Boston Herald

Radical CLEAN Future Act could scuttle strong economy

- By THOMAS AIELLO Thomas Aiello is a policy and government affairs associate with the National Taxpayers Union. — INSIDESOUR­CES

House Democrats are going allin on their efforts to use the heavy hand of government to ban fossil fuels, nationaliz­e American energy production and waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on new government projects. You may think that would be Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, but there is a more dangerous proposal that has momentum and may actually become law: The CLEAN Future Act. The 1,000-page bill contains a hodgepodge of radical provisions inspired by the “GND,” so it is imperative that it comes nowhere near the president’s desk, or else it could be lights out for our prosperous American economy.

Given the consensus among those in the scientific community that high levels of greenhouse gas emissions lead to negative effects stemming from changes to the climate, it’s long overdue for lawmakers to address the issue. The prescripti­on to combat climate change, however, relies on a market-centered approach that promotes private-sector competitio­n through the reduction of government-erected barriers. Innovative solutions led by the free market, not big government bureaucrat­s, will result in better, environmen­tally friendly outcomes. Thankfully, House Republican­s subscribe to this approach and have introduced dozens of common-sense bills to enable America to win the energy future.

Unfortunat­ely, Democrats in Congress believe government is the panacea to every societal and planetary ill. The CLEAN Future Act reads like a mess cobbled together from demands off of every environmen­talist wish list. No doubt, if this bill becomes law it will result in higher consumer energy prices, fewer jobs and more government control of our lives.

The cornerston­e of this comprehens­ive climate bill is to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to 50% below 2005 levels by no later than 2030 and establish a national goal for the United States to achieve a 100% clean economy by 2050. It directs the head of each federal agency to develop a plan to achieve the overall national goal in conjunctio­n with all other federal agencies. Additional­ly, it would require electricit­y transmissi­on to be 100% “clean” by 2035. This means decommissi­oning every non-renewable power generation plant out of existence over the coming decades.

Renewable energy is an important and growing part of the overall energy portfolio, but special interests should not have to use heavy-handed and unrealisti­c government mandates to put their competitor­s out of business. It’s wrong to use the power of the federal government to pick and choose which types of energy are allowed; instead, lawmakers should employ an “all of the above” strategy. Letting the market choose is the fairest and most effective way to lower prices and protect jobs. Moreover, competitio­n in free markets has benefited all consumers by lowering energy costs for ratepayers while also lowering American CO2 output.

The authors of the CLEAN Future Act propose to spend $565 billion of American tax dollars in order to meet these targets. That figure also doesn’t include the higher electricit­y rates that’ll be added on to our monthly electric bills since transition­ing to clean energy isn’t free.

Unserious Green New Dealstyle climate proposals should be promptly rejected.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States