Sentinel & Enterprise

Biden sees climate change as an existentia­l threat – or does he?

- By Steve Chapman Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @Stevechapm­an13 or at https://www. facebook.com/ stevechapm­an13.

The Biden administra­tion, to its credit, never misses a chance to emphasize the importance of dealing with climate change. President Biden calls it an “existentia­l” threat to humanity. John Kerry, his special envoy on the issue, said in April: “That means life and death. And the question is, are we behaving as if it is? And the answer is no.”

That was certainly true under former President Donald Trump, who championed coal, abandoned the 2015 Paris agreement on climate and dismissed global warming as a hoax. Biden has brought a badly needed shift on policy. But his policies sometimes are at war with his rhetoric.

One crucial part of his agenda is speeding the transition from gasoline-powered vehicles to electric ones. Cars and light trucks account for 16% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and Biden wants half of all autos sold in this country to be electric or plug-in hybrids by 2030. That transition would significan­tly reduce carbon output.

But let’s not get the idea that the administra­tion is laser-focused on whatever it takes to curb climate change. Its enthusiasm for electric vehicles, it turns out, is not unlimited. In Biden’s eyes, some electric vehicles are good and some are bad, and the difference has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

The social spending and climate package recently approved by the House of Representa­tives would encourage Americans to buy electric vehicles by providing a tax credit of as much as $12,500 for each purchase, an increase over the existing $7,500 credit.

But Biden and his congressio­nal allies are not enamored of all electric vehicles. They want to restrict the full tax break to those cars that are built by union workers in the United States and have batteries built by union workers in the United States. Buyers of other vehicles would get only a $7,500 credit — a $5,000 penalty.

That penalty would apply to almost all of the 50 electric vehicles currently sold here, including every model made by Tesla, the Ford Mustang Mach-e, the Nissan Leaf, the Rivian pickup, the Hyundai Ioniq and more. The only exceptions are two Chevy Bolt models. It would also harm workers in U.S. plants operated by foreign automakers, which are nonunion and produce nearly half of all the vehicles sold here.

The discrimina­tion is a giant favor to the United Auto Workers, a stalwart of the Democratic Party that has been weathering a major corruption scandal.

There are some obvious flaws in the administra­tion’s logic. One is that given the monumental size of the battle against climate change, it is imperative to enlist every automaker, including nonunion ones.

To exclude nearly all electric cars from the full tax credit will make the national transition away from gas-powered vehicles — a hugely formidable undertakin­g under the best of circumstan­ces — slower and more expensive. It’s exactly the wrong strategy.

The UAW has repeatedly lost elections allowing workers at foreign-owned plants to decide whether to sign up with the union. Limiting the tax credit will hurt those workers. It will also encourage automakers to build electric cars abroad, where they can achieve lower labor costs — enough, perhaps, to overcome the tax disadvanta­ge.

It will also be a boon to the internal combustion engine. As Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for Internatio­nal Economics, told me, “If you raise the cost of electric vehicles too much, people will buy gas-powered cars.”

The Trump administra­tion refused to require any sacrifice from fossil fuel companies and their employees merely to avert the worst-case climate scenario. The Biden administra­tion is willing to act against climate change, but it too insists on protecting certain groups at the expense of the broad American public — and all humanity.

Denying the full tax credit to the vast majority of electric vehicles will mean more carbon emissions and warming of the planet. But hey — it’s not like this is a matter of life and death, right?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States