Shutting down middle and blue-collar America

From Biden to Warren, Democrat president wannabes push job-killing pseudo-green policies

Guest post by Paul Driessen

Vocal activists increasingly drive Democrat Party positions across the public policy spectrum. Print, television, social and click-bait media generally support them, while permitting little debate on liberal proposals or their potential ramifications. Even semi-moderate Joe Biden has been pressured into shifting or flipping his positions on abortion, energy, climate change and other issues, to satisfy far-left factions.

Their policy prescriptions often find ready acceptance in coastal, urban, academic, media and big government circles. But factory workers, blue collar families and Middle America better pay very close attention to how climate change scare stories and proposed Green New Deal programs will impact their energy costs and reliability, jobs, living standards, mobility and personal choices. Warning signs abound.

Reflecting heavy dependence on wind and solar power, German and British electricity prices are already three to four times higher than what the vast majority of American households currently pay – and rising. The exorbitant prices have largely shuttered the UK’s aluminum industry and what’s left of its steel industry. Combined with ever-tougher carbon dioxide emission limits, factory operating costs similarly “threaten the very existence” of Germany’s automobile industry, Volkswagen’s CEO laments.

Nearly 350,000 German families have had their electricity cut off because they cannot afford to pay their power bills. German families and businesses had to cope with 172,000 localized blackouts in 2017. The country has banned fracking (hydraulic fracturing) and imports US coal and Russian natural gas.

In Britain more than 3,000 elderly people die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly, exposing them to constant chilly temperatures that make them more likely to contract and succumb to respiratory or heart disease. The situation is likely to get even worse. In stark contrast, abundant natural gas supplies from the fracking revolution have driven prices down in the USA, saving some 11,000 American lives each winter, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study.

Multiple widespread blackouts over a three-month period in South Australia were caused by the elimination of coal-fired power, 52% reliance on wind turbines, storms, grid instability, and an inability to predict weather conditions or peak power demand. In May 2019, they helped persuade Aussie voters to replace their climate-obsessed government with a conservative coalition that supports fossil fuels.

China, India and other overseas aluminum, steel and vehicle exporters to the EU and US face no climate-driven energy price or emission obstacles. The Paris Climate Agreement does not obligate them to reduce their fossil fuel use or emissions for decades to come, if ever. Indeed, China’s annual increase in “greenhouse gas” emissions is greater than Australia’s total annual nationwide emissions!

Asia’s total GHG emissions now dwarf the USA’s. So even total, painful, job-killing, economy-shackling elimination of US fossil fuels would do nothing to end the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Unfortunately, these hard realities have had no effect on people or companies that expect to benefit politically or financially from legislated energy upheavals rooted in manmade climate change alarmism.

New Mexico recently joined California and Hawaii in mandating “renewable” electricity: 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and 100% by 2050. Despite the absence of any state mandate, the Northern Indiana Public Service Company wants to replace 1,850 megawatts of affordable 24/7 coal-based electricity with 1,650 MW of expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar, plus 1,500 MW of backup batteries.

Modern factories, offices, hospitals, schools, households and cities cannot function or survive on starvation energy diets like these. Moreover, claims that wind, solar and battery technologies are clean, climate-friendly, renewable and sustainable are little more than useful fairy tales.

Wind and solar energy are certainly renewable and perpetual. However, the massive amounts of land and raw materials required to harness, store and utilize that energy certainly are not. And many rare earth elements, lithium, cadmium, cobalt and other high-tech metals are extracted and processed by Chinese companies under zero to minimal child labor, fair wage, worker safety and environmental standards.

But all this generally gets swept under the rug, while tsunamis of climate chaos scare stories terrorize children and even a lot of adults into believing human civilization, wildlife and even our planet face annihilation in less than twenty years, unless the world quickly rids itself of fossil fuels.

From Kamala Harris to Bernie Sanders, and now Joe Biden, every Democrat presidential candidate supports some version of the Green New Deal and would have us believe its authoritarian edicts and multi-trillion-dollar price tag are affordable and necessary.

