WUWT New York State Net Zero Plan Summary

Roger Caiazza

It has been a month since I updated Watts Up With That readers on New York’s net-zero by 2050 plan the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act).  My last post explained that the Draft Scoping Plan that defines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda” had been released and is available for comment.  This post notes that there is a new Draft Scoping Plan Overview available.  I also want to address their claim that the “cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action by more than $90 billion.


The Climate Act was passed in 2019 and became effective on 1/1/2020. The Climate Action Council has been working since then to develop plans to implement the Act.  Starting in the fall of 2020 seven advisory panels developed recommended policies to meet the targets that were presented to the Climate Action Council in the spring of 2021.  Over the summer of 2021 the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultant Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) prepared an Integration Analysis to “estimate the economy-wide benefits, costs, and GHG emissions reductions associated with pathways that achieve the Climate Act GHG emission limits and carbon neutrality goal”.  Three Integration Analysis implementation strategies were incorporated into the Draft Scoping Plan when it was released at the end of 2021. 

The Draft Scoping Plan document is huge.  The document is 861 pages long and the body of the Scoping Plan report itself is 330 pages.  There are eight appendices available individually:

  • Appendix A: Advisory Panel Recommendations
  • Appendix B: CJWG Feedback on Advisory Panel Recommendations
  • Appendix C: JTWG Recommendations to the Council on Measures to Minimize the Carbon Leakage Risk and Minimize Anti-Competitiveness Impacts of Potential Carbon Policies and Energy Sector Mandates
  • Appendix D: Power Generation Sites Identified by the JTWG
  • Appendix E: JTWG Recommendations to the Council on Issues and Opportunities Related to the EITE Entities
  • Appendix F: Environmental and Health Data for Quantifying Health Benefits of Climate Policy
  • Appendix G: Integration Analysis Technical Supplement
  • Appendix H: Adaptation & Resilience Recommendation Components

The newly released Draft Scoping Plan Overview gives some more details on the implementation plan and is a pretty good introduction to New York’s green new deal law.  Not only does the law mandate net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 but there are social justice components as well.  I am only going to touch on one aspect of the overview because it epitomizes the charade of the Climate Act.

Cost of Inaction Exceeds the Cost of Action

Slide 9 Key Benefit-Cost Findings in the Overview summary claims that the “Cost of Inaction Exceeds the Cost of Action by more than $90 billion”.  It goes on to explain: “There are significant required investments to achieve Climate Act GHG Emissions Limits, accompanied by even greater external benefits and the opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of jobs”. 

Slide 10, Benefit-Cost Assessment, in the Overview provides some details for the costs and benefits.  It is telling that the numbers behind the $310 billion, $290 billion and $305 billion number labels of the columns in the figure are not available.  The only representation of the breakdown of how those costs were apportioned across all energy sectors of New York is another graph.  That makes providing meaningful comments nearly impossible and also, in my opinion, represents a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the cost calculations.

I have written several posts on Scoping Plan benefits at my blog over the last couple of months.  Climate Act Scoping Plan Benefits summarized all the findings in those articles.  I also prepared a white paper, Scoping Plan Costs and Benefits,  that describes all the calculations and provides details. 

In brief, the benefits are over-stated.  The Plan describes health benefits totaling $165 to $170 billion due to improvements in air quality.  Air quality has improved markedly since 2000 and the observed reductions from 2000 to 2019 are 16 times greater than the improvements projected for the Climate Act in the Scoping Plan.  Until such time that the State can show benefit improvements from the observed air quality changes since 2000 are 16 times greater than the benefits claimed here, then I am dubious of the claim.  The increased active transportation benefit of $39.5 billion is based on a “first-order approximation based on state-wide numbers” that translates to “we guessed a benefit ignoring the fact that this will claim could only occur in certain areas not the whole state”.  As a result, the benefit estimate is far too high.  Energy efficiency interventions benefits in low- and middle-income homes are claimed to total $8.7 billion but $2.4 billion of that is from non-energy interventions and should not be claimed as benefits for Climate Act GHG emission reduction programs. 

