#Environmental Tax Incentives

[ifindtaxpro]

Discover how water bottling companies can optimize tax planning strategies to navigate beverage manufacturing taxes and promote sustainability initiatives. #TaxPlanning #Sustainability #BeverageManufacturing

[mirnaheadlines]

Government Policies for a Green Economy: Incentives and Regulations

Green Economy A successful transition to a green economy requires a combination of public and private sector efforts, Green Economy with governments playing a crucial role in setting the framework for this transformation. Policies often target sectors such as energy, transportation, agriculture, waste management, and construction, which are significant contributors to environmental impacts. In this context, incentives and regulations serve as two sides of the policy coin, ensuring both the encouragement of sustainable practices and the enforcement of environmental protection.

One of the main goals of government policies for a green economy is to shift economic activity toward more sustainable practices. This involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy, and ensuring that economic growth is decoupled from environmental degradation. To achieve these goals, governments employ a wide range of tools, including tax breaks, subsidies, grants, carbon pricing mechanisms, and strict environmental regulations.

A green economy also emphasizes social inclusiveness, Green Economy ensuring that the transition to sustainability benefits all members of society, particularly vulnerable groups who are most affected by environmental degradation. Green Economy Government policies often include provisions for job creation in green industries, education and training for new skills, and social protection measures to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition.

This section will delve into six key areas of government policies for a green economy: renewable energy incentives, carbon pricing mechanisms, green transportation policies, sustainable agriculture support, waste management and recycling regulations, and financial incentives for green innovation.

Renewable Energy Incentives Green Economy

One of the cornerstones of any green economy policy framework is the promotion of renewable energy sources. Governments have introduced a range of incentives to encourage the production and consumption of renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and hydropower. These incentives are critical for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, which are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Renewable energy incentives often take the form of subsidies and tax breaks. For instance, many governments offer production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs) to companies that generate renewable energy or invest in renewable energy infrastructure. These financial incentives lower the cost of renewable energy projects, making them more competitive with traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources.

Feed-in tariffs (FITs) are another common incentive mechanism. Green Economy Under a FIT program, renewable energy producers are guaranteed a fixed price for the electricity they generate, often over a long-term contract. This provides a stable revenue stream and reduces the financial risk associated with renewable energy investments. Net metering programs, which allow individuals and businesses to sell excess renewable energy back to the grid, are another way governments encourage the adoption of renewable technologies.

Governments also support renewable energy through research and development (R&D) funding. Green Economy By investing in the development of new technologies, governments can help bring down the cost of renewable energy and make it more accessible. Many governments also provide grants and low-interest loans for renewable energy projects, particularly for smaller-scale projects such as rooftop solar installations.

In addition to financial incentives, governments often mandate the use of renewable energy through renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS requires utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, creating a guaranteed market for renewable energy. This not only supports the growth of the renewable energy industry but also helps reduce the overall carbon footprint of the energy sector.

Green Economy The combination of financial incentives and regulatory mandates has been instrumental in driving the rapid growth of renewable energy in many parts of the world. Countries such as Germany, Denmark, and China have become global leaders in renewable energy production, thanks in large part to strong government policies that promote green energy development.

Carbon Pricing Mechanisms

Carbon pricing is a critical tool in the fight against climate change and a key component of government policies for a green economy. By putting a price on carbon emissions, governments create an economic incentive for businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. There are two main types of carbon pricing mechanisms: carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems.

A carbon tax directly sets a price on carbon by levying a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels. This encourages businesses and consumers to reduce their use of carbon-intensive energy sources and shift toward cleaner alternatives. The revenue generated from carbon taxes is often used to fund green initiatives, such as renewable energy projects or energy efficiency programs, or to provide rebates to low-income households to offset higher energy costs.

Cap-and-trade systems, also known as emissions trading schemes (ETS), work by setting a limit (or cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted by covered entities, such as power plants or industrial facilities. Companies are issued emission allowances, which they can trade with one another. Companies that can reduce their emissions at a lower cost can sell their excess allowances to companies that face higher costs for reducing emissions. This creates a market for carbon allowances and incentivizes businesses to invest in cleaner technologies.

Both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are designed to internalize the environmental cost of carbon emissions, making it more expensive to pollute and more profitable to invest in sustainable practices. These mechanisms can drive innovation, as businesses seek out new technologies and processes to reduce their carbon liabilities.

Several countries and regions have implemented carbon pricing policies with varying degrees of success. The European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is one of the largest and most established cap-and-trade programs in the world. Canada has implemented a nationwide carbon tax, with revenue returned to households through rebates. In the United States, some states, such as California, have implemented their own cap-and-trade programs in the absence of a national carbon pricing policy.

However, carbon pricing mechanisms face challenges, including political opposition and concerns about economic competitiveness. In some cases, businesses argue that carbon pricing increases costs and puts them at a disadvantage compared to competitors in countries without similar policies. To address these concerns, governments often include provisions to protect industries that are vulnerable to international competition, such as offering rebates or exemptions for certain sectors.

Green Transportation Policies

Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in urban areas. To promote a green economy, governments are implementing a range of policies aimed at reducing emissions from the transportation sector. These policies focus on promoting the use of public transportation, encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), and improving fuel efficiency standards.

One of the most effective ways to reduce transportation emissions is to encourage the use of public transportation. Governments invest in expanding and improving public transit systems, such as buses, trains, and subways, to make them more accessible and attractive to commuters. By providing reliable and affordable public transportation options, governments can reduce the number of cars on the road and lower overall emissions.

In addition to improving public transportation, governments are offering incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs). These incentives often take the form of tax credits or rebates for EV buyers, which help offset the higher upfront cost of electric vehicles compared to traditional gasoline-powered cars. Some governments also offer additional perks for EV owners, such as access to carpool lanes or free parking in city centers.

Governments are also investing in the infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles, such as building charging stations. A lack of charging infrastructure is often cited as a barrier to EV adoption, so governments play a critical role in addressing this challenge. By providing grants or partnering with private companies, governments can help build a network of charging stations that makes EVs a more convenient option for drivers.

Another important component of green transportation policies is improving fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Governments set regulations that require automakers to produce vehicles that meet certain fuel efficiency targets, which helps reduce the amount of fuel consumed and the emissions produced by the transportation sector. Some governments also implement vehicle emissions standards, which limit the amount of pollutants that cars and trucks can emit.