Helping to drive this narrative is billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg – proud owner of twelve houses, a private jet and helicopter, and a fleet of pricey cars. He intends to give the Sierra Club and other activist groups $500 million to conduct new campaigns to eradicate coal power and block construction of natural gas-fired generators that would otherwise replace coal-fired plants.

In fact, no sooner is one example of climate nonsense debunked, than another dozen take its place.

After decades of frightening visitors with tall tales that Glacier National Park glaciers would all melt away by 2020 or soon thereafter, park rangers are finally acknowledging that the Grinnell, Jackson and other glaciers have actually been growing since 2010. They are now (quietly) removing signs, videos and brochures that featured the (Al) Gorey claims about catastrophic (Michael) Mann-made global warming.

Even the Washington Post has acknowledged that the number of violent (F4-5) tornadoes has declined 40% between the 1950-1984 period and 1985-2018 interval – with not one violent tornado recorded in the USA in 2018, for the first time in history. The United States also enjoyed a record 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall, between Wilma in 2005 and Harvey in 2017. Overall, actual evidence shows no upward trend in extreme weather, floods, droughts or sea level rise.

So now we’re being told plant and animal species are disappearing 100 times faster than historic rates, because of manmade climate change – and a million or more are at risk of extinction … out of some eight million that a new UN report claims exist on Earth. There are serious problems with this latest hysteria.

Scientists have actually identified and named only 1.8 million plant and animal species. The other 6.2 million “have no names, have never been identified,” and exist only as bits and bytes in computer models and fear-mongering reports and news stories, forestry ecologist and Greenpeace cofounder Dr. Patrick Moore observed during recent testimony before the House Water, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee.

Only 800 or so species have gone extinct in the last five centuries, Dr. Moore added – and most of them were victims of cats, rats, foxes and other invasive species introduced by European colonizers, or on small islands where native species had no defenses and could not escape.

Assuming this pattern will be repeated on a global scale, across entire continents, because of climate change, for a mythical 8 million species … and plugging those assumptions into computer programs … isn’t science. It’s garbage – designed and intended to justify eliminating the fossil fuels that provide over 80% of the energy that the United States and world use to produce food, jobs, health and prosperity.

We’re also supposed to swallow pseudo-scientific claims that “surging levels” of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide are creating dangerous hybrid puffer fish, making salmon unable to detect danger, making sharks right-handed and unable to hunt, making Arctic plants “too tall,” making coffee growing impossible in many countries, causing pigs to get skinnier, turning Earth into a super-heated Venus, causing the demise of tropical birds, and many other fearsome stories of White Walkers and Days after Tomorrow.

Sadly, all too many people soak up this nonsense like sponges. (Unkind comedians might suggest they have the brain cells of a sponge.) But to have these tales … and the voters and politicians who believe and propagate them … drive our energy and economic policies would be the cruelest joke of all.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 13, 2019 6:57 pm

I looked up this old post of mine and was struck about the similarity of New Zealand’s future and that which the US Democrat party are pushing

Can this really be happening in the United States of America? The land of freedom and individual enterprise?

Worth a read I suspect.



June 13, 2019 7:02 pm

Why are the coasts liberal and the middle conservative? There is an interesting theory that people move to be near to others with similar personalities. link

Maybe the schism between the regions will become so serious that the nation will break up. link

Bryan A
Reply to  commieBob
June 13, 2019 10:19 pm

Maybe coastal inundation and catastrophic sea level rise will become a reality and the rising seas will wash them all away

Reply to  Bryan A
June 14, 2019 10:47 am

Maybe that’s why they care….. about global warming.