The boast that the Climate Act has more benefits than costs is based on the claimed benefits for the avoided cost of GHG emissions that range between $235 and $250 billion.  The Climate Act manipulates emissions to increase benefits and uses a lower discount rate than current Federal guidance resulting in societal benefits of GHG emission reductions that are 4.5 times higher for 1990 emissions and 5.4 times higher for 2019 emissions than other jurisdictions. 

Calculation of Societal Benefits of Avoided Impacts for GHG Emission Reductions

All the aforementioned machinations and dubious attempts to inflate the benefits of the Climate Act so that the costs of inaction out-weigh the costs of action failed to get a positive number so the authors used an inaccurate method to calculate social cost of carbon benefits.  This section explains how they cheated.

Slide 3, GHG Emissions Reductions, graphically shows current (2019) estimated GHG emissions, 1990 base year emissions and the targets in 2030 and 2050.  Consistent with the lack of documentation for the cost figures, the calculation of the societal benefits numbers are unavailable. I could not reproduce the $235 billion to $250 billion estimates from the information available.  I believe this represents a deliberate attempt to cover up the “on thin ice” calculations.

It does not matter to my point that the claim of positive impacts is bogus however.  Figure ES.1 in the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) GHG inventory shows the annual statewide emissions from 1990 to 2019.  DEC did not provide the actual numbers used to generate this graphic and you will forgive me for pointing out the obvious tendency to avoid any numbers that could embarrass the narrative.  The only numbers provided are the 1990 baseline value of 402.54, the maximum in 2005 of 458.55 and the 2019 value of 379.43.  All these values are in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in terms of GWP20. 

For the sake of this argument, we can even ignore New York’s unconventional gaming of the value of carbon system that gives different numbers than any other jurisdiction.  The only reference to values comparable to other inventories states “As a point of comparison, when applying the conventional, or UNFCCC, format for governmental accounting, emissions declined 21% percent from 1990 to 2019, or from a net emission rate of 210.43mmt to 165.46 mmt CO2e GWP100”.

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) or Value of Carbon is a measure of the avoided costs from global warming impacts out to 2300 enabled by reducing a ton of today’s emissions.  We don’t even have to worry about the biases in the values of the SCC calculations used to show their claim is bogus.  We know that the NYS GHG inventory numbers are the 1990 baseline value of 402.54, the maximum in 2005 of 458.55 and the 2019 value of 379.43 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in terms of GWP20.  We also know the New York values of carbon in the same unit of measure.   If the Climate Act eliminates New York GHG emissions from any of the three values listed, the societal benefit is that emission total multiplied by the NY value of carbon. The state recommends using the 2% discount rate which gives societal benefits ranging between $46.7 billion and $56.4 billion using the 2021 values depending on which historical emission value is used. 

Despite all the machinations the societal benefits in the Scoping Plan are not large enough to claim positive net benefits. The Scoping Plan games the system by relying on flawed DEC Value of Avoided Carbon Guidance.  In the Guidance section entitled “Estimating the emission reduction benefits of a plan or goal” an example is included:

“The net present value of the plan is equal to the cumulative benefit of the emission reductions that happened each year (adjusted for the discount rate). In other words, the value of carbon is applied to each year, based on the reduction from the no action case, 100,000 tons in this case. The Appendix provides the value of carbon for each year. For example, the social cost of carbon dioxide in 2021 at a 2% discount rate is $127 per metric ton. The value of the reductions in 2021 are equal to $127 times 5,000 metric tons, or $635,000; in 2022 $129 times 10,000 tons, etc. This calculation would be carried out for each year and for each discount rate of interest.”

I believe that the guidance approach is wrong because it applies the social cost multiple times for each ton reduced. As shown above, using any of the observed total GHG emission values multiplied by a social cost number representing all the societal benefits if those emissions are reduced out to the year 2300 gives benefits between $46.7 billion and $56.4 billion.  Using the DEC  guidance comes up with benefits of between $235 billion and $250 billion.  If only that error is corrected the total benefits range from negative $74.5 to negative $49.5 billion instead of net benefits ranging from $90 billion to $120 billion.


Despite their best efforts to game their numbers to claim that the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of action for the Climate Act New York State has to rely on obviously incorrect guidance.  Using their lifetime approach someone who lost 10 pounds five years ago can claim that they lost 50 pounds.  It is absurd and illustrates the lengths the supporters of the Climate Act will go to in order to get the “right” answer.

