Europe rejects climate push as voters rebel: Will Biden take notice?

Europe is beginning to backtrack on its aggressive zero-carbon policies. Because? Because consumers are reluctant. The administrators of the European Union have gone too far, too fast, and the citizens of France, Germany and the Netherlands, among others, have had enough.

Here’s a lesson for Joe Biden. Unfortunately, he and his climate fanatics in the White House are unlikely to learn from what is happening across the Atlantic.

Ironically, it is the French Green Party that has most recently tried to block plans pushed by the European Parliament to put a carbon tax on fuels used in heating and transport. Its members fear the move could reignite protests by the Gilets Jaunes, the yellow vest group that emerged overnight to oppose a proposed carbon tax on diesel and whose protests nearly close France It’s not that the Greens have become realistic about the need for oil and gas as a bridge fuel, nor have they suddenly recognized the economic risks of betting on unreliable renewable fuels; rather, they worry that, as one lawmaker put it, “in a few years, people will hate climate policies. People will go to far-right parties.”

The proposal to force companies to buy fuel and heating emissions rights would increase household costs by an estimated 50 percent, too much to be politically acceptable. However, the EU Parliament approved the measure, which will not come into force until 2027 and could be postponed if energy prices rise.

The row is a continuation of the German government’s fight against proposed EU restrictions on car emissions, which would essentially ban the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines after 2035. Similar to the recent emissions decree of the Joe Biden’s tailpipe, which would crush sales. of petrol cars in the same time frame, the EU wants to force carmakers to cut emissions from new cars by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 2021 levels and by 100 percent by 2035.

Meanwhile, in Holland, the government’s proposal to force a significant portion of the country’s livestock farmers out of business (and reduce the number of cows, pigs and chickens in the nation by a third) in order to reduce nitrogen emissions cause riots in recent years. summer It also led to a surge in the popularity of the nascent Peasants and Citizens Movement, which came from nowhere to win 15 seats in the upper house of the Dutch national parliament last month, putting the populist group on par with others important voting blocs.

Here at home, as it moves toward a fanciful green economy without gas cars, the Biden White House is ignoring polls that show decidedly tepid enthusiasm for electric vehicles.

The EPA recently issued a new tailpipe emissions directive that would effectively require 67 percent of new cars and light trucks and 46 percent of medium-duty trucks sold in the U.S. by 2032 to be all-electric. This goal is a significant step up from Biden’s previous goal of 50% of new cars being electric vehicles by 2030 and would require a massive investment by automakers; it would also require a monstrous build-out of our electricity grid, a significant expansion of available battery materials, and a large number of new charging stations. Last year less than 6 percent of all new cars were electric; the proposal is so extreme that it faces serious pushback even from its friends in Big Labor.

According to The New York Times, the stricter emissions standards were originally to be rolled out in Detroit, the home of the US auto industry, but the pushback from the United Auto Workers was such that the announcement was moved to the EPA headquarters in Washington and was boycotted by union representatives.

It’s not strange. Manufacturing an electric vehicle requires less than half the number of workers needed to produce an internal combustion engine. Not only will the industry’s workforce shrink as automakers switch to electric vehicles, but most of the new plants making electric cars and batteries are in right-to-work states, where costs are lower.

Why would Joe Biden jeopardize his excellent relations with organized labor? Because desperate times call for desperate measures. President Biden is eager to run for a second term, but is buried by low approval ratings and a bleak economic outlook. He is desperate to win.

That’s why he’s doubling down on policies that he and his managers believe will appeal to groups absolutely critical to his campaign: climate activists and young voters. A poll last summer showed that a shocking 94 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 wanted someone other than Biden to be the Democratic nominee in 2024. That reading lit a fire under the Biden camp and led, among other things, to a new push to cancel student loan debt, though his program would cost about $450 billion and has been criticized as unfair to the majority of Americans who do not in college or who have already paid off their student loans.

When it comes to seeking the youth vote, the weather is key. A recent Economist poll shows that climate is one of the top three issues for people under 29; for no other age group is it so high. But the effort to win over environmentalists isn’t just about appealing to Gen X, it’s also about money. The 2020 election established climate activists as a major new source of Democratic funding, contributing about $50 million to the Biden campaign. Joe needs that support.

Biden especially needs to re-energize climate voters since he did the unthinkable and allowed Chevron to drill on Alaska’s North Slope. Greenlighting the Big Willow project broke the president’s campaign promise to stop drilling on federal lands and tarnished his near-perfect record against oil.

Before Biden moves further down the new green road, he should consider that his aggressive (some say impossible) and expensive proposals could cost significant popular support for the climate effort. It’s happening in Europe, and it could happen here.

Liz Peek is a former partner at the leading Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company.