The American right has long pushed for the elimination of the federal government’s carbon-capture and renewable-energy programs.
But it is also trying to convince Americans to pay for it.
That’s why it’s critical to get the public to understand the potential costs of climate-change policies before we begin imposing them, said Kevin Connor, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former member of President Donald Trump’s transition team.
“There’s a big disconnect between the rhetoric from the president, who’s always been pro-renewables, and the reality that climate-related policy has the potential to be expensive,” Connor said.
“We need to be talking about the consequences of climate policy and how it might affect the economy, and we need to have a discussion about whether it’s the right thing to do.
We’ve seen what happens when you try to impose climate policies that aren’t cost effective.”
The Trump administration has proposed cutting billions of dollars from the EPA, a move that could be reversed in the future under a Republican Congress.
But the White House has made clear that the federal climate change programs are not being eliminated.
Instead, the administration is considering a “cost-effective” plan to replace the programs with market-based approaches, according to administration officials and congressional testimony.
This plan would also eliminate the Clean Power Plan, which limits emissions from power plants.
It also would eliminate the Carbon Tax and other emissions-reduction measures that have been part of President Barack Obama’s Clean Power plan.
But if the cost of these policies is eliminated, they will likely not be replaced by market-driven programs, Connor said, arguing that the transition to market-led approaches will be the best way to avoid a repeat of the 2016 elections.
The plan is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to roll back the Clean Air Act.
This law, passed in 1970, regulates emissions from a broad range of sources including power plants, cars and factories, and has helped reduce air pollution from power plant emissions.
The plan is also part of a broader effort by the Trump team to dismantle the Obama-era Clean Power rule, which required the EPA to set emissions standards for new power plants by 2020.
But Connor said that eliminating the Clean power rule would not be the most cost-effective way to reduce air quality in the United States.
The EPA’s air quality rules are already costing American businesses billions of extra dollars a year, he said.
Instead, he suggested that the administration could try to implement a carbon-tax model that would allow the federal governments to impose a tax on carbon emissions.
A carbon tax would be a tax paid by the United Nations, a world body that is largely responsible for regulating emissions from its members.
A cap-and-trade system, which relies on carbon pricing to reduce emissions, could be the cheapest way to eliminate greenhouse gases, Connor argued.
“If you could go through this tax system, and you’re actually replacing all the existing programs and replacing the Clean air act, and replacing it with market based policies, that would be the easiest way to do that,” Connor told HuffPost.
The cost of eliminating the federal programs and their carbon taxes, Connor noted, would fall on those who will be most affected by climate-changing policies, including those living in states that have not yet implemented them.
The Trump transition team, however, did not respond to a request for comment.
The White House also did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Connor’s claims.
But experts say the cost-effectiveness of such a carbon tax could be an issue that could prevent the U,S.
from cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the short term.
In his speech on Wednesday, Trump called for “a tax on emissions.”
In the same speech, Trump proposed a carbon price of $40 per ton of carbon, which would amount to about $200 per American.
“A carbon tax is an expensive way to fund a policy, and it will not get us there,” Connor added.
“But it can provide some relief, and I think the public will get a sense that this is a viable way to get us to that point.”