This is making Warmists very excited, failing to realize that if the government forces this on the private sector it’ll mess with their own lives
Each year, the federal government purchases about 50,000 new vehicles. Until recently, almost all of them ran on diesel or gasoline, contributing to U.S. demand for fossil fuels and encouraging automakers to continue focusing on fossil-fueled vehicles.
That’s starting to change, and a new directive that the Biden Administration quietly issued in September 2023 will accelerate the shift.
The administration directed U.S. agencies to begin considering the social cost of greenhouse gases when making purchase decisions and implementing their budgets.
That one move has vast implications that go far beyond vehicles. It could affect decisions across the government on everything from agriculture grants to fossil fuel drilling on public lands to construction projects. Ultimately, it could shift demand enough to change what industries produce, not just for the government but for the entire country.
But, remember, this is not authoritarian at all. They’ll actually refer to it as a “free market” plan, rather than Socialist/Marxist interference in the economy, picking winners and losers which then forces this on you the citizens, who are supposed to be in charge, with elected officials doing your bidding, rather than dictating everything.
Of course, when it comes down to it, will government employees really want to give up their cushy vehicles and food and perks and stuff?
The federal vehicle fleet is a good example of how the social costs of greenhouse gases add up.
Let’s compare the costs of driving an electric Ford Focus and an equivalent conventional-fuel Ford Focus.
Assume each vehicle drives an average of 10,000 miles (about 16,000 kilometers) per year – that’s less than the U.S. average per driver, but it’s a simple number to work with. The damages from emissions in dollars from driving a conventional Ford Focus 10,000 miles are between $133 and $484, depending on whether you use a social cost of carbon of $51 per metric ton or $185 per metric ton.
Except, Ford no longer makes either Focus. They’re switching to expensive EVs, which cost quite a bit more than either Focus, meaning that the costs will pretty much never be recouped. Not the best example.
Much of the U.S. government’s spending goes toward carbon-intensive goods and services, such as transportation and infrastructure development. Directing agencies to consider and compare the social cost of purchases in each of these sectors will send similar signals to different segments of the market: The demand for less carbon-intensive goods is rising.
How about restricting all of the federal government’s travel, starting with Biden and the agency executives?
“consider social costs” = use make-believe numbers instead of actual costs for government purchases. No longer need to use those pesky lowest bidder laws. Brothers=
-in-law of connected people are back in business.
[…] Pirates Cove […]
That’s interesting-“social cost of carbon”. Funny they don’t offset it with the social benefits of carbon. Of course then there wouldn’t be an issue…
In other words, it won’t be the low bidder who wins government contracts, but the lowest bidder with the right connections and who says — falsifies? — the right things.
Mr Teach claims the supporters will refer to this as a “free market” approach, but he misunderstands. This is a “market” approach, that is, an added cost/fee/tax intended to influence behaviors.
Authoritarian? Voters are free to elect Mr Trump and a Republican Congress in 2024.
Authoritarian?
You don’t think that Trump calling for the execution of the former Chief of the Joint Chiefs is authoritarian?
At this point about 17% of all cars sold in the USA are fully or partially electrified.
The Tesla Mod 3 now starts at 40,240 dollars. That is about 7000$ LESS than the average cost of a new car sold in the USA. And MOST Tesla buyers will also be able to take that 7500$ tax credit bringing the cost down to 33000$
EV sales are always increasing. Costs going down range going up
And one of the Pepsi Tesla semis just clocked 1070 miles in a single work day almost all fully loaded. That distance would require 133 gal of diesel @5$ per would be about $670. Rule of thumb is electric saves about 66%. A daily savings of about $450. Increased tire costs would be more than offset by routine diesel maintenance. And the Semis motors??? Right out of their cars
That required 3 charges each lasting less than 1 hour. Probably done during mandated driver breaks at Pepsi’s 750v charging stations. And NO that will not give shortened battery life. Fast charging has been found not to degrade batteries faster
Johnny-why should we buy electric cars?
“Authoritarian? You don’t think Trump calling for the execution of…..”
Johnny, please follow along for the difference between the two. In one case something happened, in the other case nothing did. Comprende?
Commenter: In one case something (EVs) happened, in the other case (execution) nothing did.
Nothing happened, yet. General Milley is taking “appropriate measures” to protect himself and his family.
You may recall that Trump disciples violently attacked the US Capitol Building on Trump’s provocation.
Regarding “social costs”: Consider lung and other cancers and COPD in tobacco users. Those “social” and financial costs are borne by individuals and society, not the tobacco sellers. Economically these are called “negative externalities”. Same with global warming.
Actually, no. He said “protest peacefully and patriotically”.