It is also telling that the Draft Scoping Plan and the technical documentation does not provide any numerical backup information for these societal benefits of GHG emission reductions or the cost projections.  Cynics like me believe that indicates that they know their numbers are bogus.

There is nothing preventing anyone from commenting on the Draft Scoping Plan.  Comments submitted now in New York may prevent some similar atrocity coming to your jurisdiction in the future so please comment.


Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

5 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 31, 2022 6:11 pm

The cost of inaction is $00.00.

The cost of adaptation to whatever Ma Nature throws at us has some dollars attached to it.

‘The cost of trying to control the climate, particularly by cranking on the CO2 knob, which obviously does not control the climate, is incalculable, but ruinous.

Reply to  H.R.
January 31, 2022 6:46 pm

Theories about the cost of inaction has led to dubious action.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  gringojay
February 1, 2022 3:42 am

how about the tubas?

Bryan A
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 2, 2022 10:10 pm


Reply to  H.R.
January 31, 2022 6:55 pm

The cost of inaction is actually negative, since CO2 is a net positive influence.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2022 9:25 pm

Which is to say the benefits of inaction are worth $trillions. Inaction is free; the benefits of CO2 are enormous. Warmer Is Better and it costs nothing!*

*If the Earth does get any warmer, which is debatable.**

**But if one assumes the position that the Debate is Over and Warmer is Coming, as do the warmunists, then hip hooray and scrap the spending plan. Give the money back to the taxpayers and be happy about it.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  H.R.
February 1, 2022 3:41 am

but it’ll be awesome for the wind/solar industrial complex and its sycophants in academia, the MSM, and political offices

Reply to  H.R.
February 1, 2022 8:57 am

At some very high “think-tank” level, government realizes controlling Climate is not possible, but it allows another means of control of the industrial economy, and power is a “powerful” aphrodisiac to petticrats…

Tom Halla
January 31, 2022 6:13 pm

A two percent discount rate?

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 31, 2022 6:19 pm

Buy here. Pay here. 2%.

You’re being sold a used car with sawdust in the tranny to make it shift smoothly, until it doesn’t. A $2,000 car for $6,000…. but only 2% interest! Yay???

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 31, 2022 9:16 pm

With inflation trending strongly! Hilarious.

Peta of Newark
January 31, 2022 6:28 pm

Quote:”The Draft Scoping Plan document is huge.

That is all that The Man In The Street needs to know:
i.e. That is it is a Socialist Manifesto

History has told us, many times over, where Socialism leads to.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 1, 2022 3:54 am

“”The Draft Scoping Plan document is huge.”

It has to be huge so the authoritarians can get all their rules, governing every aspect of our lives, in the document. Authoritarians have a lot of rules they want implemented. Or else.

Steve Case
January 31, 2022 6:46 pm

That people really believe and write this stuff is truly depressing.

Reply to  Steve Case
January 31, 2022 7:14 pm

They won’t figure out how to run hearings before 2030.

Reply to  Steve Case
January 31, 2022 7:28 pm

I’m not fully convinced that they believe it. Knowing that it’s a pile of crap helps them write a pseudo high-gravitas document claiming the opposite. This then leads to them getting very large salaries. I could perhaps have summarized their pathetic careers in this short post.

oeman 50
Reply to  Steve Case
February 1, 2022 6:38 am

I have reviewed the justifications for the limits in EPA regulations in a different sector and found they have many unwarranted assumptions and/or base emission numbers on a statistically invalid number of samples. These flaws are pointed out in the comments to the rules, but EPA does not change the limits, resulting in great costs to the permittees. I finally figured out EPA was just filling the blanks with numbers they wanted. It seems to be a common technique of those wishing to ratchet down emissions for no discernable good.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Steve Case
February 1, 2022 8:01 am

“That people really believe and write this stuff is truly depressing.”

Irrationality, stupidity and evil have always existed to some extent in humanity. The gazillion dollar question is whether these traits have become prevalent in the West or if we’re just witnessing the impact of a relatively small, but highly motivated and vocal group. I hope it’s the latter.