Ian W
Reply to  commieBob
June 14, 2019 8:31 am

The urban areas tend to be Democrat. There are more urban areas near the coasts than in the ‘flyover’ country. Those urban areas in the center of the country such as Chicago are also more Democrat. There are maps of Republican vs Democrat precinct wins in the 2016 election and it is extremely apparent that only the urban areas voted Democrat.
The fact that the popular vote was as large as it was driven by the few urban areas shows the farsightedness of having an Electoral College to ensure the Constitutional Republic was not subject to the will of the highly populous urban states.

Reply to  commieBob
June 14, 2019 9:57 am

Middle is not all conservative. For instance Chicago. It is the major urban areas, where a concentration of Democratic leadership and policies are. Look at the counties where Trump won last time. Should give you a pretty big clue.

Pat Frank
Reply to  commieBob
June 14, 2019 10:08 am

Larger middle America cities are more liberal as well, commieBob. Nashville, Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul are examples. My own thought is that living in a city isolates people from a larger reality.

Lots of professional/technical jobs, lives get circumscribed by the habitual diversions of the urban environment, people form cliques of like-thinkers, and echo-chamber lives result. Personal prosperity is easier to attain. Lives that feel open are in fact limited.

Fantasies can be incubated without the messy business of refutation by experience or by contact with a more diverse-thinking public.

It seems reasonable to suppose, for example, that small town people know and interact with a larger cross-section of human personalities than do urban-dwellers.

It seems to me that the divide is the prosperous urbanites and their elites plus the government program beneficiaries versus the people in smaller cities and towns plus the rural dwellers and farmers. The latter are joined those urbanites who are rather more hardminded and able to fend off the squishiness of liberal sentiment.

Nearly 1/3 of CA voters chose Trump in 2016, for example. Even in San Francisco, 11.2% of the voters chose DT (9.2%) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian, 2.2%).

The large US population of squishy-minded liberals provides the loam that the true anti-American radicals — hard greens, hard Progressives, and outright Communists — can grow their noxious mind-weed garden of reflexive disaffection with the US.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 15, 2019 5:36 am

The fact is that destitute, unemployed people move into the cities to live there from the social system. In the countryside they are not tolerated for long. And not supported.

Clarky from Oz
June 13, 2019 7:20 pm

While I agree with the theme of this article, I must point out one error. “In May 2019, they helped persuade Aussie voters to replace their climate-obsessed government with a conservative coalition that supports fossil fuels.”

Australia did NOT replace a climate obsessed government. We failed to elect one. The same Liberal/National Party coalition was returned with an increased majority.

This was contrary to an expected landslide victory by the opposition Labor party. For the record, the “Liberal” Party in Australia refers to the main conservative party. The National Party is their coalition partner, also conservative in nature and more aligned to rural electorates. Labor is left wing and then you have a slew of other minor parties such as Greens, One Nation, United Australia Party spread all over the spectrum.

John inOz
Reply to  Clarky from Oz
June 13, 2019 11:08 pm

An amendment to your amendment.

Oz elected the lesser of two climate-obsessed parties

Joel O'Bryan
June 13, 2019 7:41 pm

In an alarmist climate screed published in Science mag a few weeks ago, Jonathan Overpeck wrote a piece filled with climate change whoppers. The guy is easily deceived by his own lies if he believes what he writes. That makes him a “chump.”

A call to climate action
Jonathan T. Overpeck, Cecilia Conde.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aay1525

Overpeck started out his opinion editorial (Op-Ed) piece with:

“The science is clear, students are striking, and publics around the globe are demanding a new level of leadership to tackle the climate crisis before it is too late. Climate extremes are inflicting serious economic losses on nations, and climate-driven issues such as sea-level rise, regional aridification, food shortages, disease spread, and massive biodiversity loss only promise ever-worsening costs.”

Basically in Jonathan The Charlatan’s opening sentences he’s blaming weather since he cites “climate extremes” which is weather. Which by all records is not unprecedented. And climate-driven issues such as SLR are all just “promises.” He lies about climate as weather extremes, then he pulls the “future” rabbit trick out of his magic bag of climate junk as if it is happening now, or even imminent. The sad part is, he knows his claims are all lies. What a chump Overpeck is.

