Command-and-Control - ORIGINAL CONTENT

The response to global warming began with the apparent expectation of altruism on the part of the global population. Suggestions were made regarding actions people could take to reduce their energy consumption. The results were underwhelming.

The transition from altruistic voluntary action to command-and-control began with the establishment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. The process progressed through the Kyoto Accords in 1997 to the Paris Accords in 2015. The UN intended both Accords to be treaties, binding the signatory nations to specific reductions in CO2 emissions by specific dates. The Paris Accords ultimately led to the establishment of a maximum global near-surface average temperature target (2°C) and the establishment of the goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

US President Clinton chose not to submit the Kyoto Accords to the Senate for ratification because he knew the ratification effort would fail. President Obama also chose not to submit the Paris Accords to the Senate for ratification for the same reason. However, both presidents “committed” the US to emissions reduction goals and schedules, though no plans to achieve those goals were developed.

President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Accords during his first term. President Biden re-entered the Accords immediately after his election and “committed” the US to ongoing contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund. President Trump has again acted to withdraw the US from the Paris Accords and halted US contributions to the Green Climate Fund.

The governments of the developed nations including the US, Canada, Australia, UK and the EU set emissions reduction goals for specific segments, primarily electric power generation and motor vehicles. These goals were typically supported by subsidies and incentives intended to accelerate the market transitions.

President Biden dramatically expanded the “command-and-control” approach to achieving Net Zero in the US. He took numerous actions in his “war on fossil fuels” including cancelling previously approved oil and gas pipeline projects and delaying or failing to hold legally required oil and gas lease sales in federal lands onshore and offshore. He also required that electric power generation be emissions free by 2035 and that all vehicles sold after 2035 be electric vehicles. His Administration also attempted to ban the sale of gas ranges while several local jurisdictions acted to ban new residential and commercial gas connections. The US Congress passed the “Inflation Reduction Act” (sic), which massively increased the subsidies and incentives available for the Net Zero transition.

President Trump, in his current term, has halted most of the planned offshore wind capacity sought by the Biden Administration and has resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands onshore and offshore. He has ended the electric vehicle mandate. The One Big Beautiful Act (OBBA) eliminated the electric vehicle subsidies and the subsidies for private solar installations.  The OBBA also placed a time limit on industrial solar and wind subsidies and incentives.

Resistance to the command-and-control approach had been building prior to President Trump’s re-election and has continued to build as electric rates have increased with the implementation of redundant, intermittent solar and wind generation. Concern also continues to grow regarding the adequacy, reliability and stability of the electric grid as renewable generation capacity grows.

Resistance is also growing in the other developed nations and several of their national leaders have begun to realize that Net Zero is not likely to be achieved by 2050, if it can be achieved at all, and that ultimately it might not even be desirable.