Geoff Sherrington
January 31, 2022 7:18 pm

Before about year 2000 there was an electrical generation system for New York.
It was based on fossil fuels because they were superior according to valuations done by competent engineers and economists.
Note that windmills and solar panels were largely excluded, mainly because they were too expensive and too unreliable and too intermittent.
The cost differentials that existed then are roughly the same today.
Fossil fuel methods remain the cheapest.
Therefore, the whole document is wrong unless it can show that either fossil fuels have suddenly become much more expensive, or windmills and solar have suddenly become much cheaper, or both.
I have seen no evidence to support the above narrative without the aid of “Then, a miracle happens”.
Surely there is a legal means to challenge and prevent the imposition of fraudulent economic analyses like this onto we, the people.
Geoff S

John in Oz
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
February 1, 2022 6:42 pm

It amazes/confuses/annoys me that there is a continued claim that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels for power generation yet, whenever my power provider suggests that I move to a ‘green’ power option, there is an additional cost.

January 31, 2022 7:23 pm

Slightly tangential but not totally off-topic – could someone remind me which country’s leaders were about to state that natural gas is not a fossil fuel. I’m pretty certain that I read that on here. Was it Germany, or the EU.

I wonder if Barbara Boxer would fall for that one again, ha ha ha ??

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 31, 2022 8:09 pm

It was the EU. Nuclear and gas are now green energy. link

Last edited 1 year ago by commieBob
Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  commieBob
January 31, 2022 9:09 pm

Not yet, proposal circulated for comment. Vote by Parliament will not be until next Fall. Expectation is high for passage.

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
February 1, 2022 3:39 am

Thanks Bob and Dennis. Someone asked me about this and I was so busy yesterday, I just didn’t have time to search for it. I knew WUWT posters would come through for me.

Reply to  commieBob
February 1, 2022 7:31 pm

This should be a great candidate for immediate passage.
The climate change wonkies seem to ignore that the features of new and proposed reactor designs all use passive control systems to prevent a runaway reactor. With the safety of the reactors already designed in things are simply going to get better. Many proposals under development are breeder reactors that can produce at least as much fissionables as they burn. Very nearly perpetual motion in the nuclear field, but it really isn’t.

Methane(natural gas)is a no brainer. It all comes from prehistoric animal and plant sources for most of it. The geology cycle shows that most of CO2 from burning “fossil” fuels is already being recycled into limestone, coal, and oil deposits.

oeman 50
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 1, 2022 6:56 am

Nancy P. once declared we should use non-fossil fuels like natural gas.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  oeman 50
February 1, 2022 10:41 am

If we tossed her onto a fire, would that qualify as a “fossil” fuel? 😀

January 31, 2022 7:25 pm

In any of this report was there reference to the supporting calculations for warming due to CO2? What about supporting calculations of the effect of human emissions on the atmospheric content? SInce we do not add much of the increasing CO2 content (3%) and that rising content has almost no increasing effect in absorbed LWIR radiation due to saturation of the CO2 absorption band none of the rest is warranted or meaningful.

Reply to  DMA
February 1, 2022 4:54 am

Short answer – no. In fact none of any of the New York regulations related to GHG emission reductions has ever addressed your questions

Reply to  Roger Caiazza
February 1, 2022 6:28 am

From those I have talked to, a lot of people believe that the world has already warmed up between 5 and 10 degrees. When I try to tell them the world has only warmed 1C in the last 150 years, they refuse to believe it.
After all, how could all these catastrophes be caused by a mere 1C of warming.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2022 10:50 am

After all, how could all these catastrophes be caused by a mere 1C of warming.

For that matter, how could ‘warming’ cause any “catastrophes” at all, since as any basic book on meteorology will tell you, in a warming climate, extra-tropical storminess should decline, not increase, due the reduced temperature differential between the poles and the tropics.

“According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease.” – Richard Lindzen

January 31, 2022 8:49 pm

This sort of garbage always uses attribution statistics where they can just randomly assign costs and benefits to things without ever remotely having to justify the figures.

Attribution Statistics are a con game from marketing and the moment you find anyone using them you need to know you are being conned.

No Name Guy
January 31, 2022 9:30 pm

0 net by 2050, huh? M-kay. 30 years from now. As it takes at least 15 years from concept to commissioning of a new nuke plant, they best get started now. First ones on line by 2035. How many per year need to come in line by 2050 to replace the current fossil fuel plants? How many more to support the pipe dream of additional electrification (replace nat gas stoves and furnaces, replace the oil heat the NE is so fond of, more EV’s, switching industrial process heat to induction from gas, etc). IDK what the number is but I’d guess at least 15, possibly 30. Where will they site 15 new plants with 1 or 2 reactors each? Pure fantasy to go “net zero” by 2050. And that is just the engineering and logistical challenge.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  No Name Guy
February 1, 2022 10:52 am

And all in pursuit of a non-solution to an imaginary problem.

Joel O'Bryan
January 31, 2022 9:33 pm

The City of Galveston and the State of Texas opted to adaptation after the catastrophic destruction and loss of life in the 1900 Hurricane that leveled the city and claimed at least 8,000 lives. Before Climate Change could be called a thing by the Marxists.

Galveston and the State of Texas built a monumental sea wall to allow the city to rebuild and grow. That is adaptation. Galveston can continue to adapt by strengthening those fortifications via sound engineering. That is what mankind does. Adapt. Running and hiding never works. The Left wants to take our money, our freedoms, turn us to serfs, and tell us to go run and hide whilst the billionaires build ocean front mega mansions on quiet beaches uninterrupted by the unwashed masses.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joel O’Bryan
January 31, 2022 10:11 pm

I see no mention of the benefits of increased CO2and global warming, eg:
– increased plant growth across most of the planet.
– increased food production.
– decreased excess winter deaths.
– decreased need for winter heating.

The UK’s BBC had a list of possible benefits too (some overlap with the above):

Positive impacts of a warmer global climate could include:
– warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels, leading to more vigorous plant growth
– some animals and plants could benefit and flourish in a changing climate
– new shipping routes, such as the Northwest passage, would become available
– more resources, such as oil, becoming available in places such as Alaska and Siberia when the ice melts
– energy consumption decreasing due to a warmer climate
– longer growing season leading to [] higher yields in current farming areas
– frozen regions, such as Canada and Siberia, could be able to grow crops
– new tourist destinations becoming available

The dollar value of all of the benefits would be massive.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 1, 2022 10:58 am

some animals and plants could benefit and flourish in a changing climate

I’d argue that this should read virtually all animals and plants will benefit and flourish in a warmer climate,” in particular since the majority of the “warming” is not about higher maximum temperatures but about higher minimum temperatures.

It is, always has been, and always will be COLD, not heat, that is a threat to life. All one need do is observe the extent and diversity of life in the tropics vs. at the poles to see the truth in this.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 1, 2022 7:43 pm

It could very well all this hype is already moot. The solar system is already in a Solar Grand Maximum, the first since the Maunder Minimum brought to you by Edward Walter Maunder and his wife Annie Russel Maunder. They observed several solar cycles that cause sporadic drops in the earth’s temperature. It was during an already cold period that earned the term “little Ice Age”.

The current Grand Minimum is already through one solar cycle, the magnetic models of the Sun’s sun spots has already run into the next solar cycle which is likely to be cooler. The long range forecast is that the cool spell will possibly continue until 2050.

Fortunately I’m unlikely to have the privilege to observe the Solar Minimum until then.

January 31, 2022 11:48 pm

Have any PE’s put their engineering stamp to this document?

Reply to  _Jim
February 1, 2022 12:13 am

Hahahahaha, good one Jim!!!!!

Reply to  _Jim
February 1, 2022 4:57 am

The members of the Council and advisory panels actually believe that thinking outside of the box will solve all the problems. What they don’t realize is that the box is physics.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
February 1, 2022 9:57 am

And economics, Roger. Leftists think Marxist economics is a real thing.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 1, 2022 7:25 pm

I know what you mean, but strictly speaking Marxist economics exists, and was an early attempt to determine “value”. That largely boils down to attributing most of the marginal cost to the labour involved, but takes some account of labour productivity.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 2, 2022 9:58 am

It is a real thing, in the sense that anarchy, poverty and despair are all real.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
February 1, 2022 10:58 am

What they don’t realize is the so-called “problem” is pure fiction.

February 1, 2022 12:33 am

“ The Draft Scoping Plan document is huge. The document is 861 pages long and the body of the Scoping Plan report itself is 330 pages.”

The machine at work as it churns out pages and pages of 💩.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Derg
February 1, 2022 3:53 am

Derg and others, how do you insert an icon/image in your text like that?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 1, 2022 4:09 am

I used my iPhone.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 1, 2022 5:24 am

There’s an image icon to the right – click on that, then insert whatever image you want.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 1, 2022 5:35 am

right- but that adds the image after the text- I notice some people people can add a “smiley” icon into their text- Derg says he can do it with his phone- being an old geezer, I only have a flip phone- but, I like your image- not sure how it’s done with a “smart” phone- must be some way to do it on a PC (that is, adding into text)

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 1, 2022 7:18 am

Trying a couple ALT keycode chars:

☺ ☺↓♦

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 1, 2022 7:25 am

test again
ⁿ X ♣ <

• ♠ ♦

Bryan A
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 2, 2022 10:13 pm

I always liked the Wink
: wink : but no spaces 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
February 2, 2022 10:13 pm


Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
February 2, 2022 10:14 pm

:clap: works for wink and smile but not clap
Colon/wink/colon (:wink:)
Colon/smile/colon (:smile:)
Without the ( ) brackets

Last edited 1 year ago by Bryan A
Matt Levesque
February 1, 2022 12:35 am

Obviously energy is needed, most likely electricity. New sources (and assuming 100% run time and since they think CO2 is the problem), what are they replacing the energy supply with and what is its carbon footprint. Nothing is free.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Matt Levesque
February 1, 2022 10:03 am

CliSciFi practitioners think added labor inputs to achieve the same net energy output is a benefit. Every time you hear a politician crow about increasing “living-wage union jobs” grab for your wallet because they are after your money.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 1, 2022 11:08 am

Yes, according to the logic of these Eco-Fascist politicians, handing construction workers spoons and taking away their bulldozers, backhoes, tractor shovels, graders, picks and shovels would be a boon to the “economy” via “job creation.”

What they fail to acknowledge is using more labor to produce the same product is always a detriment to the economy, not a benefit. Those construction workers with the spoons will not do enough work in a day to get paid the same wage, so either they won’t be able to earn a decent (or any) living or (if they do continue to get those “union wages”) the government-sponsored welfare will strip the living standards away from the victimized taxpayers being soaked to fund the government-sponsored welfare.

Gregory Woods
February 1, 2022 2:27 am

F’em – Let them eat cake….

Joseph Zorzin
February 1, 2022 3:39 am

“Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.”

But, do any state politicians read it? If not, a printed copy should be mailed to all of them. Or handed to them personally. Does Roger testify at the state legislature?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 1, 2022 5:03 am

Sadly it is a game we play. I submit all my comments in the regulatory proceedings then agency staff pretend to read them and then go ahead anyway because the answer is in the back of the book. I have actually met a politician that reads my blog and has figured out that the costs wil be a political issue. I like your idea of copying my comments to them. I have not testified at the NY legislature but did testify in PA with regards to RGGI

Dave Fair
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
February 1, 2022 10:06 am

Roger, what do you mean by “the answer is in the back of the book?”

Reply to  Dave Fair
February 1, 2022 2:24 pm

Many textbooks include answers to some of the questions at the end of chapters in the back of the book. Of course many problems don’t lend themselves to a single answer. I used this analogy to imply that there is no chance providing an alternative solution when the powers that be already know what solution they want – wrong that it might be.

Bruce Cobb
February 1, 2022 5:07 am

Climate Act: n. A set of actions pretending to do something about something which doesn’t exist. Climate actors hone their craft assiduously and continually in order for the sheeple public to believe that what they are watching is real. After all, they are paying for it so should be getting their money’s worth.

Andrew Wilkins
February 1, 2022 5:52 am

That report is the sum total of a lot of people being paid a lot of money to just make stuff up.
What a scam.
And of course, by 2050 when the scam has been exposed the climate grifters will be long gone.

February 1, 2022 7:15 am

Produce your own study and publish it.

If there is only one study, its headline will be repeated ad nauseam until it is accepted as an obvious fact that acting is cheaper than not.