In addition to these policies, governments are encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Investments in bike lanes, pedestrian infrastructure, and bike-sharing programs make it easier for people to choose low-emission forms of transportation. These efforts not only reduce emissions but also improve public health by promoting physical activity.

Sustainable Agriculture Support

Agriculture is both a contributor to and a victim of environmental degradation. It is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, water use, and pollution from fertilizers and pesticides. At the same time, agriculture is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including more frequent droughts, floods, and changing weather patterns. As a result, governments are increasingly focusing on promoting sustainable agricultural practices as part of their green economy policies.

One of the key ways governments support sustainable agriculture is through financial incentives for farmers who adopt environmentally friendly practices. These incentives can take the form of subsidies, grants, or low-interest loans for practices such as organic farming, agroforestry, and conservation tillage. By providing financial support, governments encourage farmers to invest in sustainable practices that might otherwise be cost-prohibitive.

Governments also provide technical assistance and education to help farmers transition to more sustainable practices. This can include training programs on topics such as water conservation, soil health, and pest management, as well as access to research and technology that supports sustainable farming. Extension services, which provide hands-on assistance to farmers, are another important tool for promoting sustainable agriculture.

In addition to financial and technical support, governments implement regulations to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture. These regulations can include restrictions on the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers, requirements for buffer zones to protect water sources from agricultural runoff, and mandates for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and manure management.

Governments are also working to promote more sustainable food systems by encouraging the consumption of locally produced and organic foods. Public procurement policies, which require government institutions such as schools and hospitals to purchase a certain percentage of their food from sustainable sources, are one way governments support the development of local, sustainable food systems.

Another important aspect of sustainable agriculture policies is protecting biodiversity and promoting ecosystem services. Governments often provide incentives for farmers to preserve natural habitats on their land, such as wetlands, forests, and grasslands, which provide important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, water filtration, and pollination. By promoting biodiversity and ecosystem health, governments help ensure that agricultural systems are more resilient to environmental changes.

Waste Management and Recycling Regulations

Effective waste management is a critical component of a green economy. Governments play a key role in regulating waste disposal, promoting recycling, and encouraging the reduction of waste generation. These efforts are aimed at reducing the environmental impact of waste, including greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, pollution from improper disposal, and the depletion of natural resources through excessive consumption.

One of the main ways governments regulate waste is by setting standards for waste disposal. This includes regulating landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste facilities to ensure that they operate in an environmentally responsible manner. Governments also implement bans or restrictions on certain types of waste, such as single-use plastics, to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills or the environment.

In addition to regulating waste disposal, governments are increasingly focusing on promoting recycling and waste reduction. Many governments have implemented extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, which require manufacturers to take responsibility for the disposal of the products they produce. This can include requirements for companies to fund recycling programs or take back products at the end of their life cycle.

Governments also implement policies to encourage households and businesses to recycle more. This can include providing curbside recycling services, setting recycling targets, and offering incentives for recycling, such as deposit return schemes for beverage containers. Public awareness campaigns and education programs are also important tools for promoting recycling and waste reduction.

In some cases, governments use economic instruments to promote waste reduction, such as charging fees for waste disposal or providing financial incentives for businesses that reduce waste. Pay-as-you-throw programs, which charge households based on the amount of waste they generate, are one example of how governments use pricing mechanisms to encourage waste reduction.

Another important component of waste management policies is promoting the circular economy, which focuses on keeping materials in use for as long as possible through recycling, reusing, and remanufacturing. Governments support the circular economy by providing incentives for businesses that adopt circular practices, such as designing products for durability and recyclability, and by setting targets for reducing waste and increasing recycling rates.

Source :

Government Policies for a Green Economy: Incentives and Regulations

[nationallawreview]

The Domestic Content Bonus Credit’s Promising New Safe Harbor

On May 16, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published Notice 2024-41 (Notice), which modifies Notice 2023-38 (Prior Notice) by providing a new elective safe harbor (Safe Harbor) that will allow taxpayers to use assumed domestic cost percentages in lieu of percentages derived from manufacturers’ direct cost information to determine eligibility for the domestic content bonus credit…

[reasonsforhope]

"Cody Two Bears, a member of the Sioux tribe in North Dakota, founded Indigenized Energy, a native-led energy company with a unique mission — installing solar farms for tribal nations in the United States.

This initiative arises from the historical reliance of Native Americans on the U.S. government for power, a paradigm that is gradually shifting.

The spark for Two Bears' vision ignited during the Standing Rock protests in 2016, where he witnessed the arrest of a fellow protester during efforts to prevent the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline on sacred tribal land.

Disturbed by the status quo, Two Bears decided to channel his activism into action and create tangible change.

His company, Indigenized Energy, addresses a critical issue faced by many reservations: poverty and lack of access to basic power.

Reservations are among the poorest communities in the country, and in some, like the Navajo Nation, many homes lack electricity.

Even in regions where the land has been exploited for coal and uranium, residents face obstacles to accessing power.

Renewable energy, specifically solar power, is a beacon of hope for tribes seeking to overcome these challenges.

Not only does it present an environmentally sustainable option, but it has become the most cost-effective form of energy globally, thanks in part to incentives like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Tribal nations can receive tax subsidies of up to 30% for solar and wind farms, along with grants for electrification, climate resiliency, and energy generation.

And Indigenized Energy is not focused solely on installing solar farms — it also emphasizes community empowerment through education and skill development.

In collaboration with organizations like Red Cloud Renewable, efforts are underway to train Indigenous tribal members for jobs in the renewable energy sector.

The program provides free training to individuals, with a focus on solar installation skills.

Graduates, ranging from late teens to late 50s, receive pre-apprenticeship certification, and the organization is planning to launch additional programs to support graduates with career services such as resume building and interview coaching...

The adoption of solar power by Native communities signifies progress toward sustainable development, cultural preservation, and economic self-determination, contributing to a more equitable and environmentally conscious future.

These initiatives are part of a broader movement toward "energy sovereignty," wherein tribes strive to have control over their own power sources.

This movement represents not only an economic opportunity and a source of jobs for these communities but also a means of reclaiming control over their land and resources, signifying a departure from historical exploitation and an embrace of sustainable practices deeply rooted in Indigenous cultures."

-via Good Good Good, December 10, 2023

[dipnots]

The Power of Renewables: How Sustainable Energy is Shaping Our Future

Renewable energy is a term that refers to any type of energy that is generated from natural, renewable resources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass. Renewable energy is becoming increasingly popular due to its many benefits, including reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality, and increasing energy security. In this blog post, we will explore renewable energy in more…

[marzipanandminutiae]

“What are the Democrats offering young men?” I don’t know, like…99% of their platform?

Labor rights and healthcare and environmental protections and taxing corporations and such benefit everyone. The only gendered part of the platform is promising reproductive rights (obligatory “not all women and not only women are affected by this issue,“ but it is statistically primarily women and it’s an issue closely tied with systemic misogyny) and actually respecting women as human beings

And if that’s enough to alienated so many men, that’s. Very concerning, and also on those men. Not on the Democrats to change

Because we are not an incentive to be offered up

[notwiselybuttoowell]

The election of Donald Trump as president for a second time and the Republican takeback of the U.S. Senate could undo many of the national climate policies that are most reducing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, according to climate solutions experts. When they list measures that are making the most difference, it lines up with policies Trump has said he’ll target. These rollbacks will come as more lives are being lost in heat waves, record amounts of climate pollution are accumulating in the atmosphere, the United States has been hit with what may be two of its most expensive hurricanes, and nations, which will meet in Baku, Azerbaijan next week for climate negotiations, have failed to take strong action to change these realities. [at time of posting COP29 has begun] Here are some of the measures.

The Inflation Reduction Act, the nation’s landmark climate law This law is significant because it is expected to reduce U.S. emissions by about 40% by 2030, if it unfolds as planned in the coming years. It funnels money to measures that substitute clean energy for dirty. One major way it does so is by giving credits to businesses people who build new solar and wind farms. But it’s not limited to that. It encourages developers of geothermal energy and businesses that separate the carbon dioxide from their smokestacks and bury it underground. It incentivizes the next generation of nuclear power. It gives a $7,500 tax credit to people who buy electric cars. People who buy their cars used can get a credit too, as long as they don’t earn too much to qualify. Trump, by contrast, has summed up his energy policy as “drill, baby, drill” and pledged to dismantle what he calls Democrats’ “green new scam” in favor of boosting production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, the main causes of climate change. He vows to end subsidies for wind power that were included in the landmark 2022 climate law. If Trump does target the climate law, there are provisions that are likely safe. One is a credit for companies in advanced manufacturing, because it is perceived as “America first and pro-U.S. business,” said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Incentives for electric vehicles are likely most at risk, he added. In a call Wednesday morning, Scott Segal, head of a communications group at the law firm Bracewell LLP, which represents the energy industry, said the climate law is not likely to be repealed. Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown, said repealing parts of the climate law could backfire because most of the investments and jobs are in Republican congressional districts.

Pollution from electric power plants The main U.S. rule aimed at reducing the climate change that comes from making electricity at power plants that burn coal is also considered vulnerable. This rule from the Environmental Protection Agency, announced in April, would force many coal-fired plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, Shepheard said. It was projected to reduce roughly 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2047, along with tens of thousands of tons of other harmful air pollutants. Industry groups and Republican-controlled states have filed legal challenges to a host of EPA rules including this one and Trump’s victory means the Justice Department is unlikely to defend it. Under a Trump presidency, it is unlikely to survive, Shepheard said. The United States has been reducing carbon dioxide emissions primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with clean, renewable power, said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks countries’ carbon dioxide emissions. “I hope that we don’t lose sight of the benefits of clean energy,” he said. “It’s not just about the climate. It’s about our lives and our health.”

Limiting leaks from damaging methane, or natural gas The Biden administration was under pressure to reduce one of the main pollutants contributing to drought, heat waves, flooding and stronger hurricanes — methane or natural gas. It leaks out of oil and gas equipment, sometimes deliberately when companies consider it too expensive to transport. The Biden administration issued the first national rules on this. Industry groups and Republican-leaning states have challenged the rule in court. They say the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority and set unattainable standards. The EPA said the rules are squarely within its legal responsibilities and would protect the public.

Fuel-efficient vehicles The Environmental Protection Agency has issued its strongest rules on tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks under the Biden administration. While it is unclear who will head the EPA under Trump, the agency is considered likely to begin a lengthy process to repeal and replace a host of standards including the one on tailpipe emissions, which Trump falsely calls an electric vehicle “mandate.″ Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental laws as president and that number is likely to grow in a second term. Trump has said EV manufacturing will destroy jobs in the auto industry and has falsely claimed that battery-powered cars don’t work in cold weather and aren’t able to travel long distances. Trump softened his rhetoric in recent months after Tesla CEO Elon Musk endorsed him and campaigned heavily for his election. Even so, industry officials expect Trump to try to slow a shift to electric cars.

Drilling in Alaska refuge Trump is almost certain to reinstate oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, continuing a partisan battle that has persisted for decades. Biden and other Democratic presidents have blocked drilling in the sprawling refuge, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife. Trump opened the area to drilling in a 2017 tax cut law enacted by congressional Republicans. No drilling has occurred in the refuge, although the U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Wednesday proposed a lease sale by the end of December that could lead to oil drilling. The sale is required under the 2017 law.

Transition to cleaner energy, transport will continue Trump, who has cast climate change as a “hoax,” has said he will also eliminate regulations by the Biden administration to increase the energy efficiency of lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers and shower heads. Dan Jasper, a senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown said climate action will continue to move forward at the state and local level. Zara Ahmed, who leads policy analysis and science strategy at Carbon Direct, agreed. While there may be an abdication of leadership at the federal level on climate, she’s optimistic that states including California will continue to lead. Clean Air Task Force Executive Director Armond Cohen said on Wednesday that states, cities, utilities and businesses that have committed to net zero emissions will keep working toward those goals, driving record installations of wind and solar energy. Governors of both parties are also interested in ramping up nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of electricity, Cohen said. Trump has said he, too, is interested in developing the next generation of nuclear reactors that are smaller than traditional reactors. Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who was Biden’s first national climate adviser, said Trump will be unable to stop clean energy such as wind, solar and geothermal power. “No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back,″ McCarthy said. Advocates for clean energy are bipartisan, well-organized “and fully prepared to deliver climate solutions, boost local economies, and drive climate ambition,′ she said.

[mariacallous]

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) promised billions in investments towards clean energy and climate-related projects. While the implementation and delivery of the IRA is ongoing, it has also faced persistent efforts to roll it back from many Republican lawmakers since its enactment.

With the impending shift to a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, the fate of the IRA and its estimated $1.045 trillion worth of climate and energy provisions is uncertain. In this explainer, we examine the possible trajectories of the IRA under a Republican White House, Senate, and House.

What is the IRA?

The IRA focuses on clean energy technology, manufacturing, and innovation, with $370 billion in investments aimed at incentivizing private investments in clean energy, supply chains, job creation, and to reduce energy costs. The Biden administration intended for the IRA to support its climate goals, which included achieving 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035; a 50-52% reduction of economy-wide net greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution from 2005 levels in 2030; and net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050.

Findings from a comparison of nine models projecting the IRA’s impact on U.S. GHG emissions suggest that the maximum additional emissions reductions from the IRA (relative to a business-as-usual scenario without the IRA) could be up to 15 percentage points by 2030 as compared to 2005 emissions levels.1

On the cost side, the clean energy and climate portions of the IRA were estimated to cost $392 billion between 2022 and 2031, with tax credits estimated to cost $271 billion and direct spending estimated to cost $121 billion. Most of the tax credits are not capped, which means that the fiscal cost of the tax credits remains uncertain, as it depends on the behavior of firms and households (or more precisely, how many tax credits they claim). In April 2023, the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School updated their budget estimate of the IRA on climate and energy provisions, from $384.9 billion between 2022-2031 to $1,045 billion for the same period.

Republican lawmakers have cited the cost of the IRA as one of the reasons to roll it back—for example, the House Committee on Ways and Means has highlighted the “exploding” cost of “green corporate welfare” under the IRA. The cost of IRA’s “green subsidies” was a part of the justification for introducing the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, that sought to cut billions in funding from climate, environmental justice, and clean energy tax incentives from the IRA.

The IRA under the incoming Republican White House and Congress

Former President Trump, his campaign officials and advisors have expressed an intent to cut IRA spending and to roll back President Biden’s climate and energy policies. Republicans have voted 53 times in the House and once in the Senate, to repeal parts of the IRA as of October 15, 2024. The House has passed 20 bills that have attempted to repeal or constrain the IRA.

IRA provisions likely to be rolled back

Previous House attempts to roll back the IRA may provide an indication of the specific provisions that could be targeted under a Republican White House and Congress. According to Climate Power’s IRA repeal votes tracker, as of October 15, 2024, the attempts to roll back the IRA have repeatedly focused on preventing funding for Executive Order 14082 (which helps implement the IRA), repealing sections related to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and repealing sections related to the Methane Emissions Reduction Program. Figure 1 illustrates the climate-related provisions of the IRA that have faced at least two attempts to repeal:

Republican constituents are likely to benefit from the IRA

While it is easier for the IRA to be repealed under a Republican trifecta, it may be difficult to build a sufficiently large coalition in Congress to repeal the full IRA, as Republican lawmakers may prefer to retain certain IRA incentives that benefit their constituents. In August 2024, 18 Republican House Representatives signed a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that asked for the IRA’s energy tax credits to be “spared” from attempts to repeal the IRA. A Senior Tax Policy Advisor on the Senate Finance Committee also noted that a full repeal of clean energy tax incentives is unlikely regardless of the election results, as some parts of the IRA received bipartisan support before its enactment, which was expected to continue.

Republican-held areas have benefitted from the IRA since its enactment, as more than half of announced clean energy and vehicle projects are located in Republican congressional districts. According to the Rhodium Group and MIT’s Clean Investment Monitor, Nevada and Wyoming had the highest level of actual clean investment as a percent of GDP between September 2023 and September 2024 – with 2.65% and 4.11% respectively. Nevada, Kentucky, and Georgia had the highest levels of actual clean manufacturing investment as a percent of GDP over the same period, with 1.1% for Georgia and Kentucky, and 1.2% for Nevada. In terms of federal investments, the most populous states, such as California and Texas, received the most dollars. However, Nevada and Wyoming received the most federal investments per capita, as well as relative to the size of their GDP. This includes federal tax credits, grants, and fiscal cost of loans and loan guarantees.

The Political Economy Research Institute (University of Massachusetts Amherst) projected that the IRA could have an employment impact of creating 848,728 jobs annually, across industries. Clean Jobs America estimated that there has been an increase of 14% in clean energy workers since the enactment of the IRA in August 2022,2 with 3.5 million workers in clean energy. Many of these jobs are in California (544,604 jobs), Texas (268,035 jobs), and New York (173,731 jobs).

While it is true that the IRA does not appear to be well known by American voters—in July 2023, 71% of Americans said they have heard little or nothing about the IRA—industry players and investors who are direct beneficiaries of the IRA energy provisions may play an important role in influencing lawmakers to protect certain provisions of the IRA.

How might the IRA be repealed or restricted?

With a Republican President, an executive order could be used to hinder the implementation of the IRA, while a sufficiently large coalition in Congress could restrict the IRA through reversals of implementing regulations or repeal the IRA through legislative action.

Executive action

A President could make the implementation of the IRA more difficult via executive action that tightens limits on tax credits, by holding back some of its loans and grants, or by revising rules that have not yet been finalized. President Biden’s Executive Order 14082, which implements the IRA, could be reversed by a new executive order as well. This would dismantle the White House Office on Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation, which coordinates the implementation of the IRA.

A presidential administration could also direct agencies to refrain from publishing proposed or final rules or to delay the effective dates of finalized rules that have not yet taken effect. For example, the Biden administration issued a memorandum on January 20, 2021, which directed agencies to consider postponing the effective dates of rules that have been published but not yet in effect by 60 days. It also called for consideration of a 30-day comment period during the postponement, plus additional days beyond the 60-day period to review questions and comments, if needed. This delay may also apply to guidance documents, as evidenced by the Trump administration’s January 20, 2017 memorandum that directed a “regulatory freeze” which included guidance documents.

Legislative repeal of the IRA

Congress could partially or fully repeal the IRA through legislation. Congress may also look to repeal the IRA tax credits to help pay for a renewal of the 2017 tax cuts under President Trump. While a repeal could be achieved explicitly or implicitly,3 courts are generally reluctant to construe implicit repeals of legislation—so it is likely that any legislation purporting to repeal the IRA would need to be clear and explicit about the provisions being repealed. The IRA was passed under a Budget Resolution, which means that only a simple majority vote in the House and Senate are needed to repeal it, with no opportunities for a filibuster to prevent the repeal.

Since a sufficiently large congressional coalition across the House and Senate is needed to partially or fully repeal the IRA, the composition of Congress matters. With many Republican districts benefitting from investments that are incentivized by the IRA, a slim congressional majority is likely to present a challenge to a full repeal of the IRA, and only specific parts of the IRA may be targeted under this approach. Republicans are expected to hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and as of December 19, 2024, are also expected to hold a 220-215 majority in the House, further narrowed to 217-215 for some time due to President-elect Trump’s appointments.

What elements of the IRA might survive?

A letter to Speaker Mike Johnson in August 2024, signed by 18 Republican House Representatives, highlighted the dangers of “prematurely repealing energy tax credits” that industry and constituents have relied on to make investments and create jobs. The Representatives who signed the letter represented districts from 13 states, including Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia—the states with the highest (2.4%), third highest (1.8%), and sixth highest (1.4%) amount of actual clean investment as a percentage of the state’s GDP from the enactment of the IRA to June 2024.

The parts of the IRA that are likely to be targeted for a repeal, based on previous attempts by House Republicans, include the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Methane Emissions Reduction Program, and the energy efficiency rebate (Figure 1). The effectiveness of repealing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is unclear, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already announced that it has awarded $27 billion from the Fund in August 2024, and that award recipients can begin accessing these funds. The Methane Emissions Reduction Program is likely to be at a higher risk of repeal: While it includes $1.36 billion in financial and technical assistance for methane reduction, it is unpopular in the oil industry as it would also levy a Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) on oil and gas facilities, beginning with methane emitted in 2024. The final rule for WEC was published in November 2024 to be effective from January 17, 2025, which means that this rule could be vulnerable to a Congressional Review Act (CRA) review, as well. Elements of the energy efficiency rebates, such as the home energy rebates, may survive as all states except South Dakota are participating as of November 26, 2024. Eleven out of the 18 Republican signatories of the August 2024 letter to Speaker Mike Johnson represent districts in states that have been approved to roll out the home energy rebates; the remaining Representatives represent districts in states that are preparing or have submitted applications to offer these rebates. 

While a full repeal of the IRA may be unlikely given political incentives, some scholars have called for a bipartisan full repeal of the IRA. While they acknowledge that this would be opposed by many, they see the IRA as an avenue for rent-seekers and argue that a complete repeal is preferable, as a partial repeal could leave room for a future Congress to build on the IRA.

An additional consideration is the cost of repealing the IRA. The initial cost estimates of the IRA by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have been updated by the CBO in their 2024-2034 Budget and Economic Outlook, published in February 2024:4 While the initial cost estimates assumed that the clean vehicle credits had no effect on outlays and reduced tax revenues, in the 2024-2034 Outlook, the CBO increased the estimated outlay portion of the clean vehicle and energy-related tax credits by $124 billion over 2024-2033. The CBO also increased the estimated outlays for energy-related tax credits by $51 billion, to reflect the “increase in projected investment in battery manufacturing.” The February 2024 estimate for the cumulative deficit arising from the IRA’s energy-related tax credits were further revised in June 2024, as the CBO increased its 2025-2034 projection by $12 billion relative to the February 2024 projection. Similarly, Bistline, Mehrotra, and Wolfram (2022) estimate the total fiscal cost of the IRA’s climate provisions to be $901 billion through 2031, with IRA tax credits estimated to cost over $780 billion by 2031—a figure that the authors note is nearly three times that of CBO’s initial estimate in 2022. These updated cost estimates suggest that a bill to repeal the IRA could have a budget score with a larger magnitude compared to the IRA’s budget estimate in 2022. While the bill may reduce government expenditures, the IRA’s impact on the economy may make the cost of the bill more “expensive”—although this depends on how the CBO scores the bill.

Restricting funding

A Republican-controlled House could facilitate budget cuts for the EPA and other relevant agencies, which is likely to slow down or restrict the implementation of the IRA.

The House has also attempted 17 times (as of October 15, 2024) to prevent funds from being used for President Biden’s Executive Order 14082, which helps implement the IRA.

Reversing regulations

The IRA relies on regulations for implementation. As of November 29, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently lists 20 Notices of Proposed Rules and as of December 6, 2024, 11 final regulations that relate to the implementation of the IRA, and other agencies have published at least four final rules, one interim rule, and one proposed rule on the Federal Register.5 The final regulations are on clean vehicle credits, transfer of certain credits, advanced manufacturing investment credit, and elective payment of applicable credits.

If a rule has not been finalized, a President can prevent the rule from being issued by imposing moratoriums on regulations or withdrawing the rule. If a rule has been finalized, then a President must go through the rulemaking process set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act to repeal the finalized rule. This involves:

Agencies publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, allowing for public comment, and publishing a final rule; or

Congressional action under the Congressional Review Act.

Former President Trump’s previous administration was successful at preventing proposed rules from being finalized and overturning finalized rules through both the rulemaking process and the Congressional Review Act.

Congressional Review Act

A Republican controlled White House and Congress could use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to review and potentially overturn regulations issued by federal agencies. The CRA applies to the broadest definition of “rules,” including final rules and may include agency actions that are not subject to traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking, such as guidance and policy memoranda. The CRA was used under the previous Trump administration to overturn regulations: There were 16 successful CRA resolutions in 2017, the year former President Trump first took office.6

If a CRA joint resolution passes and is signed by the President, then the rule would be deemed ineffective. The CRA allows Congress to pass a joint resolution of disapproval for a rule up to 60 days after the final rule is published by the agency in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.7 Notably, for rules submitted within the last 60 days of congress, the CRA includes a “lookback” mechanism that resets the 60-day window near the start of the next yearly legislative session. When administrations change, this allows the next Congress and President to expediently overturn previous administration’s rules that were submitted near the end of the previous President’s term. The Congressional Research Service estimates that Biden administration rules that were published in the Federal Register on or after August 1, 2024 are likely to qualify for CRA reviews by the new 119th Congress in 2025—although this depends on when the final session of the 118th Congress is adjourned. If the current Congress were to adjourn on the same day as the last eight sessions, its last session may end on January 3, 2025.8

The limitations of reversing a rule through the CRA include:

The CRA only allows Congress to invalidate final rules in their entirety.

The CRA does not allow reissuance of any rule that is “substantially the same form” or a “new rule that is substantially the same” as the invalidated rule, unless the reissued or new rule is “specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution”.

The CRA prevents judicial reviews of any “determination, finding, action, or omission” made under the CRA, which means that the courts cannot check if Congress followed its rules. There is also uncertainty around whether this also precludes the courts from reviewing “whether a new rule is substantially similar to a disapproved rule”. This uncertainty could result in legal challenges that might delay implementation.

Which IRA regulations are at risk?

Proposed regulation

As of December 23, 2024, there are 23 proposed rules to implement the climate-related provisions of the IRA according to the IRA tracker by the Environmental Defense Fund and Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Since a President is able to reverse rules that have not been finalized, the notable IRA-related climate regulations that are at risk of reversals by the President include:

Rules for manufacturers and taxpayers related to the energy efficient home improvement credit.

Federal income tax credit for costs related to alternative fuel refueling property in a low-income community or non-urban census tract.

Bonus credit amounts for investors in clean electricity in low-income communities.

Clean electricity production credit and the clean electricity investment credit, including eligibility.

Rules for clean hydrogen production credit.

Definitions and requirements for the low-income communities bonus energy investment credit program, which allows for increased energy investment credit for certain clean energy investments.

Finalized regulation

As noted above, executive action could direct agencies to delay the effective dates of rules or guidance documents that are finalized but not yet in effect. While many of the recently finalized rules have effective dates before January 20, 2025, proposed rules—such as those listed in the previous section—may be at risk of delays if they are finalized.

Rules that were finalized after August 1, 2024 may be at risk of reversal through the CRA. If this cut-off date is confirmed, notable climate-related IRA rules at risk of reversal include:

Implementation of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program (finalized on November 18, 2024).

Rules to implement the advanced manufacturing production credit (finalized on October 28, 2024).

Rules related to the energy credit, including eligibility (finalized December 12, 2024).

Conclusion

With a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, the future of the IRA is uncertain. Recent attempts by Republican lawmakers to partially repeal or hinder the implementation of the IRA suggest that there may be specific sections of the IRA that are particularly vulnerable under the next administration. The slimness of majorities in the Senate and House could present challenges for Republican lawmakers in creating a coalition for a full repeal of the IRA, as incentives in the IRA have benefitted Republican constituents.  However, the IRA remains vulnerable as congressional coalitions are not needed for executive action that challenge the implementation of the IRA.

[batboyblog]

The Biden administration on Wednesday issued one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history, a rule designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032.

Cars and other forms of transportation are, together, the largest single source of carbon emissions generated by the United States, pollution that is driving climate change and that helped to make 2023 the hottest year in recorded history. Electric vehicles are central to President Biden’s strategy to confront global warming, which calls for cutting the nation’s emissions in half by the end of this decade. But E.V.s have also become politicized and are becoming an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” said Mr. Biden in a statement. “Together, we’ve made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs. And we’ll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead.”

The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.

That would avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 30 years, according to the E.P.A. That’s the equivalent of removing a year’s worth of all the greenhouse gases generated by the United States, the country that has historically pumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The regulation would provide nearly $100 billion in annual net benefits to society, according to the agency, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits thanks to improved air quality.

The standards would also save the average American driver about $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance over the life of a vehicle, the E.P.A. estimated.

The auto emissions rule is the most impactful of four major climate regulations from the Biden administration, including restrictions on emissions from power plants, trucks and methane leaks from oil and gas wells. The rules come on top of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest climate law in the nation’s history, which is providing at least $370 billion in federal incentives to support clean energy, including tax credits to buyers of electric vehicles.

The policies are intended to help the country meet Mr. Biden’s target of cutting U.S. greenhouse emissions in half by 2030 and eliminating them by 2050. Climate scientists say all major economies must do the same if the world is to avert the most deadly and costly effects of climate change.

“These standards form what we see as a historic climate grand slam for the Biden administration,” said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, a political action committee that aims to advance environmental causes.

Mr. Bapna’s group has calculated that the four regulations, combined with the Inflation Reduction Act, would reduce the nation’s greenhouse emissions 42 percent by 2030, getting the country most of the way to Mr. Biden’s 2030 target.

Get in Losers we're going to save the planet.

[tanadrin]

You're not wrong about anything wrt cost of flying, but man is it bracing to wake up to a reminder that I can never ethically see most of my loved ones in-person again.

hmm. i think this is also the wrong way to think about it. flying is not a sin. being in some indirect way responsible for a certain amount of carbon emissions does not Taint Your Soul. and absolutist frameworks for this kind of thing are not helpful to anybody, least of all the people who actually might already be contributing to fixing problems like this through positive behaviors, like voting or political organizing.

the problem with carbon emissions is that they're a difficult to solve collective action problem, where a lot of the incentives point in a harmful direction, not that they are Fundamentally Immoral, and i think that's an important distinction to make, because i think a handful of semi-scrupulous individuals flagellating themselves and depriving themselves of things that would make them happy in the long run has no real effect on big problems like this. you not seeing your family is not going to fix global warming! and there are not enough people who are willing or able to act on guilt alone to refrain from flying that it's going to meaningfully dent emissions from the air transport sector.

what we need are policies that shape collective decisionmaking. this is why a fat carbon tax (especially when coupled with a rebate for lower-income people) can be a useful policy: it might make it harder to fly to visit family, but it won't make it categorically impossible, and it will reduce air travel in general, or encourage finding lower-carbon alternatives that allow people to travel just as much, like high-speed trains or, i don't know, some kind of fancy jet fuel that emits less CO2.

honestly, if you vote consistently for pro-environmental policies and parties, if you donate a bit of spare cash from time to time to the same, and/or if you are minimally politically active in other ways, and you're not, like, the CEO of BP in your professional life, you are fine. go, free from sin. if everyone did that, the problem of carbon emissions could be solved in a few years. now, you might go, "but not everyone is doing that!" well, not everyone is sitting at home miserable because they missed seeing grandma on her deathbed; that won't solve global warming either. in fact, it will do even less to solve global warming, because it is (and i say this with compassion) an anxious, guilt-ridden, useless gesture meant to salve your own spirit, not actually a contribution to solving the problem.

in general, i am really opposed to letting a vast and nebulous sense of guilt on big, systemic problems shape your personal behaviors. none of the behaviors that these feelings of guilt ban ever contribute to significant or systemic improvements in the problem--guilt is not building nuclear plants or preventing oil from being drilled. and in my experience, the kind of people who feel this guilt are prone to anxiety, maybe as kids were made overly responsible for the emotional state of people around them, and thus feel an outsized sense of responsibility in other areas of their life, and they mistakenly think that 1) this is a healthy way to go through life, 2) if they don't go through life this way they're a Bad Person, and 3) most people (or most people they think of as Good People) feel this way.

i wish to free people from this burden. there are no individual solutions to big collective action problems! and if reading about global warming, or racism, or poverty, or any other big social problem fills you with an enormous sense of guilt and has you wracking your brain for ways you can help by cutting/reducing/abstaining from things in your life, congratulations, you are one of many people in this world who can be at least 300% more selfish and still be a certified Good Person. so, uh, chill.

[jewishbarbies]

random things I would do if elected president, in no particular order:

ban LED headlights nationwide, no exceptions

make it illegal to donate to a political campaign if yearly income is above 100k

forgive all student debt (college, medical school, law school, etc.)

ban PACs and super PACs

require a special license for pickup trucks of a certain size with a specific drivers test

mandatory yearly drivers tests for people over the age of 55

make it illegal for politicians to use all social media in an official capacity

install a free public railway that connects all major cities in all 50 states

give Hawaii back to indigenous Hawaiians along with a promise of monetary reparations and/or supplies for an agreed upon period of time

give Puerto Rico back to the Puerto Ricans with monetary incentives for american citizens who move back to the states

ban the purchase of single family homes by any corporate entity in all 50 states

create a care program for migrants and refugees with housing, food, and supplies along with free English classes and courses on their preferred job field (with credits applied if enrolling in college plus a more streamlined path to citizenship starting with a work/school visa) paid for by taxes they’re already going to be paying working here anyway

complete overhaul of the american prison system with an implementation of rehab and mental health facilities, community projects, education and job training with no sentence longer than the completion of these courses/treatments unless for high crimes and special cases

bring home economics, culinary, and finance courses to middle and high schools with specialized AP courses for fields like human/veterinary medicine, law, engineering, environmental science, etc.

create a federally funded program for college students who want to become teachers, including specialized classes, free tuition, and sign on bonuses when employed at your first school as a one time tax credit with proof of employment

run federally funded educational tours and classes with volunteer opportunities at all national parks, with $10 general admission at all parks

require cities with a population over 1k to allocate funds/resources for warming stations, homeless and women’s shelters within city limits and maintain them year round

ban all fireworks no exceptions nationwide

mandatory voting in state and federal elections

executive order to make it illegal for politicians to earn more than the average yearly salary in their state/county/district/etc. at all levels of government

mandatory college education requirements for running for political office

anti inflation laws preventing the selling of goods and services for more than double the cost nationwide

make food waste in the agriculture industries illegal with tax credits for donating unsellable but edible food to shelters, churches, charities, and food banks

increase indigenous sovereignty in all 50 states, with regulations to prevent price gauging and predatory sale prices of goods and services to reservations, and increased legal protections for recognized tribes

work with local tribes to create programs delivering food, water, medicine, and supplies to households on reservations that sign up, 1-2 times a month like a food bank

create a federal agency of environmental scientists, biologists, etc. that work with indigenous peoples and maintain/protect land and local ecosystems in all 50 states through any means necessary with cooperation of the indigenous people

create additional tax credits for families, people with disabilities, students of any kind, home buyers, and farmers/agricultural workers

free school lunches in all schools in all 50 states

this is a non exhaustive fantasy list, don’t take it seriously. I’ll probably add more things I think of later.

[ifindtaxpro]

🌿♻️ Embrace green initiatives and drive sustainability while maximizing your financial health! Explore insightful tax strategies for environmental businesses, leveraging sustainability credits and green energy incentives. #SustainableBusiness #GreenEnergyTax

[omegaphilosophia]

Alternatives to Capitalism

Identifying economic systems that may be considered better than capitalism depends on the criteria used for comparison, such as equity, sustainability, and overall societal well-being. Here are some alternative systems, each with its potential benefits and drawbacks:

1. Social Democracy

Description:

A political, social, and economic philosophy within a capitalist framework that emphasizes social justice, government intervention, and the welfare state.

Benefits:

Equity: Strong focus on reducing inequality through progressive taxation and wealth redistribution.

Welfare: Comprehensive social safety nets, including healthcare, education, and unemployment benefits.

Regulation: Strict regulations on businesses to protect workers, consumers, and the environment.

Drawbacks:

Economic Efficiency: Potentially higher taxes and regulation can impact business incentives and economic efficiency.

Government Size: Large government programs may lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Examples:

Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

2. Democratic Socialism

Description:

A political philosophy that advocates for political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, extensive welfare programs, and economic planning.

Benefits:

Social Ownership: Emphasis on worker cooperatives and public ownership can lead to more equitable wealth distribution.

Democratic Control: Democratic decision-making processes in economic planning aim to meet the needs of the majority.

Social Welfare: Extensive welfare programs ensure basic needs are met for all citizens.

Drawbacks:

Economic Efficiency: May face challenges in innovation and efficiency due to reduced profit motives.

Implementation: Transitioning to this system can be difficult and disruptive.

Examples:

Elements found in policies proposed by some political parties and movements in various countries, though not fully implemented anywhere on a national scale.

3. Eco-Socialism

Description:

A blend of socialism and environmentalism, focusing on social ownership and ecological sustainability.

Benefits:

Sustainability: Prioritizes environmental health and sustainable development.

Social Equity: Combines social ownership with efforts to reduce inequality.

Community Focus: Emphasizes local, decentralized economies and participatory democracy.

Drawbacks:

Economic Growth: May limit economic growth due to stringent environmental regulations.

Scalability: Localized economies may struggle to scale and integrate into global markets.

Examples:

Green political movements and policies, though not fully implemented as a national system.

4. Participatory Economics (Parecon)

Description:

An economic system based on participatory decision-making, worker and consumer councils, and equitable distribution of resources.

Benefits:

Democracy: Emphasizes direct participation in economic decision-making.

Equity: Focus on equitable distribution of income and resources.

Efficiency: Aims to align production with social needs and reduce waste.

Drawbacks:

Complexity: Requires significant coordination and participation, which can be challenging on a large scale.

Transition: Moving from a capitalist system to Parecon would be complex and require significant societal changes.

Examples:

Theoretical and has not been implemented on a large scale, but certain cooperative movements and local experiments reflect its principles.

5. Commons-Based Peer Production

Description:

An economic system that emphasizes collaborative, decentralized production, often facilitated by digital platforms, and focuses on shared resources (the commons).

Benefits:

Innovation: Encourages open collaboration and innovation.

Sustainability: Reduces resource waste through shared use and collaborative consumption.

Empowerment: Empowers individuals and communities through direct participation and control over production.

Drawbacks:

Monetization: Can struggle with monetizing contributions and ensuring fair compensation.

Scalability: May face challenges in scaling beyond certain sectors, especially those not easily digitized.

Examples:

Open-source software projects, Wikipedia, and other collaborative platforms.

Conclusion

Each of these systems offers alternative approaches to address some of the shortcomings of capitalism, such as inequality, environmental harm, and exploitation. However, they also come with their own set of challenges and trade-offs. The best system may involve a hybrid approach, incorporating elements from various systems to balance economic efficiency, social equity, and environmental sustainability.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ilana Berger at MMFA:

In a new analysis of electric vehicle-related content on Facebook, Media Matters found that negative stories made up the vast majority of content, particularly on right-leaning and politically nonaligned U.S. news and political pages, a trend which does not align with the optimistic outlook of EV adoption and technological advancements. Since 2021, the Biden administration has allocated billions of dollars toward meeting the ambitious goal of making half of all new cars sold electric or hybrid over the next few years. Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act have provided tax credits and other incentives to jump start electric vehicle sales and infrastructure such as charging stations, domestic battery manufacturing, critical mineral acquisition, in addition to preparing the automotive industry workforce for the transition. 

In March, an Environmental Protection Agency rule setting strict limits on pollution from new gas-powered cars primed automakers for success in meeting these goals.  Biden’s EV push will continue to play an important role in the upcoming presidential election. Former president and current GOP candidate Donald Trump has insisted that Biden’s policies benefit China, which makes up the largest share of the global EV market. In March, while talking about the current state of the auto industry, Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” Economists disagree. 

The comment tracks with years of outrage and opposition from Republican politicians, right-wing media, and fossil fuel industry surrogates, who have often disparaged the new technology and related policy and misleadingly framed the EV push as a threat to American jobs and national security. Constant attacks on EVs from the right have helped fuel a politically divided market, where people who identify as Democrats are now much more likely to buy them or consider buying them, while nearly 70% of Republican respondents to a recent poll said they “would not buy” an EV. So far in 2024, headline after headline announced EV sales slumps and proclaimed that “EV euphoria is dead,'' despite reports of “robust” growth. In February, CNN changed a headline about EV sales on its website from a success story to a failure. Despite the positive long term outlook for EVs based on indicators like sales and government investments, the discourse around electric vehicles is often pessimistic.

[...] Right-wing media have been driving anti-EV sentiment (with help from fossil fuel industry allies) since the start of Biden’s term. This trend was clearly reflected in Media Matters’ analysis. Out of the top 100 posts related to EVs on right-leaning pages, 95% were negative, earning over a million interactions in 2024 so far.  But on Facebook, politically nonaligned pages fed into this trend as well. Nearly three quarters (74%) of EV related top posts on nonaligned pages had a negative framing. These posts generated 83% of all interactions on EV-related top posts from nonaligned pages. 

On non-aligned and right-wing Facebook pages, anti-electric vehicle content-- likely fueled by a mix of climate crisis denial and culture war resentments-- draws lots of reliable engagement, in contrast to the reality of increased EV adoption in recent years.

[reasonsforhope]

"A global shift to a mostly plant-based “flexitarian” diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help restrict global heating to 1.5C, a new study shows.

Previous research has warned how emissions from food alone at current rates will propel the world past this key international target.

But the new research, published in the Science Advances journal, shows how that could be prevented by widespread adoption of a flexitarian diet based around reducing meat consumption and adding more plant-based food.

“A shift toward healthy diets would not only benefit the people, the land and food systems,” said Florian Humpenöder, a study author and senior scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, “but also would have an impact on the total economy in terms of how fast emissions need to be reduced.” ...

The researchers found that adopting a flexitarian diet could lower methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and lower the impacts of food production on water, nitrogen and biodiversity. This in turn could reduce the economic costs related to human health and ecosystem degradation and cut GHG emissions pricing, or what it costs to mitigate carbon, by 43% in 2050.

The dietary shift models also show limiting peak warming to about 1.5C can be achieved by 2045 with less carbon dioxide removal, compared with if we maintain our current diets.

“It’s important to stress that flexitarian is not vegetarian and not vegan,” Humpenöder says. “It’s less livestock products, especially in high-income regions, and the diet is based on what would be the best diet for human health.”

In the US, agriculture accounts for more than 10% of total GHG emissions. Most of it comes from livestock. Reducing meat consumption can free up agricultural land used for livestock production, which in turn can lower methane emissions. A potent greenhouse gas, methane is mainly expelled from cows and other animals raised for livestock. Animal production is the primary contributor to air quality-related health impacts from US food systems.

“This paper further confirms what other studies have shown, which is that if we change our diets to a more flexitarian type, we can greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jason Hill, a professor in the University of Minnesota’s department of bioproducts and biosystems engineering.

According to the study authors, one way to achieve a shift toward healthier diets is through price-based incentives, such as putting taxes on the highest-emitting animal products, including beef and lamb. Another option is informing consumers about environmental consequences of high meat consumption."

-via The Guardian, March 27, 2024

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The federal government's decision to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax is being met with consternation by environmental advocates, who argued the change will muddy the country's flagship climate policy.

Under the changes announced Thursday, Ottawa will lift the tax applied to home heating oil for the next three years, double the rural supplement in the tax rebate program and put in place additional incentives to help rural Canadians switch to electric heat pumps.

Advocates said those new incentives should help homeowners make the transition, but the decision to remove the tax from oil heating introduces uncertainty to a policy that should be applied across all sectors.

Full article

Tagging: @politicsofcanada