The Pro-Biden Media’s False Narrative About Green Subsidies

Those peddling the Inflation Reduction Act know better and can’t help showing it

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.. Excerpts:

"Says one of these groups, associated with Princeton University: The law “cuts U.S. emissions primarily by accelerating deployment of clean electricity and vehicles, reducing 2030 emissions” by about 640 million tons.

This presumes the equivalent fossil energy remains in the ground, but in its hurry to tout the law’s consumer benefits, the group shows why the assumption is false, by noting the “additional downward pressure the Act will put on prices for oil and natural gas by driving lower consumption of these commodities”—with oil prices down 5% and natural gas down at least 10% after 2030.

This is mentioned as an aside, not as part of the group’s formal analysis, and yet it undercuts the formal analysis—which just goes to show economists don’t corrupt very well.

If prices are lower, won’t people consume more? Yes. And oil is traded in a global market and natural gas increasingly is, so these price effects will increase demand globally."

"If people use less oil for one purpose, they are freer to use more for another. Under longstanding U.S. fuel mileage rules, consumers are forced to invest in high-mileage technology over other features they might prefer. What is the result? Miles driven increased, horsepower increased, average vehicle weight increased.

And the price effects don’t stop there, inevitably influencing choices about how big a house to buy, how much to spend heating and cooling it, etc.

William Jevons noticed, in 1865, that as steam engines became more efficient, factories didn’t burn less coal, they burned more—as they identified more jobs steam could help them do."