As for his claim about “publics worldwide”, from Australia to Alberta, voters are rejecting the climate junk prescriptions whilst China and the developing world are free to accelerate emissions without limit. In the US last November, voter initiatives to require renewable electricity mandates were soundly rejected from blue Washington State to red Arizona. It is only the screaming idiots from ER who glue themselves to streets that are demanding action without effect. What a chump Overpeck is.

And it gets even funnier, sadder as one reads his Op-Ed.

“Moreover, the technology needed to electrify the planet using renewable energy is already, or close to being, cheaper than fossil fuel or nuclear energy, so the existing fossil fuel power plants and fossil-fueled transportation can be phased out completely within two decades.”

There is not one truthful element at all in the above statement he made in that Op-Ed. Everything he wrote in those sentences is a verifiable falsehood. David Middleton has regularly and recently posted here about the delusions of phasing out fossil fuel, most especially for transportation, anytime within the next few decades as Jonathan declares, “and fossil-fueled transportation can be phased out completely within two decades.” What a chump Overpeck is.

“The rapid expansion of adaptation strategies around the globe requires greater integration of academic research knowledge with the insight gained from real-world practice, and this means placing greater priority on partnership between academics and nonacademics. Nevertheless, it is also abundantly clear that absent climate change mitigation, adaptation strategies will in many cases become overwhelmed, leading to unacceptable costs to both human and natural systems. The top priority must remain the elimination of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change, and greater emphasis must be placed on positive synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions, especially those that maximize the protection of biodiversity and soils.

Now he’s worried about dirt (soils)? And the top priority of eliminating GHG emissions, simply is dumb. The poverty and famine that would ensue from the collapse of agriculture world-wide. This guy Overpeck obviously has zero clue how our food crops are grown, fertilized, harvested, and brought to markets as finished foods. The man is a menace to modern humanity if he actually believes what he writes. Otherwise, he is simply a chump… and should be ignored. Just like Climate Change itself.

PS: I could go on and on with all the whopper lies Jonathan Overpeck told in his May 31, 2019 Op-Ed. I’m trying mighty hard just to find one thing that is even remotely truthful in that Science Mage Op-Ed. I mean he did get correct that Paris 2015 was signed by 195 countries. But that’s about it on the truth-o-meter. Sad.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 14, 2019 5:39 am

The only factual thing Overpeck says is the hidden globalists agenda of ” a new level of leadership “.

Everything else is just an excuse to accomplish that. Of course he assumes he and his ilk will be that leadership.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 14, 2019 7:47 am

“The science is clear, students are striking,….” Now that’s a good scientific starting way to influence a group of ‘well educated people.’ Is this the new Science Communication Science?

Clyde Spencer
June 13, 2019 9:05 pm

One of my favorite sayings is, “Be careful for what you wish for because you might get it.”

If the wealthy, ‘elite’ bring the middle-class down they will find that their money won’t be much good if it can’t buy things. Few if any of them would know how to fix things or live off the land.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 14, 2019 1:19 am

Old Russian saying: “The Rich would have to eat money, but fortunately the Poor provide food”.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 14, 2019 9:30 am

YUP, …… that is exactly what happened when the Black Death pandemic devasted western Europe/Eurasia during the Middle Ages from 1347 to 1351 causing the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people.

The Black Death terminated “feudalism” because the surviving peasants or serfs (serfdom) just took possession of the “land-of-the-dead” and refused to work for and/or pay dues to the remaining lords who owned land ….. and thus the land-owning lords HAD TO start paying the peasants to do work for them.

Gary Pearse
June 13, 2019 9:06 pm

It seems that there must be someone who can reasearch the colossal cost of renewables to the public and put together a convincing book or article on it for broad consumption. Oh there are bits pieces but it seems strange that there aren’t holistic analyses.