If there are two studies with similarly detailed graphs and word counts, most people will have no ability to tell which is better.

Kevin kilty
February 1, 2022 8:00 am

The Draft Scoping Plan document is huge. The document is 861 pages long and the body of the Scoping Plan report itself is 330 pages. There are eight appendices available individually:

Two applications for local wind farm projects that I am reading are nearly 2,000 pages — mostly boilerplate, sometimes completely inappropriate, and occasionally self-contradictory, but none of it can really identify what impacts the project will have.

 Comments submitted now in New York may prevent some similar atrocity coming to your jurisdiction in the future so please comment.

Atrocity indeed. I may live in a “Red” state, but there are plenty of “Blue” people here who act and think just like the Blue people in New York.

Andy Pattullo
February 1, 2022 10:05 am

This is not even skillful lying. The authors of this report, acting as a committee, don’t care if they have no way to support their conclusions with real facts and accurate math. They fully understand that their job was to play along with the fantasy and put something on paper that supports the political goals. They know they are lying, they don’t care. They know others know they are lying, they don’t care. They know nothing they predict about this self-destructive policy will turn out as they predict and they don’t care about that either. Their pay checks, power and prestige are all they care about.

Every individual at various points in their life is faced with a choice between integrity and service to others versus dishonesty and self-serving. The people involved in this analysis failed the test miserably and will in time likely be miserable people because of it. All joy comes from bringing joy to others. Failing that there is no purpose.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
February 1, 2022 2:25 pm

+10 description of the authors of this report!

Martin Pinder
February 1, 2022 1:21 pm

Would some one tell me what the so called benefits of action are supposed to be? Also, the graphs are rather confusing as the bars are simply labelled ‘costs’ without any distinction between ‘costs of inaction’ & ‘costs of implementation’. I smell BS.

Reply to  Martin Pinder
February 1, 2022 2:30 pm

There is another graphic that breaks down the direct costs of say switching to elecric heat that also includes the fuel cost savings that represent the net costs of implementation. The costs of inaction are supposed to show that if NY does not implement the Climate Act that the state will forgo many societal benefits. Of course they don’t ever make the distinction that costs to members of the public are not directly offset by societal benefits.

Gary Pearse
February 1, 2022 2:19 pm

“…accompanied by even greater external benefits and the opportunity to create hundreds of thousands of jobs”.

This reminds me of a goofy hypothetical job creation method produced by a cynical prof that I knew. He called his idea “Commodity Entrainment”. The Idea was to set up manufacturing centers employing 100s of thousands along major rail main lines and shipping the output to be disposed of at sea.

In the Net Zero goofy scheme, the product is unfit-for-purpose renewable energy for intermittent consumption in applications that are also unfit for purpose. How can you do a feasibility analysis when there isn’t one person alive who can show us, even with +/- error bars of 100%, what the damage would be, or if indeed there will be any damage at all at some unknown time in the future if we continued on with business as usual.

The only palpable sign of climate change so far is the Miraculous Great Greening of the planet from increased CO2 in the atmosphere, particularly in arid parts of the world, the drought proofing of all plants courtesy of higher CO2 levels and the concomitant bumper crops of global agriculture. Surely the latter alone values trillions worth.

With 3 trillion trees on earth and 18% expansion of forest land in the last 40yrs ~500B new trees at say $100/tree is $50 trillion benefit, triple this for fattening the pre-existing trees and habitat improvement. Ocean productivity has also increased.

They happily calculate that it will cost $100 trillion to convert to renewables to arrest these benefits.

Andre Thomas Lewis
February 1, 2022 4:02 pm

Governments everywhere constantly use direct employs or consultants to come up with ‘research’ that supports a policy they have already decided to pursue. The common feature is to make the report/s very long, full of impressive graphics and quotes selected from agencies or experts who back up the conclusions. In the bulk of the report are dubious assertions without credible research outcomes (or often no research at all) but buried in the mass of verbiage hoping no-one will check. This article is a good example of debunking the scam but mainstream media will never do the same because it goes against their own biases or they do not know how to unravel and fact-check it anyway. They just pull out quotable quotes from the abstract and run with that. No wonder most people with lives to get on with only absorb the propaganda sound bites and hardly ever hear the truth.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights