Federal EV tax credit: unnecessary, inefficient, unpopular, costly, and unfair

In April, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced the Drive America Forward Act, a bill that would expand the tax credit for new plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) by allowing an additional 400,000 vehicles per manufacturer to be eligible for a credit of up to $7,000. Currently, the tax credit is worth up to$7,500 until a manufacturer sells more than 200,000 vehicles. In late September, groups that stand to benefit from the extension of the federal tax credits wrote to Senator McConnell and other leaders in Congress, encouraging them to support on the Drive America Forward Act. As IER has documented in the past, lawmakers should not extend the EV tax credit as the policy is unnecessary, inefficient, unpopular, costly, and unfair.

Unnecessary and inefficient

The EV tax credit is not necessary to support an electric vehicle market in the U.S. as one group estimates that 70 percent of EV owners would have purchased their vehicle without receiving a subsidy, which is reasonable seeing as 78 percent of credits go to households making more than $100,000 a year.  Furthermore, the federal tax credit overlaps with a number of other government privileges for EVs, including:

  • State rebates and/or other favors (reduced registration fees, carpool-lane access, etc.) in California, as well as in 44 other states and the District of Columbia.
  • Tax credits for infrastructure investment, a federal program that began in 2005 and, after six extensions, expired in 2017.
  • Federal R&D for “sustainable transportation,” mainly to reduce battery costs, averaging almost $700 million per year.
  • Credit for EV sales for automakers to meet their corporate fuel economy (CAFE) obligations.
  • Mandates in California and a dozen other states for automakers to sell Zero-Emission Vehicles—a quota in addition to subsidies.

Even if the federal tax credits were needed to support demand for EVs, the extension of the tax credit would be an absurdly inefficient means of achieving the stated goal of the policy, which is ostensibly to lower carbon emissions. The Manhattan Institute found that electric vehicles will reduce energy-related U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1 percent by 2050.

Unpopular

Lawmakers should be aware that the vast majority of people do not support subsidizing electric vehicle purchases. The American Energy Alliance recently released the results of surveys that examine the sentiments of likely voters about tax credits for electric vehicles. The surveys were administered to 800 likely voters statewide in each of three states (ME, MI and ND). The margin of error for the results in each state is 3.5 percent.

The findings include:

  • Voters don’t think they should pay for other people’s car purchases. In every state, overwhelming majorities (70 percent or more) said that while electric cars might be a good choice for some, those purchases should not be paid for by other consumers.
  • As always, few voters (less than 1/5 in all three states) trust the federal government to make decisions about what kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.
  • Voters’ sentiments about paying for others’ electric vehicles are especially sharp when they learn that those who purchase electric vehicles are, for the most part, wealthy and/or from California.
  • There is almost no willingness to pay for electric vehicle car purchases. When asked how much they would be willing to pay each year to support the purchase of electric vehicles by other consumers, the most popular answer in each state (by 70 percent or more) was “nothing.”

The full details of the survey can be found here.

Costly and unfair

Most importantly, an extension of the federal EV tax credit is unfair as the policy concentrates and directs benefits to wealthy individuals that are predominantly located in one geographic area, namely California. A breakdown of each state’s share of the EV tax credit is displayed in the map below:

In 2018, over 46 percent of new electric vehicle sales were made in California alone. Given that California represents only about 12 percent of the U.S. car market, this disparity means that the other 49 states are subsidizing expensive cars for Californians.  However, in order to understand the full extent of the benefits that people in California are receiving, some further explanation is in order.

When governments enact tax credit programs that favor special businesses without reducing spending, the overall impact is parallel to a direct subsidy as the costs of covering the tax liability shift to the American taxpayer or are subsumed in the national debt (future taxpayers). California offers a number of additional incentives on top of the federal tax credit for electric vehicles that are also driving demand for EVs in the state. These incentives include an additional purchase rebate of up to $7,000 through the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, privileged access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and significant public spending on the infrastructure needed to support EVs. Therefore, the additional incentives that California (and other states) offer to promote EVs have broader impacts as these policies incentivize more people to make use of the federal tax credit, passing their costs on to American taxpayers. In other words, you’re not avoiding the costs of California’s EV policies by not living in California.

This problem is made even worse when we consider the impact of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations, which require manufacturers to offer for sale specific numbers of zero-emission vehicles. As recently as 2017, auto producers have been producing EVs at a loss in order to meet these standards, and they have been passing the costs on to their other consumers. This was made apparent in 2015 by Bob Lutz, the former Executive Vice President of Chrysler and former Vice-Chairman of GM, said:

“I don’t know if anybody noticed, but full-size sport-utilities used to be — just a few years ago used to be $42,000, all in, fully equipped. You can’t touch a Chevy Tahoe for under about $65,000 now. Yukons are in the $70,000. The Escalade comfortably hits $100,000. Three or four years ago they were about $60,000. What this is, is companies trying to recover what they’re losing at the other end with what I call compliance vehicles, which are Chevy Volts, Bolts, plug-in Cadillacs and fuel cell vehicles.”

Fiat Chrysler paid $600 million for ZEV compliance credits in 2015 (plus an unknown amount of losses on their EV sales), and sold 2.2 million vehicles, indicating Fiat Chrysler internal combustion engine (ICE) buyers paid a hidden tax of approximately $272 per vehicle to subsidize wealthy EV byers. ICE buyers were 99.3 percent of U.S. vehicle purchases in 2015. So, even if half the credits purchased were for hybrids, each EV sold in 2015 was subsidized by more than $13,000 in ZEV credit sales, in addition to all of the other federal, state, and local subsidies.

As is typical with most policies that benefit a politically privileged group, the plan to extend the federal tax credit program comes with tremendous costs, which are likely being compounded by people abusing the policy.  One estimate found that the overall costs of the Drive America Forward Act would be roughly $15.7 billion over 10 years and would range from $23,000 to $33,900 for each additional EV purchase under the expanded tax credit. Seeing as the costs of monitoring and enforcing the eligibility requirements of the EV tax credit program are not zero, it should surprise no one that the program has been abused as it has recently come to light that thousands of auto buyers may have improperly claimed more than $70 million in tax credits for purchases of new plug-in EVs. Finally, additional concerns arise over the equity of the federal EV tax credit due to the fact that half of EV tax credits are claimed by corporations, not individuals

End this charade

When the tax credit was first adopted, politicians assured us that the purpose of the program was to help launch the EV market in the U.S. and that the tax credit would remain capped at the current limit of 200,000 vehicles. At that time, we warned that once this program was in place, politicians would continue to extend the cap in order to appease the demands of manufacturers and other political constituencies that were created by the program. A decade later, we find ourselves in that exact situation. At this point, it should be clear that Congress should not expand the federal EV tax credit as the program is nothing more than an extension of special privileges to wealthy individuals and corporations that are mostly located in California. If Congress can’t find the courage to put an end to such an unfair and inefficient policy, President Trump should not hesitate to veto any legislation that extends the federal EV tax credit, as doing so would be consistent with his approach to other energy issues such as CAFE reform.


AEA to Senate: Highway Bill is Highway Robbery

WASHINGTON DC (July 30, 2019) – Today, Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso highlighting concerns about the recently introduced America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act. Included in the legislation is an unjustified, $1 billion handout to special interests in the form of charging stations for electric vehicles.  AEA maintains that provisions like this are nearly impossible to reverse in the future and create a regressive, unnecessary, and duplicative giveaway program to the wealthiest vehicle owners in the United States. 
 
Read the text of the letter below:
 

Chairman Barrasso,

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is scheduled to consider the reauthorization of the highway bill and the Highway Trust Fund today.  At least some part of this consideration will include provisions that provide for $1 billion in federal grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.  This is among $10 billion in new spending included in a “climate change” subtitle.  All of this new spending is to be siphoned away from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), meant to provide funding for the construction and maintenance of our nation’s roads and bridges.  The HTF already consistently runs out of money, a situation that will only be exacerbated by these new spending programs.

We oppose this new federal program for EV infrastructure for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to the following:

  • The grant program, once established in the HTF, will never be removed.  Our experience with other, non-highway spending in the trust fund (transit, bicycles, etc.) is that once it is given access to the trust fund, the access is never revoked.  Our nation’s highway infrastructure already rates poorly in significant part due to the diversion of highway funds to non-highway spending.
  • As we have noted elsewhere, federal support for electric vehicles provides economic advantages to upper income individuals at the expense of those in middle and lower income quintiles.  This grant program would exacerbate that problem.
  • This program will result in taxpayers in States with few electric vehicles or little desire for electric vehicles having their tax dollars redirected from the roads they actually use to subsidize electric vehicle owners in States like California and New York.
  • This program is duplicative.  There is already a loan program within DOE that allows companies and States to get taxpayer dollars to subsidize wealthy electric vehicle owners.

For these and other reasons, we oppose the provisions that would create a regressive, unnecessary, and duplicative giveaway program to wealthy, mostly coastal electric vehicle owners.  This giveaway not only redirects taxpayer money from the many States to the few, in looting the Highway Trust Fund it also leaves those many States, including Wyoming, with less money to maintain their own extensive road networks.


Sincerely,

Thomas J. Pyle

The Unregulated Podcast #54: Words of Wisdom

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna dispense a few words of wisdom for our elected leaders and anyone else who will listen.

The Unregulated Podcast #53: What is it Exactly That You Do Here?

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss election updates from around the country, prospects for 2024, and headlines from around the world.

Links:

Dems Propose Methane Tax to Fund Reckless Spending Bill

One of the ways Democrats intend to pay for their reconciliation infrastructure bill is through the Methane Emissions Reduction Act of 2021, a proposed tax on methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum production. The tax would start at $1,800 per ton of emissions in 2023 with the potential direct cost of the tax to the economy being as high as $14.4 billion, increasing 5 percent above inflation annually.

This tax would most likely reduce oil and gas production in the U.S. at a time when global energy markets are already stretched thin because of government intervention. Furthermore, it is regressive in that its costs will be passed onto consumers in their gas and electric bills, which will affect lower income people more since they spend more of their income on energy. It also conflicts with President Biden’s campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. As we have pointed out before, because there is already an EPA regulation addressing methane emissions, and another which will be released this month, this tax is duplicative. 

The methane tax would also create new reporting thresholds, adding to the costs of oil and gas businesses. It would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), within two years, to lower the emissions threshold for companies to report emissions from the current 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to 10,000 metric tons per year, covering many smaller operators for the first time.

I encourage everyone to read Benjamin Zycher’s analysis of the methane tax. He points out that it is an all-downside proposal that would come at a high cost and have a negligible impact on the climate. 

As he points out, the climate justification for this proposed methane tax is a lot weaker than we have been led to believe. U.S. methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum account for about 30 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, which in turn are about 10.1 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions. American GHG emissions represent about 12.6 percent of global GHG emissions. If we suppose that the proposed methane tax eliminates all U.S. methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems, that would produce a reduction in global GHG emissions of less than 0.4 percent. As Zycher notes:

“The impact on global temperatures by 2100: about 5 one-thousandths of a degree C. How much is that worth?”

Zycher is also correct to point out that this proposed methane tax targets only the natural gas and petroleum industry. If the goal is to eliminate methane emissions, shouldn’t the tax also be levied on agricultural operations which are responsible for 38 percent of the total methane emissions in the U.S.? Perhaps Democrats are overlooking those emissions because reducing methane emissions from the agricultural sector would be extremely costly and voters might not be thrilled about the inevitable outcome of such a proposal. As Zycher notes:

“These realities demonstrate that this punitive policy aimed at the fossil-fuel sector is heavily political: efforts to reduce agricultural emissions are extremely difficult and would engender highly visible adverse economic effects in terms of agricultural costs and food prices confronted by Americans every day.”

In short, the methane tax is designed to narrowly target a politically disfavored industry, making it a costly policy that would produce very little benefit for the climate. The tax is also coupled with an import fee, which could potentially spark trade disputes at a time where global energy markets are already under stress because of too much government intervention

To all of this I would add that it isn’t even clear that the industry needs to be incentivized to reduce methane emissions. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, energy producers already have strong incentives to capture methane emissions as methane is a valuable commodity. In the same way companies invest in their employees to improve their productivity, oil and gas companies invest in technology that make their drilling operations more efficient. For this reason, U.S. oil and natural gas producers have been extremely innovative in finding new ways to curb methane emissions. In fact, methane emissions from U.S. petroleum and natural gas systems have declined from 235.8 million metric tons (on a CO2 equivalent basis) in 1990 to 196.7 million metric tons in 2019. All of this occurred while U.S. production of crude oil increased from 7.4 to 12.3 million barrels per day and natural gas production increased from 17.8 to 33.9 trillion cubic feet

The Unregulated Podcast #52: Clueless or Lying?

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss OPEC+, JP Morgan’s energy paper, Europe’s energy crunch, China, and much, much more.

Links:

Key Vote NO on H.R. 3684

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to vote NO on H.R. 3684, the infrastructure bill as amended by the Senate.

This legislation is poor policy and a bad use of taxpayer resources. The subsidies for electric vehicles and charging are not the responsibility of the federal government. The tens of billions of dollars for unneeded and impractical passenger rail will only fuel more wasteful white elephants to accompany California’s ongoing high-speed rail fiasco. The tens of billions of dollars more to mass transit systems whose ridership have collapsed is yet more waste. The tens of billions in subsidies for electricity transmission is simply not needed. The amendment also layers on billions in questionable spending in pursuit of central planning of energy.

But beyond the bad policy in the infrastructure bill itself, the legislation is inextricably linked to the multi-trillion dollar inflationary budget that the administration hopes to see passed through reconciliation. The energy taxes, mandates and distortionary subsidies in the reconciliation bill would be a disaster for the American economy. Its provisions will drive up the cost of energy and goods throughout the country, turbo-charging already persistently high inflation and exacerbating the challenges posed by federal deficits. Because of the linkage of the two pieces of legislation, a vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill makes passage of the inflation bill more likely. AEA therefore urges members not to collude in raising energy prices for Americans.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on  H.R. 3684.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #51: Tom and Mike Discuss Europe’s Energy Crisis

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Europe’s looming energy crisis.

Links:

Key Vote NO on Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to oppose the nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning for director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Stone-Manning has a demonstrated history of environmental radicalism that is disqualifying for the role of BLM director. Her involvement in violent, criminal activism alone should be disqualifying. But beyond that incident Stone-Manning has established a clear track record of hostility towards the statutory multiple use of federal lands as mandated by Congress. Her implacable opposition to multiple use means that she cannot be trusted with the role of BLM director, a position that is tasked with managing the very multiple use of federal lands which she opposes. 

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on the nomination of Stone-Manning for BLM director.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #50: Tom and Mike Provide an Update on Reconciliation

On the latest episode of The Plugged-In Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna give an insider update on the Congressional proceedings surrounding Democrats’ reconciliation bill.

Links:

How the Reconciliation Process is Being Used to Pay Back Big Green, Inc.


Democrats in Congress use partisan reconciliation process to pay back their cronies with billions in federal handouts



WASHINGTON DC (September 22, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, voiced public opposition to the numerous, disastrous energy policies being discussed before Congress – particularly within the U.S. House of Representatives – in upcoming budget reconciliation and infrastructure bill negotiations. Instead of working to reduce skyrocketing prices as American families suffer the worst inflation in years, Democrats are working to funnel billions of dollars to their donors and special interests. Their current plans include subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) and charging stations, direct payments to favored electricity generators, carbon taxes, wind and solar tax extenders, the creation of a federal “climate” jobs program, and countless other bad ideas.

In response, AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Bribing utilities to generate electricity from intermittent renewable energy sources isn’t just a terrible idea, it’s reckless and dangerous. Just ask Californians, Texans, New Yorkers, or Europeans for that matter, who have suffered or lost loved ones from unnecessary power blackouts. When the federal government picks winners and losers, it’s always the special interests that win and the taxpayers who lose. It’s also a system that is inviting fraudulent behavior.

“There is no need for the federal government to pay for electric vehicle infrastructure. Subsidizing half a million charging stations and handing out tax credits to purchase electric vehicles to people who don’t need them is a waste of taxpayer resources. If electric vehicles are the future, then why is the government trying to force them into the marketplace, and why are the automobile manufacturers insisting on the subsidies?

“I have been sounding the alarm for years that someday the Democrats would attempt to bury a carbon tax into a huge spending bill. And that day is upon us. These carbon tax proposals will unquestionably drive up energy and gasoline prices further, and isn’t that the whole point? Natural gas, oil, and coal make up 79% of our energy mix. Tax them and you tax everything else in the economy. And don’t be fooled by the happy talk of rebates. The drag on the economy due to carbon taxes will not be offset by sprinkling around some of the cash that is collected. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration continues to beg nations like Russia to produce more oil in an attempt to lower the price of gasoline.

“With the midterm elections on the horizon, the Democratic party is more than happy to pay off their special interest green groups with these billion-dollar schemes while they stick it to the poor, seniors, and citizens living on fixed incomes in the process. We can only hope that their seemingly inexhaustible greed will cause these massive spending bills to topple under their own weight.”


AEA opposes these disastrous energy policies being discussed before Congress and will score votes with respect to any legislation voted upon. AEA’s American Energy Scorecard scores both votes cast, and legislative bill sponsorships related to energy and the environment.

Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

Biden and House Reconciliation Bill Writers are in La-La Land

President Biden’s climate policies and the House Democrats’ reconciliation bill will decimate U.S. energy industries along with millions of associated jobs while saddling consumers with skyrocketing prices and electricity blackouts. One only has to look at California and Europe to see that the goals of Biden’s climate policies and the reconciliation bill will eventually end up with the energy disaster Europe and California are experiencing. And, it will cost businesses and taxpayers $3.5 trillion to attempt such foolishness. Clearly, China and India do not intend to participate in the folly as John Kerry has failed miserably to convince them to partake in committing to net zero carbon economies by 2050 on his mission to obtain pledges before the COP26 meeting in November.

The Reconciliation Bill’s Punitive Energy Regime

The proposed reconciliation bill’s Clean Energy Performance Plan (CEPP) is a punitive program that would require electric utilities to buy or generate additional amounts of renewable energy each year or face steep fines. Companies that reach their quotas would be paid federal indulgences. The program is effectively a national renewable portfolio mandate couched in terms of budgetary fines and subsidies that enable it to be part of the reconciliation bill and pass with a simple majority vote in the Senate. The program would cause reliable fossil fuel plants to be shut down prematurely and electric consumers would bear the brunt of the costs to replace those plants with unreliable and intermittent wind and solar units of which China is the world’s predominant supplier. The result will be high-paying jobs lost, skyrocketing costs and rolling blackouts. It would emulate throughout the United States the power crises that have arisen in California and Europe.

Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, lambasted the CEPP, noting that the industry is already moving to “cleaner” fuels. “It makes no sense to me at all for us to take billions of dollars and pay utilities for what they’re going to do as the market transitions.”

In the transition to a net zero carbon electricity sector, U.S. supplies of domestic resources of fossil fuels would be curtailed as well by the proposed bill as producers would be faced with increasing fees, new taxes on their fuels and fewer federal lands available for development. Offshore oil and gas production in the Atlantic, Pacific and Eastern Gulf of Mexico would be prohibited as would production on federal lands in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northern Alaska. Taking away ANWR oil production will hurt the Alaskan economy and put the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System at a problematic level of operation given its reduced oil flows from current allowable drilling operations. The fees, new taxes (such as the natural gas tax on methane), and reduced access to oil and gas resources on federal lands will increase oil and gas prices for consumers. President Biden and other Democrat politicians have made promises to only “tax the rich,” but gasoline prices have already risen a dollar a gallon since Biden has taken office while natural gas prices have doubled.

Europe’s Energy Crises

Europe entered into a transition from fossil fuels to “clean energy” and set stringent goals of greenhouse gas reductions via its commitments to the Paris Climate agreement. Europe’s troubles started after its energy consumption was reduced due to the locked downs caused by the coronavirus. As the European economies opened up from the pandemic, energy prices skyrocketed from rising demand accentuated by a cold winter and insufficient supplies. Coal and nuclear plants had been shuttered, natural gas stockpiles were low and the continent’s increasing reliance on renewable sources of energy exposed its vulnerability when the wind did not cooperate with the plan. Even with mild weather in September, natural gas and electricity prices were breaking records across the continent and in the United Kingdom. Ireland’s grid operator warned in September that there was a risk of blackouts due to lack of wind. Expectations in Italy are that power prices will increase by 40 percent in the third quarter.

Source: Bloomberg

Renewable energy brings volatility, which makes it very costly for the continent to reach its targets. For example, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel’s energy policies have cost its citizens hundreds of billions of euros in subsidies as the country closed nuclear and coal plants and built wind and solar units in their place. German households already pay electricity prices that are three times higher than American households.

The high fuel costs in Europe have also affected its industrial sector. In the U.K., CF Industries Holdings Inc., a major fertilizer producer, shut two plants, and Norwegian ammonia manufacturer Yara International ASA curbed its European production.

China and India’s Stance

John Kerry, the U.S. Special Climate envoy, tried to get India to pledge to reduce carbon emissions to “net zero” (carbon-neutral) by 2050 at the upcoming COP26 summit in the U.K. in November. But, the Indian government does not consider the “net zero” goal its only priority. India is focused on the “key issues” of climate justice and sustainable lifestyles, stressing the inequality between the demands of developed societies from developing countries on emissions cuts. Kerry indicated that the United States would help India finance its latest target of building 450 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030. But, India, is also building coal plants that last 40 to 60 years and currently gets over 65 percent of its electricity from coal. With hundreds of millions still in abject poverty, India requires cheap and reliable power for industrialization and economic progress.

China, the world’s largest emitter of global greenhouse gases at 25 percent, is using cheap and reliable coal power to make polysilicon used to manufacture the world’s solar panels. Unlike India, it has set 2060 as its date for carbon neutrality and 2030 as its date for peak emissions. As a result, the world is allowing it to build hundreds of coal plants with over 100 gigawatts planned that will add to its current fleet of about 1000 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity.

China generated 53 percent of the world’s total coal-fired power in 2020, nine percentage points more than five years earlier. China was the only G20 nation to see a significant jump in coal-fired generation, which increased by 1.7 percent (77 terawatt-hours). That increase pushed global coal power to 53 percent from 44 percent in 2015. China’s new coal capacity in 2020 more than offset the retirements in coal capacity in the rest of the world, leading to the first increase in global coal capacity development since 2015. China supports its economy by consuming large amounts of coal, which represents 57 percent of its energy supply.

Source: IEA

Conclusion

President Biden’s climate policies and the House reconciliation bill will harm America’s energy system as it is doing in Europe while allowing China and India to continue releasing greenhouse gas emissions that will overwhelm whatever declines in emissions that Europe and the United States make. It is a foolhardy way to kill the U.S. economy that needs affordable and reliable energy to build back from the coronavirus lockdowns and to produce good jobs in America. China is clearly ignoring Europe’s and the U.S.’s demands to reduce emissions by its commitment to continue to increase emissions to 2030 and only reach net neutrality in 2060 after the Europeans and Americans have killed their economies by trying to do so by 2050. The United States, like Europe, is in the process of unilaterally disarming itself in terms of its energy and economic security. While the consequences of this course of action are not yet known, the fractures already being seen in our system are not encouraging.