The latest one here on WUWT was great as far as it went but I was left with two disconnected aspects, a) the enormous subsidies (including the electric car one) over a couple of decades that stresses ordinary taxpayers from whom this dashee for crony caps is extracted and b) the rising costs of electricity bills for the same people. Hey, there is also hundreds of billions governments have paid to the UN for climate plus hundreds of billions paid for research on a science that hasn’t advanced since Tyndall and Arhenius (Guy Callander, a 1930s British steam engineer made a model re CO2 and warming that out performs the the whole skein of IPPC stuff).

There is more: what of the billions doled out by Champagne Soshulists to NGOs, marketers, that they then claim as a tax deduction! And what about the burden on industries and the welfare system of shuttered plants or moving them to China; and now they’ve added a punishing carbon tax in a number of countries and they are working to impose it on the US. Now in Canada, in addition to paying a carbon tax, we are also paying elevated prices for the whole range of goods and services we purchase because suppliers have to pass theirs on to the consumer. Take a look at your energy bills at your energy bills and multiply them by 3 or 4!

Com’on Paul Driessen, your stuff is good but doesn’t fully satisfy. Take the time to add this all up.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 13, 2019 10:06 pm

It is a constantly shifting target. The renewable energy scam has multiple nidus of parasites depending on which country one examines. The UK greenslime is different from the US greenslime is different for the Aussie greenslime which is different altogether from the German EnergieWinde greenslime. But the common element is to fleece the middle class and transfer wealth to an uber-class in a new form of stealth taxation based on virtue signalling and climate guilt.
So one could write book on each country’s climate scan renewable power fleecing. Sort of a compendium of volumes of the greenslime scam on the middle-class.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 14, 2019 2:59 am

Behind the greenslime are businessmen using the greenslime to make themselves rich. And whilst the Greenslime may be unique to each country, there’s a lot of evidence that the climate cult promoting businessmen behind this scam are the same the world over.

June 13, 2019 9:57 pm

A nitpick – but an important one, that I think we must emphasize whenever we write about the “renewables” scam.

Generation capacity is in watts. Everything working right, this is the maximum amount of power that the generator puts out. Given its inputs*, it will continue to put that power out hour after hour.

Storage capacity is in watt-hours. This is the maximum amount of power that the storage can put out for one hour – and then it is gone, no more coming. (Which means that NIPSC will have less than ONE hour of backup for their maximum power needs, and then their service area goes dark. Not actually, of course, in the short term, as they’ll draw power from other companies that still have reliable generation – but what will they do when everyone else has followed their “leadership”?)

* We also need to emphasize the “inputs.” The input for a coal plant is coal, for a gas plant is natural gas, for a hydroelectric dam is water, etc. Those inputs can be supplied twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Thus, the nameplate capacity of these generators is their actual capacity.

The inputs for “renewables” (those that the Greens like; hydro is technically “renewable,” but they hate it) are wind or sunlight. Those inputs are completely unreliable – wind entirely so, and sunlight follows a curve during the day (with unpredictable huge dips when clouds pass by, or a dust storm moves in, etc.). The nameplate capacity of these generators – is a con game (something like a “million dollar slot” in Vegas – every two or three years, it does pay off a million dollars – after it has been fed five or six million in quarters).

June 13, 2019 10:03 pm

“In May 2019, they helped persuade Aussie voters to replace their climate-obsessed government with a conservative coalition that supports fossil fuels.”

Just a small sample of the journalistic quality Mr Driesen is capable of. Too tedious to list all the rubbish in this propaganda piece.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Loydo
June 14, 2019 6:35 am

It’s tough being an Alarmist, eh? Go guzzle some more of your Klimate Koolade. That should make you feel better.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 14, 2019 3:03 pm

No one was “replaced”, the coalition was re-elected. Drieisen is making things up.

Flight Level
June 13, 2019 10:50 pm

Germany is a catastrophe. Don’t go for the media, come over here and feel it. Making ends meet is a nation wide priority, industry relocates to energy friendly lands, and you wouldn’t like to know where aircraft maintenance is subcontracted.

