[[{“value”:”
Former President Trump has shown that dominating energy and decreasing emissions aren’t mutually exclusive.
Many progressives highlight the stakes of this election for climate change, arguing that one major presidential candidate’s agenda is better on the issue. That’s correct, except it’s the Republican nominee who would reduce more carbon pollution. [emphasis, links added]
While the Democratic nominee has supported extreme climate policies, former President Donald Trump’s energy dominance agenda would cut government red tape, hold China accountable for its pollution, and boost cleaner U.S. manufacturing.
A common-sense approach to energy policy will lead to a stronger and more secure America while cutting carbon emissions.
Vice President Kamala Harris, though, has endorsed the far left’s worst climate schemes.
She was an early cosponsor of the $93 trillion Green New Deal and has called for banning fracking, even though it’s the main reason the United States has led the world in cutting emissions.
Now that Ms. Harris is the Democratic nominee, she has conveniently flipped on fracking. And she hasn’t detailed how a Harris White House would approach climate change.
She would likely continue the Democrats’ same confused policies. The Biden-Harris administration’s most significant climate “accomplishment” is passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which will spend over $1 trillion to fight climate change.
This legislation, however, won’t realize 80% of its projected emission reductions unless federal permitting reform is signed into law, which this White House has failed to do.
And throwing gobs of money at climate change is remarkably inefficient, as most of the law’s green subsidies are going to clean-energy projects that would have been built anyway.
The administration also paused the approval of new U.S. liquefied natural gas export terminals in the name of helping the climate.
American natural gas exports, however, displace higher-emitting gas and coal use abroad, reducing global emissions.
The administration pandered to far-left environmentalists who care more about stifling U.S. natural gas than slashing emissions.
Cutting government red tape and empowering U.S. producers is precisely where Mr. Trump’s energy dominance agenda excels. A second Trump term will mean more domestic oil and natural gas, produced more cleanly here than in many other countries.
But energy dominance extends to all forms of energy. Our economy and competitive markets are excellent at making all energy more affordable, but burdensome regulations can get in the way.
The former president has no patience for red tape restricting American superiority. Signing comprehensive federal permitting reform, or at least using his executive power to remove roadblocks, would accelerate building all kinds of energy infrastructure and increase domestic mining.
Regulations, not Republicans, are the biggest barrier to deploying clean energy in this country and outcompeting China.
Winning the clean-energy arms race with China is vital to supporting American manufacturers and defending Americans’ energy security. We don’t want to depend on an adversary to power our homes or cars.
Winning this arms race would also dramatically reduce global CO2 pollution as producers in places such as Ohio and Kentucky supplant higher-emitting rivals in China and elsewhere.
The U.S. economy is three times as carbon-efficient as China’s, but American producers aren’t rewarded. Meanwhile, China leads the world in emissions and is escaping accountability. That must change.
China has much worse environmental standards than the United States and profits from slave labor.
The next Trump administration should reprimand China for all of its unfair practices. Carbon tariffs, for example, would punish China’s disregard for the climate and promote lower-emitting U.S. producers.
Cutting government red tape and confronting China’s pollution would cause U.S. manufacturing to soar. An American manufacturing surge would have profound climate benefits.
For example, the U.S. steel industry is up to 320% as carbon-efficient as steel made abroad. Our chemical manufacturers are as much as 40% more efficient.
Thin-film solar panels made in America have 90% lower lifecycle emissions than silicon-based solar panels made in China.
Former President Trump has proven that dominating energy and decreasing emissions aren’t mutually exclusive.
Even before the pandemic, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions decreased during his term. By contrast, emissions under Biden are still higher than what he inherited from Trump.
A second Trump term that cuts red tape, challenges China’s cheating and catalyzes American manufacturing will reduce even more emissions, certainly more than a Harris administration that relies on subsidies and regulations.
Read more at Washington Times
Take the Survey at https://survey.energynewsbeat.com/
Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote
ENB Top News
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack
The post Why Trump Would Be Better For The Climate Than Kamala appeared first on Energy News Beat.
“}]]
Energy News Beat