- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
U.S. emissions have remained mostly flat since 1990 while emissions from China and India have skyrocketed. Why should we subsidize through carbon taxes and costly mandates the countries that are not reducing emissions and happen to be our economic rivals?
The fact that U.S. emissions have remained relatively flat since 1990 shows how market innovation and efficiencies, not the heavy hand of centralized government, is the better way to address climate policies.
A company in my district in Kansas, Occidental, is using carbon capture technology to reduce emissions and support sustainability. Congress can and should encourage environmental innovation and technology, but we should never agree to crippling mandates that our economic competitors will never adopt.
The left is also ignoring facts that don't fit its narrative. Consider the example of electric vehicles. The facts just don't line up with a truly progressive ideology. For instance, taxpayers rarely hear that electric vehicles are not necessarily better for the environment than modern gasoline-powered combustion engines.
The energy required to power electric vehicles has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is our electric grid, which happens to be powered to a significant extent by fossil fuels. The IFO Institute in Germany recently concluded that electric vehicles produce more pollution than diesel engines.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...use-democrats-must-choose-economically-viable
The fact that U.S. emissions have remained relatively flat since 1990 shows how market innovation and efficiencies, not the heavy hand of centralized government, is the better way to address climate policies.
A company in my district in Kansas, Occidental, is using carbon capture technology to reduce emissions and support sustainability. Congress can and should encourage environmental innovation and technology, but we should never agree to crippling mandates that our economic competitors will never adopt.
The left is also ignoring facts that don't fit its narrative. Consider the example of electric vehicles. The facts just don't line up with a truly progressive ideology. For instance, taxpayers rarely hear that electric vehicles are not necessarily better for the environment than modern gasoline-powered combustion engines.
The energy required to power electric vehicles has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is our electric grid, which happens to be powered to a significant extent by fossil fuels. The IFO Institute in Germany recently concluded that electric vehicles produce more pollution than diesel engines.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...use-democrats-must-choose-economically-viable