No one of those who I know supports the policies that brought us there yet, green zealots soar and run Ponzi schemes with our taxes.

June 14, 2019 1:30 am

Regarding the recent Australian Federal Government election.

A few months before the election the right wing of the Liberal
(Conservative) Party got rid of their Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
Now he was clearly a “Closet Greenie””, from his early days as opposition
leader of the Liberal Party, rolled by Tony Abbott who became PM, then he
was in turn rolled by Turnbull, and the party then started to drift towards
the left.

With Turnbull gone some of his supporters decided not to run for re-election, the
the result was a far more right wing government went onto win
“The unwinnable election””.

The people decided that the Labour Party could not be trusted, especially
when its then leader Bill Shorten said in answer to a question about the real
cost of converting Austral’s economy to a Carbonless renewable future.
He replied “What is the cost of inaction””. I think that was the point that
he lost the election, as the Australian people realised that he and his party
would end up wreaking the economy, which is not all that great right now..

Wilts I can consider the Greenies being just “Nutty”, I cannot understand
why a party such as the Australian Labour Party, founded by workers in the
mid 1800 would embrace a policy, the carbonless economy, which would
destroy the economy and result in millions of unemployed and soon to be
starving workers.

Climate Change as a policy has now destroyed four Prime Ministers , Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again and Turnbull.


June 14, 2019 2:09 am

1.) The electricity grid in Germany is quite stable. I can not remember a power failure in the last decade where I live.

2.) The 350,000 families represent about 0.8% (if the number is correct) 9% of families are dependent on social assistance
I do not think that Germany is a catastrophe. Electricity prices have to be compared with income. A family in Germany spends about 2.5% of their monthly income on electricity. I think thats quite fair.

oriel kolnai
Reply to  marty
June 14, 2019 4:00 am


Point 1: ‘Power failures happen to to others. They don’t affect me.’ A magnificent and generous sentiment? Err….No!

Point 2: Only point 0.8% eh? Why that’s nothing! ‘The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic’ (J Stalin). Beware of the company you keep, marty.

Reply to  oriel kolnai
June 14, 2019 5:53 am

Do you realize that 47 million US citizens are dependent on food aid?
Are you sure the homeless have access to electricity?

Oh yes, blackouts happen everywhere.
No, they do not always occur in Germany.
List of major power failures (Wikipedia)

November 9, 1965 Northeastern United States
July 13, 1977 New Yorkk City
August 14, 2003 Northeastern US and parts of Canada
September 24, 2003 Sweden
July 12, 2004 Athens
November 4 2006 Europe [4]
Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Spain were sometimes up to 120 minutes
February 26, 2008 Florida
September 8, 2011 California, Arizona and Mexico
July 31, 2012 India

oriel kolnai
Reply to  marty
June 14, 2019 6:48 am

Relevance? Stick to the topic. (ie German power supplies)

mike macray
Reply to  marty
June 16, 2019 3:55 am

..”Do you realize that 47 million US citizens are dependent on food aid?’

How does that reconcile with the ‘obesity crisis’.. just look around!
Sometims it helps to look up from the twitterbox and look around for, shall we say, perspective !

Reply to  mike macray
June 16, 2019 12:29 pm

yes it does. there are 327,2 inhabitants in the US of which 47 million depend on food aid. That makes 248.2 million people who are not dependent on food aid.

Reply to  oriel kolnai
June 16, 2019 5:56 am

Well when you can import electricity from other (fossil fueled) countries you can hide your own grid instabilities. But if those countries “go green” too, you’re in serious trouble.

Open your eyes and look at the big picture.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN
June 16, 2019 12:37 pm

We mostly make our own electricity from fossil fuels and coal. (ok we try to get rid of coal, because it consumes land). Since we have no own oil, we import this. we also import Lpg from usa and natural gas from Russia. Renewable energy is not always sufficiently available, so now energy storage based on thermal energy and batteries are being developed. It is a question of engineering and planning. Excess energy is exported and missing is imported. What’s wrong with it?

oriel kolnai
Reply to  marty
June 17, 2019 4:13 am

What’s wrong with it?
It doesn’t work, that’s what’s wrong with it. and it costs a bomb. And it wears out quickly, contributing to the detritus shipped out by rich countries to poor ones. Some of the reasons both Poland and Germany are right now revising their wind farm commitments.

1. It doesn’t work – wind electricity operates at 20% of nameplate capacity 60% of the time, meaning constant fossil fuel backup is needed:

2. It costs a bomb – In Australia, fossil fuel electricity costs $20/30 AUD per MW/hr, wind over $100AUD:

3. It pollutes the third world: Same –

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 14, 2019 2:39 am

In the UK we have already seen the ruling conservative party come fourth in the EU election, and the Brexit party WON a recent by-election (except that a labour supporter admitted to burning 1000 crucial votes that meant they had more votes).

Current main party politicians are now living in a cloud cuckoo land world of make believe that somehow they can promote policies of economic suicide and continue to get their co-conspirators in the media to keep the sheeple voting for them.

The UK PM is now asking for politicians to vote for a permanent recession in the UK … and, with the blatant lies of Labour and Tories in the UK promising to deliver Brexit when it was clear those standing under that promise had not the slightest intention of fulfilling that promise, it’s pretty clear those parties are going into the dustbin of British history.

Likewise, not only the Democrats, but also Republicans have gone along with the crazy climate cult and whilst I’m no expert on US politics I would suspect their days are also numbered.

I hope I live to 100 because I think the next few decades will be the most interesting and dramatic change in global politics we’ve seen for hundreds of years.

matthew dalby
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 15, 2019 7:07 pm

Sadly I don’t think in the U.K. Labour and the Tories are going into the dustbin. Much as I admire Farage as our only politician that talks sense on climate change and energy policy he is basically a single issue politician focused on Brexit. He left politics after the referendum because at the time it appeared to be job done, and only came back because the government has failed to deliver what we voted for. If/when we finally leave the E.U. he leave politics for good and we will be left with a choice between the 2 main parties whose policies on energy and climate change are basically the same, or the Green Party, SNP etc. whose policies are much worse.
It seems to me that apart from the Greens no-one in Britain is proposing anything quite as insane as the Green New Deal but no matter how much Americans may hate the GND at least they have a genuine alternative, i.e. Trump. I would rather be able to choose between something absolutely awful and something not too bad than have to choose between something very bad and something equally as bad. In this respect Americans should count themselves lucky that next year they can make a choice.
My prediction for the 2020 election is that the Democrats are so out of touch with “average” Americans that their candidate will back the GND not realising how unpopular it is and Trump will win easily unless he commits political suicide by reversing his views on energy and climate change which seems highly unlikely even though some of the Republican party appear to be doing just that.

Steve Richards
June 14, 2019 2:58 am

The european grid is not ‘quite stable’.

See this paper:

” An example of this is the European power grid failure in 2006 [8] and the blackout in Italy in 2003 [9]. In both cases, Germany belonged to an exporting network region in which the frequency value increased to 50.2 Hz. The European grid is only designed for a sudden loss of 3,000 MW of generating capacity. If similar disturbances were to occur on sunny days with the current PV capacity during high supply from those PV systems, then their power infeed would be lost. Already today, PV systems in Germany exceed the value of 3,000 MW by several times on sunny days. Thus, there is a high probability of a large-scale failure to the electrical supply in those parts of Europe that would be affected by this phenomenon. ”

Adding just PV, as this paper demonstrates, let alone wind power, willy nilly, as most countries appear to do, as driven by political considerations not engineering. Causes potential instability by design or actual instability by design.

Reply to  Steve Richards
June 14, 2019 11:05 am

Blackouts are everywhere, even in the US as you all know. But here we are used to have permanent power supply. But maybe you do not know that everyone in Germany really has enough money for electricity, even recipients of social assistance. Everyone has a right to the minimum living in Germany. That’s about 700 € / month, lifelong.

Doug Huffman
June 14, 2019 3:59 am

Angelo Codevilla’s seminal essay America’s Ruling Class and The Perils of Revolution is being disappeared. It is no longer available at its original publisher.

This essay identified, to me, for the first time ‘The Country Class’.

Today, Codevilla leverages ‘The Perils of Revolution’ with A Conservative Resistance.

June 14, 2019 6:10 am

“Overall, actual evidence shows no upward trend in extreme weather, floods, droughts or sea level rise.” Mr. Driessen, as you likely know, sea level has been rising at a very slow and steady rate for about 150 years, based on sea level gauges and for thousands of years based on geologic studies. So there is an “upward trend” in sea level but no acceleration of that trend. That is probably what you meant, but as is, your statement can easily be used to simply amplify your “denier” label.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  DHR
June 14, 2019 11:27 am

Technically he was correct. He said there was “no upward trend” in “sea level rise”, the critical word there being “rise”. Since an increase (upward trend) in the rise of something is the definition of acceleration, he was saying (in a roundabout way) that there is no acceleration in sea level trends.

June 14, 2019 12:39 pm

Shouldn’t that be “useless fairy tales”. Instead of “little more than useful fairy tales”. Most fairy tales held important/useful moral understandings.

June 14, 2019 4:50 pm

Lets not forget the big blackout in Adelaide, South Australia, which was
clearly the result of the windmills shutting down as the wind speed
increased. 50 % of renewable caused the problem. But worse, the
then brown coal power station in the State of Victoria finally helped
restore the SA lights, but that power station has now been closed down
as a result of the Victorian Labour Governments Green policies.


Reply to  Michael
June 16, 2019 12:54 pm

If people in australia shut down all power plants and operate only windmills, why not plan for extreme weather conditions? There you have to make replacement power plants or electricity storage. The best are actually gas power plants that can jump in quickly for shortages. While the renewable power plants supply enough electricity, the gas-fired power plants do not consume gas during this time. Make a mix of different energy sources.

June 15, 2019 3:22 am

Re. mine of June 14, regarding how Climate Change as a policy had
destroyed four Prime Ministers.

Well on reflection I think I should also include Tony Abbott, who way back
said that Global Warming was just a load of Crap.

Because Tony Abbot elected in 2014 mainly on a anti CC policy, was
then unable o get any legalisation passed through the Upper House, the
Labour dominated Senate. As a result the economy already badly weakened by
Labour, got far worse. In fairness Labour caught the Global Financial

The polls indicated that if a election was held the Liberals would lose, so a
after a while the members panicked .The polls also indicated that the
population now believed in Climate Change. So the members decided that
Tony had to go, and the apparent “”Middle of the road”” politician Turnbull
was what the people wanted.

So Tommy Abbott was also a victim of the dreaded CC.

It was a bad mistake, the polls kept going against the Liberals, and in the
election of 2016, which Turnbull described as “”Exciting ” the Liberals
ended up losing the massive majority built up by Tony Abbott., and went
into minority government .

Finally the members of the party decided that Turnbull had to go . They put in Morrison.

The result was that the Liberal Government won the election, against all of
the polls who said it was Bill Shorten and the ALP. So much for Polls.


Johann Wundersamer
June 15, 2019 5:00 am

“Nearly 350,000 German families have had their electricity cut off because they can not afford to pay for their power bills.”

And it will cost these families a lot of money to get reconnected to the electricity grid: first they have to pay penalties + re-charge fees.

Johann Wundersamer
June 15, 2019 5:19 am

“In Britain more than 3,000 elderly people die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly.”

No problem with Greta Thunberg, old white males dying.

Old white females dying is a affordable collateral damage. Kind of necessary evil.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights