putting amor fati into practice (see Point #9). Waymond's variant in another universe describes his optimism as a way to fight in a world that does not present a bright side. While optimism amplifies joy in good times, it is a strength and coping mechanism in bad times. 

8. Do not forget how important relationships are. What is clear at the beginning is that Evelyn has a lot bogging her down. She is so preoccupied that she forgets two of her most important relationships: with her husband and her daughter. Nurturing strong bonds with loved ones is important. The people we share our lives with can enhance our experiences. Also, there is a famous study from Brigham Young University that shows that those who have strong relationships improve their odds of survival by 50 percent at any given time (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

9. Do not dwell on the past. There is a scene where Evelyn is looking at her alternate selves in other universes...versions that seemed "more successful" than her. She sees rich celebrities in comparison to her life of "laundry and taxes." It is tempting to think the grass is greener on the other side. It is easy to play the game of "coulda, woulda, shoulda." I have been guilty of thinking of what could have been or what "should" have been. As alluring as it is, the past is prologue. We cannot go back and alter the choices we made. 

This is where the idea of amor fati comes into play. This Latin phrase meaning "love of fate" conceptually came about the Stoics, but the term itself is associated with philosopher Frederich Nietzsche. The idea of amor fati is not simply to "grin and bear" bad moments, but to love them. It is not about wanting anything to be different, either now or in our past. It is simply loving life for what it is, and that is the movie's advice in response to Evelyn's verse-jumping. We have to make do with what we have and ideally love it for what it is. We do need to reckon with our past and overcome whatever emotional baggage arises, but we are not meant to wallow and ruminate in our past. 

10. Who you are or what you did does not automatically determine your future. Evelyn starts off the movie as a woman disgruntled with her work life and her marriage. She ends up developing superpowers and fighting with the goal of saving the multiverse. Our decisions or circumstances can put us on an unhappy path. Nevertheless, we are not determined to stay on that course. 

I will end with a classic from Deuteronomy (30:19): "I [G-d] have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life so that you...may live." We do not get to choose all of our circumstances. There are things that happen that are not our fault, but they are our responsibility if we want to be happy. We are not puppets of fate. We do not have to dwell in the past (see previous point). We have the ability and agency to change our course to create a better, happier future for ourselves.

Why Do Studies Show People on the Left Are Typically Less Happy Than the Average Person?

"Misery loves company." 

I found this to particularly be the case living as a libertarian in a liberal bubble during the pandemic. 

"Stay at home."

"Follow the science." 

"Where's your mask?" 

"Why are you traveling during a pandemic? You can't do that." 

I had people haranguing me about mask-wearing when the science is not in favor of mask mandates or mask-wearing generally. I still see people wiping down surfaces thinking they can prevent catching COVID, although it was proven by mid-2020 that COVID really does not get transmitted through surfaces. We have widely available COVID vaccines and I still see some masking up (even outdoors!) like it is 2020. 

Not only were Democrats more likely to be fearful of COVID (Morning Consult), but they were also more likely to experience mental distress as a result (Bock and Schnabel, 2022). What I noticed in my personal life was that on average, the pandemic made those on the Left more irritable, less optimistic, and general buzzkills because they were more likely to buy into the COVID fear-mongering. Thankfully, not all of my liberal friends were downers, but it was something I noticed more and more as the pandemic progressed. I would have thought that COVID vaccines or having Biden in the White House would have brought some solace or equanimity to my Left-leaning friends by now, but it did no such thing. If anything, they seem to have gotten more agitated during Biden's time in office, even though the Democrats have control of the White House and Congress.

Last month, I was reading a book from conservative political commentator Eddie Scarry called Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks the Joy Out of Everything and Everyone. I was even able to meet the author after reading the first couple of chapters. I initially took the book with a grain of salt because his thesis was that liberals are more miserable than conservatives. I do not exist on the "conservative/liberal" spectrum. Some of my views lean Right and others Left, which means I do not have ideological skin in the outcome. I do not have a political affiliation and remain independent, which means I do not have partisan skin in the game either. 

I wanted to independently conduct research to see if what Scarry was saying was true. It turns out that he was correct: on average, those on the Left are less happy than those on the Right. I will be citing other studies throughout this piece, but one of the main studies that Scarry cited (and I will also be citing) was from scholars from the University of Florida and Toronto (Schlenker et al., 2012). 

There is research to suggest that those on the Left are more prone to neuroticism than those on the Right (McCann, 2018; Burton et al., 2015). This might seem like an insult to some, but the psychological definition of neuroticism is the extent to which a person experiences the world as distressing, threatening, or unsafe. This plays out in forms of depression, anxiety, self-doubt, and other negative feelings. More recently, data from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel in March 2020 showed that those on the Left (particularly white people on the Far Left) are significantly more likely to have mental health issues. On a similar note, another study from the University of Southern California found that conservatives report greater purpose in meaning in life than liberals (Newman et al., 2018). 

I would have thought that this happiness gap was strictly an American thing, but this happiness gap also plays out in Canada (MacInnis et al., 2013) and Europe (Okulicz-Kozaryn et al., 2014). What is even more interesting is that this trend in the happiness gap is not anything new. I would argue that Trump's election and the pandemic were inflection points for the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. I would also argue that increased pervasiveness of wokeness in the mainstream Left, Occupy Wall Street, and increased usage of social media amplified this gap over the past decade. 

Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner pointed out the happiness gap back in 2008. When you look through the data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, which has been funded by the National Science Foundation, what you find is that this happiness gap between liberals and conservatives dates back at least to the 1970s. A 2006 report from the nonpartisan Pew Research similarly identifies this happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. 

None of this is to say that happy liberals or miserable conservatives do not exist because they do. However, when you look back at least five decades of survey data, they show that conservatives are on average happier than liberals. Even liberals over at the New York Times and The Atlantic have acknowledged the happiness gap.

Today, I do not want to debate whether the gap exists. Rather, I would like to dig into the reasons why such a gap would exist in the first place. Without causal mechanisms, all you have is correlation that may or may not have bearing on the matter. About 50 percent of the variation within the population on happiness is due to genetics (e.g., DeNeve et al., 2012). The other 40 percent is based on choice and one's lifestyle, whereas the other 10 percent is circumstance (Lyubomirsky, 2007). This does not apply to a given individual because an individual is not an entire population, but it does show us that on average, a significant portion of happiness is based on what we choose in life.  

But first, it makes sense to define happiness. I will quote The Happiness Advantage by Sean Achor for this portion. Happiness is what scientists refer to as subjective well-being (Achor, p. 39). It is an experience of positive emotions: pleasure combined with deeper feelings of meaning and purpose, which implies a positive mood in the present and a positive outlook for the future. Martin Seligman, who was a pioneer in positive psychology broke down happiness into three portions: pleasure, engagement, and meaning (ibid.). 

So what exactly is at play here? Does liberalism or progressivism make someone more miserable? Do less happier people gravitate towards being liberal? Or are conservatives more likely to partake in activities and lifestyle choices that result in greater happiness? I would like to take a look at happiness research and political philosophy in attempts to answer what accounts for this happiness gap. 

Reactions to inequality and unfairness. Life is unfair and can be difficult. What Stoicism, amongst other philosophies and religions, teaches is that what determines life quality is how you respond to life's difficulties. Epictetus taught that it was not so much external events that get us down, but how we respond to those events. That lesson seems to play out in the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. 

A study from the Association for Psychological Science posits that the main reason for the happiness gap is because of rationalization of inequality. The authors concluded that "conservatives [more than liberals] possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of income inequality" (Napier and Jost, 2008). As one of the authors of this paper, Jaime Napier, said on PBS, "one of the biggest [factors that] correlates in our surveys was the belief of meritocracy." 

To translate these findings, liberals are more likely to be disheartened because such inequalities exist. Conservatives, as well as libertarians such as myself, are not nearly as affected by it on an emotional level. This could be interpreted as conservatives not caring enough, although that can be harder to argue since conservatives give more to charity than liberals (Yang and Liu, 2021).

It is not because conservatives or libertarians do not recognize life's unfairness. It certainly exists. Part of where the typical conservative or libertarian differs is belief in hard work and perseverance, as we will see shortly. It is also the idea that as long as people have different levels of skillset, professional networks, and put in different levels of effort, there is bound to be inequality. Also, if you look at history (especially ancient history) or nature, you will see that inequality and hardship are defaults. It is not to say we should do nothing to make the world better, but there is only so much we can do. As an interesting Jewish tangent, the Talmud (Shabbat 151b) acknowledges that poverty will exist even when the Messiah shows up. Utopia does not exist. 

Resilience. Liberals can interpret the enhanced emotional reaction to inequality as a sign of "look how much I care." Their empathy can be seen as a virtue and that some happiness is the sacrifice to be that attune with the less fortunate. I do not see this level of empathy held by the typical liberal as a strength but as a weakness. It is not simply because it gets in the way of happiness. It is due to a utopian, unreachable goal that does not see the world for what it is. The world can be a dark and cold place. Technological development has not changed the fact that cruelty or injustice is still amongst us. If you try to care about every injustice or slight, you end up being emotionally exhausted and frustrated. 

Conservatives and libertarians are less likely to have this problem because they are more likely to keep their emotions in check. According to a study from Current Psychology (Briki and Dagot, 2020), conservatives are found to be happier than liberals because they "can bolster self-adaptive regulatory functions when exposed to threatening contexts." The study shows that self-regulatory factors such as perception of goal progress, dispositional self-control, and dispositional flow lead to greater subjective well-being in conservatives. This study shows that conservatives have better "mental adjustment," which is "indicated by the coping responses involved in adopting strategies to deal with or adapt to a situation." In other words, the level of empathy that the average liberal holds is all-encompassing and so overpowering that it gets in the way of them being emotionally resilient, adaptive, and ultimately happy with life. 

Personal Agency. The Florida State and Toronto University study previously cited at the beginning of this piece (Schlenker et al., 2012) has an interesting insight on the matter of personal agency (i.e., strong endorsements of personal control, responsibility, and reliability). Conservatives score higher on internal control, as well as the Protestant Work Ethic. "Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one's personal control, including luck and properties of the social system (ibid.)." 

According to the authors, the differences in personal agency "could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap." The authors also find that "perceptions of inner control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly correlated to life satisfaction." It makes sense. I know we cannot control everything, whether that is the weather, economy, or a pandemic. At the same time, what feels more empowering: having a sense of control (or at least strong influence) over your life trajectory or having to succumb to the whim of whatever external events come your way? Even author Brené Brown, who I have heard quoted my friends on the Left, said that "owning our story and loving ourselves through that process is the bravest thing that we will ever do." That ownership requires personal agency, which is a key component to happiness. 

Fear versus optimism. Everyone has fears at a certain point of time. Conservatives are not exempt from fear. Intuitively, you would think that libertarians and conservatives have higher levels of pessimism because they have a more negative view on human nature. There have been attempts to try to explain this view of human nature along with conservatives self-reporting greater levels of happiness.

One article at Science points out one of its own studies to try to explain the gap away by suggesting that conservatives are not actually happier. It is that conservatives merely put a positive spin on their lives, that they self-enhance. The study suggests that conservatives self-report greater happiness, but that liberals use more positive emotional language and more genuine smiles (Wojcik et al., 2015). This study uses language-processing software and an expert in facial recognition analysis to analyze survey results, U.S. politicians, Twitter users, and LinkedIn users. 

Let's think about the intuition behind this study for a second. Twitter and LinkedIn are part of social media. Social media is all about putting up a façade and a tendency to de-emphasize the bad in life. Social media is not the real world. If conservatives were the ones who were putting on a show and partaking in self-enhancement, it would show up it in social media, right? Yet it is the liberals who have a slightly more positive output on social media. 

Plus, even if conservatives put a more positive spin on their lives, so what? As previously illustrated, happiness is subjective well-being. Resilience and personal agency are those tools that help us cope with life's travails and create greater happiness. It is not how one views human nature per se that attributes to happiness. It is how one reacts to human nature and how the world is, as previously illustrated in the "Resilience" subsection. 

This is where a more optimistic viewpoint matters. A study from Kings College shows that positive thinking reduces anxiety (Eagelson et al., 2016). The Mayo Clinic illustrates how positive thinking reduces stress and lowers rates of depression. It is not the liberals who are as likely to possess this trait, but "conservatives exhibit a more positive outlook and stronger feelings of self-worth (Schlenker et al., 2012)." 

Yes, pundits and politicians on the political Right have their own fear-mongering, whether it has been over immigrants or terrorists. However, I think it is different than the modern-day Left's fear-mongering. There is something that I have observed from the mainstream Left's fear-mongering, whether it is Democrats being more likely to take on preventative measures against COVID (Kiviniemi et al., 2022) or Democrats being much more worried about climate change than Republicans (Pew Research). It is hard to listen to political pundits on the mainstream Left without the takeaway being that the world is going to end and there is no hope in sight. Even if climate change does not end up killing us all, income inequality and systemic racism are too prevalent from the mainstream Left's point of view to really enjoy anything in life without addressing life's unfairness first. 

This is not merely my take. An article from Cambridge University highlights why the political Left, particularly those who are well-educated, are more pessimistic (Hochschild, 2017). The Economist released some polling data back in January showing how Biden voters are more likely to view various issues more pessimistically than Trump voters (see below) about one year after Biden being in office. To bring it back to the main point of this subsection, positive thinking leads to happiness. The Left has put greater emphasis on gloom and doom than a positive mindset, which is a contributing factor to the happiness gap. Speaking of a positive mindset....

Gratitude versus Envy. I want to resume discussing inequality by discussing the theme of gratitude and how it relates to happiness. I also want to touch upon a few habits that are conducive to happiness, starting with gratitude. As Harvard University points out, there is a strong correlation between gratitude and wellbeing. There have been multiple studies released on the topic. Practicing gratitude develops an abundance mindset, which leads to happiness. 

Contrast that with envy. As I discussed last year, one of the quickest ways we can make ourselves miserable is through envy. The Association for Psychological Science study cited earlier (Napier and Jost, 2008) was released before the Occupy Wall Street movement. As previously discussed, the Left has been more and more focused on what others have in comparison to what they have, on the "haves" versus the "have nots."

In Hebrew, the term for gratitude (הכרת הטוב) means "to recognize the good." It does not mean that we ignore or deny the existence of inequality, oppression, or unfairness. It means that we acknowledge and put emphasis on the good that exists in our lives. If the narrative of the political Left is focused on being wronged, cheated, marginalized, or oppressed, is it a surprise that it becomes more difficult for someone on the Left to see the good in life? It seems quite difficult to be positive, optimistic, or ultimately happy with the scarcity mindset that has become more prevalent on the Left. 

Role of Religion and Spirituality. Liberals are less likely to hold religious beliefs than moderates or conservatives (Pew Research). I mention this because there has been a correlation between religion and subjective well-being. Religion or spirituality can play a role in happiness because "spiritual beliefs contribute to life satisfaction because they instill meaning and direction, offer senses of beauty, uplift, and optimism, provide explanations for events, give a sense of closeness to God, and offer comfort in difficult times, and these characteristics are above and beyond the larger, supportive social networks of those who are religious (Schlenker et al., 2012)." Another benefit of religious communities is that it minimizes the feeling of loneliness (Cox et al., 2019). One could argue that the lack of religious institutions, or at least social institutions that function similar to religious institutions, makes a liberal less likely to be happy. 

Meditation. I would have thought that meditation would have been something done overwhelmingly by liberals since the word can connote something more "hippy-dippy spiritual." Yet Pew Research found that 45 percent of conservatives meditate at least once a week, as opposed to 38 percent of liberals or 42 percent of independents. I know these data points are snapshots from 2014, but it nevertheless is an interesting find, even if it plays a modest role in the happiness gap. Meditation is found to reduce propensity towards negativity (Fredrickson et al., 2008), as well as release such chemicals as endorphins and serotonin. 

Being physically active and better health. There are multiple studies to show that exercise increases happiness, including this one from the University of Michigan (Zhang and Chen, 2018). It makes sense since exercise increases endorphins, dopamine, and adrenaline. Dopamine is especially important since it produces feelings of optimism. 

One study found that conservatives were more likely to be healthier than their liberal counterparts because conservatives place greater emphasis on personal responsibility (Chan, 2019). This could also be due to higher levels of conscientiousness among conservatives. In this case, conscientiousness refers to norms regarding impulse control, self-discipline, and being task-focused. As Psychology Today points out, conscientiousness leads to better health outcomes. Plus, those who believe in ideologies that endorse the importance of free will (e.g., conservatism, libertarianism) have greater self-control than those who do not (Clarkson et al., 2015).

Postscript. There are certainly some tendencies that both the Left and Right share that can impede happiness. Politicians and pundits on both sides use fear to advance their political views. Both sides have implemented their own version of moral policing at one point or another. It takes time and energy to obsess over how other people should behave the way you think they ought to behave. Also, either the Left and the Right can give in and many in the U.S. are giving into authoritarianism more and more. I bring up the authoritarianism because freedom and happiness are correlated (also see Brulé and Veenhoven, 2014).

In spite of there being some similarities between the mainstream Left and mainstream Right (aside from those in the previous paragraph), there are also a number of differences between the two, especially pertaining to individual well-being. A lot of the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives has to do with mindset. Author Roy T. Bennett said that "If you want to be happy, do not dwell in the past, do not worry about the future, focus living fully in the present." This is an adaptation of a Lao Tsu quote, but it nevertheless bears wisdom. Happiness has a major perspective component to it. Gratitude is about being able to see the good in life, even when times are difficult. Resilience is being able to have the perspective to cope and endure the bad times. The notion of personal agency gives one a greater sense of control of one's life, which attributes to happiness. 

In short, the happiness gap can be attributed to how the average liberal approaches life in comparison to everyone else. The average person on the Left possesses less emotional resilience, greater propensity towards envy, less optimism, and is less likely to exercise personal agency and take a sense of ownership in life. What the mainstream Left has decided to emphasize in recent years does play a role in their happiness relative to everyone else. What should provide my friends on the Left some solace is that the happiness gap is not inherently a part of the ideology. While it is not my case to make, I think the mainstream Left could find a way to be more optimistic and live in a way that is more conducive to happiness. Whether the Left ends up rediscovering a sense of optimism remains to be seen. What I will say is such a rediscovery would not only be in their political interest, but especially in the interest of their well-being and happiness. 

The "Inflation Reduction Act" Will Not Help Save the Environment

Earlier this summer, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). In spite of the name, the legislation is not going to reduce inflation. It will have negative implications for the economy. Its drug pricing provisions will make us less healthy as a nation. In addition to the economic and health aspects of the bill, the IRA attempts to reform another aspect of life: the environment. The environmental portion of the IRA mostly entails tax credits for clean energy (see below, as well as a summary from the Bipartisan Policy Center here). The Democrats claim that the IRA will lower energy costs and increase energy security, amongst other environment-related goals. Today, I would like to examine some of the environmental provisions of the IRA and see if the what, it anything, the IRA will do of significance to save the environment. 

Will the IRA Mitigate Climate Change? Not Really. 

According to the Rhodium Group (see below), most of the projected reduction in greenhouse gases was going to happen regardless of whether the IRA passed or not. Second, these projections below show that the IRA would not bring us to the levels under the Paris Climate Agreement. I did not think the Paris Climate Agreement was a good idea. Even if it were, this reduction in up to 1.7 billion metric tons by 2030 does not show how much global temperatures would drop. Bjørn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus made a calculation using Rhodium's estimates. In the best-case scenario that the IRA's funding would extend to 2100, Lomborg found that the IRA would only reduce global temperatures by a measly 0.028 Fahrenheit. Lomborg similarly calculated that the IRA's impact on sea level would be 0.006-0.008" lower in 2100. To bring this point home, the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation calculated that even if we removed all fuel-based carbon emissions, it would reduce the global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 (Dayaratna et al., 2022). These statistically insignificant outcomes is what the taxpayers get after $369 billion.  

The Futility of the Electric Vehicle Provisions

Electric vehicles (EV) have become a cause célèbre for the Left because many on the Left view EVs as a panacea to deal with climate change. This ignores a number of facts regarding electric vehicles. One is that 61 percent of electricity comes from fossil fuels. Another is even with preexisting tax credits, electric vehicles only account for 1.8 million out of the 270.9 million vehicles in the United States, or less than 1 percent of all vehicles (IEA; Statista). This implies that subsidies or tax credits have not gotten electric vehicles off the ground. Additionally, a 2022 study from J.D. Power found that electric vehicles have greater quality issues than regular vehicles. 

If were to ignore everything in the previous paragraph, Pete Buttigieg's tone-deafness of suggesting people buy electric vehicles to fight inflation is still the modern-day equivalent of qu'ils mangent de la brioche (let them eat cake). Here is why. The average price of an electric vehicle is $64,000, which is $16,000 more than the cost of an average vehicle. The maximum federal tax credit allowed under the IRA is $7,500 (Congressional Research Service [CRS]). As the CRS points out, 78 percent of past electric vehicle tax breaks have benefited filers with greater than $100,000 in adjusted gross income. If the prohibitive costs were not enough, the conditions to acquire the tax credit are overwhelming. These requirements for the tax credit are bad enough (see below) where the Alliance for Automotive Innovation estimates that none of the electric vehicles would be eligible for the full credit once sourcing requirements are considered. 

• Credits will only be allowed for SUVs, vans or pickups less than $80,000; and for other vehicles less than $55,000 (CRS, 2022, p. 14). 
• The credit also is limited to those making less than $150,000 in AGI (ibid.), which makes even less sense since you need a high income to afford a $70,000 post-tax credit.
• The IRA disqualifies electric vehicles with battery components manufactured or assembled by "a foreign entity of concern" (ibid.). China is a "foreign entity of concern" that happens to produce 60 percent of battery cathodes and 80 percent of all anodes (Ward's Auto).
• Another qualification for the credit is to have critical minerals sourced from free trade agreement partners (CRS, 2022, p. 14), which is basically impossible in today's market.  
• The electric battery vehicle has to be manufactured in North America or a free trade agreement partner (ibid.). The catch is no electric vehicle currently meets that qualification.  

Furthermore, these restrictions will have a similar effect to Trump's ridiculous "Buy American" laws: limiting the supply of various inputs will drive up costs for electric vehicles further. In short, the IRA will not make electric vehicles more accessible. They will likely make them more expensive as a result of all of these provisions. 

Clean Energy and Efficiency Incentives for Individuals

The IRA extends and expands the previous tax credit for qualified energy-efficiency improvements for residential property. This expansion will be 30 percent up to an annual taxpayer limit of $1,200 and a $600 per-item limit (CRS, 2022, p. 12). These tax credits would go towards such expenses as solar panels and updating appliances. These tax credits are not subject to income limits. 

Resources of the Future estimates that the IRA will lower electricity costs by $170-$220 a year. The Left-leaning Brookings Institution is more confident in the IRA because it brings up that the IRA could help save a household $1,800 a year if a household installs a modern electric pump, a heat pump for water heating, converts to an electric car, and installs solar panels. We already covered the electric car provisions, but the rest of this estimate is covered under the individual tax credit in question. Even assuming that Brookings' estimate is correct, what makes Brookings think this will greatly benefit disadvantaged communities? 

The upfront costs of installing a heat pump is nearly $6,000, whereas the average installation cost of rooftop solar panels is $20,000. Since lower-income households have more pressing matters than being energy-efficient, it makes sense that previous energy-efficiency home improvement tax credits disproportionately benefitted those making over $100,000 (CRS, 2018, p. 10; see below). A study from Berkeley University similarly found that 60 percent of clean energy tax credits go towards the top quintile (Borenstein and Davis, 2015). This is not helping the environment. This is green welfare for the affluent, not too dissimilar to Biden's student loan "forgiveness."

Renewable Energy Investments

The production tax credits (PTC) are the largest budget item amongst the environmental provisions. They are also the most predictable since the PTCs are an extension of a previously existing program. There are problems with the PTC aside from the ones I brought up eight years ago, such as higher cost of renewables (especially wind), distorting energy demand, and wind is an intermittent and unpredictable power source. Here are some other ones:

• The Congressional Research Service brings up that the evidence for its effects on reducing greenhouse gases is mixed (CRS, 2020, p. 9). 
• The CRS expresses concerns that these subsidies do not "necessarily provide a comparable incentive for all emissions reduction alternatives, and may favor more costly reductions over less costly ones (CRS, 2020, p. 10)."
• The Texas Public Policy Foundation describes in detail how the PTC cause distortions to the electricity market (Erickson, 2018, pp. 7-8). As the Institute for Energy Research illustrates, states with major increases in wind and solar saw electricity prices increase 18 to 36 percent between 2009 and 2017. This is in contrast with the national average of 7 percent in the same time period. 
• The U.S. solar industry is currently undergoing supply chain disruptions and tariff uncertainty (Reuters). 

Conclusion

A bill that does nothing significant to lower global temperatures, an electric vehicle tax credit that is all but unusable, energy efficiency credits that benefit the rich, and questionable production tax credits. That is the environmental impact of the IRA. Even if there were some benefit to be derived, none of what I have previously covered here gets into whether or not climate change is the emergency Biden purports it to be. 

According to a New York Times poll in July 2022, only one percent of Americans think climate change is the most important issue facing us. As the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation pointed out, the most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the likelihood of such an emergency scenario to be of "low likelihood." I have pointed out on multiple occasions (most recently in November 2021) that we need to stop using improbable worst-case scenario modeling to dictate environmental policy. Congress has allocated over $300 billion to an issue that is unlikely to be a problem by the end of the century, never mind now. Ultimately, the environmental provisions in the IRA are moral posturing that provide little actual reform to the energy market.