Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

Tallying its huge impacts on our energy, industries, living standards and personal freedoms

Guest Post by Paul Driessen

Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently announced his “Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice.” While it might be viewed as a Green New Deal Lite, the plan would inflict enormous economic, environmental and societal pain on most of the nation, for no climate benefits.

First, as I’ve noted here and elsewhere, Mr. Biden’s “climate emergency” exists in computer models and alarmist reports, but not in the Real World. Warming, cooling, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising seas are no more frequent or severe than Earth has experienced many times before.

Before we destroy our energy and economic system, we need to see solid, irrefutable proof that we face an actual climate crisis – and be able to debate and cross examine those who make such claims. So far, instead of a debate, climate crisis skeptics just get vilified and threatened with prosecution.

Second, anytime you hear the term “environmental justice,” you know someone is trying to create a new category of victims, sow more discord along racial and economic lines, and punish someone new in the name of “justice.” While we still have pockets of pollution, America’s cars, air and water have been cleaned up dramatically since 1970. Moreover, the best way to prevent, survive and recover from any disaster is to have the energy, wealth and technologies that fossil fuels continue to make possible.

Third, there’s nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about wind, solar or battery power. Those technologies require enormous amounts of land, concrete, steel and other raw materials – and many of their most critical materials are extracted and processed using child labor and near-slave wages for adults, with few or no workplace safety rules, and with horrific impacts on land, air and water quality.

Fourth, the Biden plan would cost many times the “$1.7 trillion in federal funds over ten years” that his talking points use to entice voters: dollars, lost jobs, lower living standards and fewer freedoms.

The former VP would rejoin the Paris climate treaty; reverse many Trump corporate tax cuts; seek or impose multiple mandates, “enforcement mechanisms” and “legally binding” emission reductions; and at some point demand cap-and-trade schemes and/or taxes on what he likes to call “carbon emissions.”

That term is intended to suggest dirty soot coming out of smoke stacks. The actual emissions are carbon dioxide, the life-giving gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow and produce oxygen. The more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, the better and faster crop, forest and grassland plants grow.

Mr. Biden would also impose tariffs on “carbon-intensive” goods imported from countries that “fail to meet their climate obligations.” That will quickly affect just about everything we eat, drink, drive, do and use – because his plan would soon make it difficult for America to grow or produce much of anything … and China, India and other rapidly developing countries are not about to reduce their fossil fuel use.

Every Biden Plan provision would increase the cost of living and of doing business. The folks he hobnobs with – who will write, implement and enforce these rules … and bankroll his election campaign – won’t much notice or mind the soaring prices. But middle and blue-collar classes certainly will.

Other components of the Biden Green New Deal multiply those impacts and costs.

* His ultimate goal is to rapidly replace America’s fossil fuels with industrial wind and solar facilities – to provide electricity for factories, hospitals, homes, offices, data centers, vehicles and countless other uses.

Modern industrialized societies simply cannot function on expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity. As Germany, Britain, Spain, Australia and other countries have shown, that kind of energy eliminates 3-4 times more jobs than it creates – especially in factories and assembly lines, which cannot operate with repeated electricity interruptions … and cannot compete with foreign companies that get affordable 24/7/365 coal-based electricity and pay their workers far less than $15, $25 or $45 per hour.

* “Rigorous new fuel economy standards” would speed the rate at which 100% of all cars and light trucks become electric. (But what about replacing those batteries – and wind and solar backup batteries?)

This program would be supported by “more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030,” to augment private charging stations in homes and neighborhoods – paid or subsidized by taxpayers. It would also require upgrading home and neighborhood electrical systems to provide far more power for rapid vehicle charging, and longer hours of peak demand. Another trillion dollars?

Extending mileage for (much more expensive) electric vehicles would mean lighter, smaller cars … and thus thousands of additional deaths and millions of additional serious injuries. Dollar costs would soar. But how do we quantify the cost of injury and death tolls?

* Federal tax and environmental laws, subsidies and other incentives would be used to persuade counties and communities to “to battle climate change” by altering their zoning and other regulations “to eliminate sprawl and allow for denser, more affordable housing near public transit.”

This would significantly impact suburban living and property values. And packing more people into more apartment buildings would likely mean diseases spread more rapidly and to more people.

* Other federal programs would provide subsidies and incentives for home and business owners to reduce “the carbon footprint” of US buildings 50% by 2035.

This could involve retrofitting them for improved energy efficiency and/or replacing gas furnaces with electric heat or heat pumps – or just tearing down and replacing entire buildings. More trillions of dollars.

* The Biden plan would also ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.

This would lock up vast quantities of valuable, vitally needed fuel. It would replace tens of billions of dollars of annual federal and state government bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenue with tens of billions in subsidies for pseudo-renewable energy. It would eliminate millions of jobs in the petroleum and petrochemical industries, in numerous companies that rely on those industries, and in countless sectors of local and state economies that depend on all that public land energy activity and revenue.

* Finally, a new transcontinental high-speed (electricity-powered) rail system would connect the coasts – or at least a couple of cities on each coast – for a few trillion dollars and with a lot of eminent domain.

This is California’s costly “bullet train to nowhere” on steroids. It would bypass numerous towns and cities, marginalizing many of them and destroying trillions of dollars in property values – especially if his rail system is intended to replace or significantly reduce air travel and long distance driving.

The cumulative electricity demand for all these Biden Green New Deal programs would be at least double what the United States currently generates. It would mean wind turbines and solar panels on scales that few can even imagine … especially as they are installed in less and less windy and sunny areas. And if all this power is to be backed up by batteries – since coal and gas-fired backup power generators would be eliminated – we would need billions of batteries … and thus even more land and raw materials.

Exactly how many turbines, panels and batteries? On how many millions of acres? Made from how many billions of tons of metals and concrete? Extracted from how many trillions of tons of ore? In the USA or overseas, in someone else’s backyard? Under what child labor and environmental standards?

After banning oil and gas permitting, would Mr. Biden open other federal lands to exploration, mining and processing for the rare earth and other materials these massive “renewable” energy systems will require? That would certainly create new industries and jobs. Or will America just have to be 100% dependent on Chinese and other foreign suppliers for all these technologies?

All of this smells of eco-fascism: state control of companies and production, government control of our lives, and silencing and punishing anyone who challenges climate crisis claims or green energy agendas.

Perhaps Mr. Biden can address all these issues – at his next town hall meeting or press conference. Indeed, the time to discuss these issues is NOW. Before we get snow-jobbed and railroaded into actions we will sorely regret. Or maybe those of us who realize how insane all of this is will just have to opt out — and establish Biden-free zones and climate sanctuary states where none of his policies and restrictions apply.

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.

4 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 16, 2019 2:30 pm

With all the problems Driessen points out, Biden’s plan is less expensive than that of Ocasio-Cortez and Markey. So, it is more “moderate”.
So is being shot in the head with a .243 Win as opposed to a ..375 H&H Magnum.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 16, 2019 9:09 pm

[Blockquote]Mr. Biden would also impose tariffs on “carbon-intensive” goods imported from countries that “fail to meet their climate obligations.” That will quickly affect just about everything we eat, drink, drive, do and use – because his plan would soon make it difficult for America to grow or produce much of anything … and China, India and other rapidly developing countries are not about to reduce their fossil fuel use. [/blockquote]
China and India will never see tariffs placed on their “carbon intensive” goods as their individual “Climate Obligations” are to do whatever they want until after 2030 or 2035 then decide if they want to make Climate Obligation Promises or not beyond that. Likely if they do it will be to continue BAU

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bryan A
June 17, 2019 6:22 am

Bryan, use the less than – greater than signs instead of the [ – ] signs for a blockquote.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 17, 2019 10:05 am

I did hit the wrong button but unfortunately the ability to go back and alter posts has been removed by WordPress

Reply to  Bryan A
June 17, 2019 8:43 am

Bryan A
India’s Carbon emission is hardly 2 Metric Tons one third that of the World average. How can anyone expect India to reduce even a Kilo of Carbon emission till it reaches the World average Carbon emission ?

Bryan A
Reply to  Ashok Patel
June 17, 2019 10:02 am

I don’t. My point is, until everyone is on a level playing field, slanting the game on favor of one player makes no sense.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 17, 2019 7:13 am

I suggest the these environmental salvation schemes be implemented in the same universe that their climate models describe…the cybersphere. The loons can then test them for efficacy to their hearts content.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 17, 2019 10:55 am


June 16, 2019 2:38 pm

Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

Liberalism (progressivism, Marxism, whatever) is for those who cannot tolerate reality.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
June 16, 2019 3:50 pm

… and conservatism is for those who think we should not have come down out of the trees. 🙂

Not all liberals are Marxists. I would say that there are many of us who formerly were left of center but no longer feel comfortable with how things have turned out. Jordan Peterson calls himself a classic English liberal. Most of the media call him a conservative.

Reply to  commieBob
June 16, 2019 4:30 pm

What is the difference between a liberal and a marxists? Damned if I can tell.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Kamikazedave
June 16, 2019 4:56 pm

Karl Marx developed an economic theory that demonstrably, emphatically does not work. The climate watermelons are just trying a relatively new way to get to the same failed state.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
June 16, 2019 5:15 pm

Classic liberalism is better known as libertarianism.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
June 16, 2019 6:17 pm

Marxism is easy to define. Liberalism, on the other hand, has all kinds of mutually contradictory definitions. Here’s one that you probably weren’t aware of:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. link

Kevin Lohse
Reply to  commieBob
June 16, 2019 8:01 pm

So where did the slave-owning Democrat Party lose its way and why has it never recovered?

Reply to  commieBob
June 17, 2019 5:27 am

Using an archaic definition for liberal justifies avoiding labeling those socialist leaning, tyranny by democracy, over the top ‘human rights’ claiming fools; who tend to deny basic human rights, e.g. privacy, liberty, justice, “free speech”, “right to vete”, etc., as “liberals”.

They have not been liberals, by definition, for approximately two decades now.

Progressives, progressive elites, democrat, snowflakes, socialists, millennials, ignorant inexperienced idiots, whatever; are better labels for people whose words and/or actions are anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights, anti “equal justice for all”, anti-democracy and frankly anti-“Human Rights”.

Once again, the negative aspects of human mobs is demonstrated as squeaky wheel extremists take ownership of the terms “Liberal” and “Democrat”.

They are neither and should be clearly identified as definitively not “Liberal”. “Should” is the operative word here as compliant media and politicians try to control the general population of democrats by inclusive generalizations and demonization of other groups.

Reply to  commieBob
June 17, 2019 7:26 am

I disagree, as I seem to belong to the group of ‘archaic liberalism’, and I suspect I am not alone, in that I could not care less what you do to yourself as long as you don’t harm others, expect anyone else to pay for it, or demand that others save you from the consequences of your own doing.

Reply to  commieBob
June 17, 2019 1:32 pm

Actually, Liberal & Conservative are relative terms and must be applied operantly to specifically stated situations. Liberal is from the Latin “liber” (free) as in “free to change,” while Conservative is from the Latin “conservare” (to save thoroughly) as in “preserving the status quo.” A conservative American in, say, 1955, would have wanted to preserve the freedoms of the US Constitution, while a conservative Russian in 1955 would have wanted to maintain the totalitarianistic communism of the USSR at the time. Libertarianism, OTOH, is an absolute: freedom from regulation.

Reply to  commieBob
June 16, 2019 5:14 pm

If you push government as the solution to our problems, then you might as well be a Marxist, because that is where we will always end up once we start down that road.

Reply to  commieBob
June 16, 2019 5:39 pm

A classic liberal is one who believes in Liberty- the freedom of the individual to be themselves, make their own choices, interact with who they wish and who agree to, etc. In other words, most of the founding Fathers in the US were classic liberals. They wrote it into the declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Nothing coming from the left wing of the Democratic party(about 80% of it) is in any way “liberal”. It is Fascism, Marxism, and totalitarian government. We spent nearly a century proving that those ideas are not viable and lead to violent wars. These governments killed, and are still killing, millions of people every year. But with their total control, or the dream of it, we don’t hear about these major negative problems.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  commieBob
June 17, 2019 12:48 am

No, some are Stalinists instead.

I am also curious as to your semi random word salad about coming down from the trees.

Given that it has been the constant drive to improve and better our lives that has led to a global situation where I can sit half way around the world and discuss in real time this very issue, then I believe that you may not accurately understand exactly what a conservative is.

Progressives want to ‘progress’ the world. The system is broken and only they are smart enough to fix it. The rules need to be changed.

Conservatives are more conservative because they do not believe the system is broken and do not want to change the world. They instead seek to understand the game and play it better. Conservatives are actually more inclined to embrace change PROVIDED they can see an advantage to it. Why? Cause it improves the life experience of the people they care about and love. They want to improve and improvement drives change.

What is more is the fact that conservatives understand that it is possible to improve as a group, not necessarily by working together under some grand central plan, but because organising a win/win situation with another person is still a win for them. Wealth is created. It is not a finite and it is very rarely just laying around. There is no peak wealth. Henry VIII was at the time insanely powerful but didn’t even have running water. If he dropped around your place this evening and you said, “Hey Big 8, just got to call the misses, chuck the telly on and help yourself to some beers from the fridge” he would be utterly speechless.

(then he would have you thrown in the Tower, dissolve all your assets and use the money to quarrel with France, but FIRST he would have been utterly speechless.)

Conservatives would have been the ones coming down from the trees and thinking about all the extra food that was available down here at ground level. Progressives would have been the ones complaining that the ones still in the trees have been unfairly disadvantaged by the new ground walkers and demand they not only return to the trees, but to bring back all the new food they found as well, because, injustice.

(Marxists would demand the remaining tree people rise up against the ground walkers, seize the plains for the good of the entire group and organise a quota system… but only after ‘electing’ them into overall command first.)

Also you should know by now not to read too much into what ‘the media’ call people. They call anyone who wants to open a debate with them a Right Wing Extremist, so they might not be the best judges of character.

Reply to  Craig from Oz
June 17, 2019 3:11 am

Very well written.

June 16, 2019 2:58 pm

The UN is working their plan unabated with useful idiots everywhere..

Dave Fair
Reply to  markl
June 16, 2019 3:42 pm

Money talks; the rest of us walk (literally).

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 16, 2019 5:16 pm

Or take a bike, assuming we can afford one.

Reply to  markl
June 16, 2019 5:26 pm

All we have to do is stop writing CHECKS to the UN. Easy peasy, problem solved! Oh, and let them build their new HQ in Zimbabwe or Somalia. Current NYC site to be razed and a new Trump Hotel ascendant!

Ron Long
June 16, 2019 3:30 pm

Good report, Paul D. Environmental Justice? The crazy rush to wind and solar, really nothing more than virtue-signaling, is at the expense of our flying friends. No other industry is permitted to chop up or cook birds and bats at anywhere near this scale. Crazy Uncle Joe/AOC et al are delusional or oblivious, neither of which is an admirable state.

June 16, 2019 3:54 pm

This kind of fantasy-think is what kept us in the Dark Ages for so long.

Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 3:59 pm

Solar and onshore wind are cheaper than coal or nuclear now. Even if you don’t believe that the climate is changing, that the earth is getting warmer and that extreme weather events are happening more regularly, it makes economic sense. It’s not just the cost benefit, but also the benefits to health and lifestyle that comes from less particulates in the air.

Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 5:05 pm

Wind and solar are cheaper if and only if one uses accounting practices that would shame Hollywood studios calculating profit sharing. It is the nameplate ratings, not the actual delivered power. It almost certainly counts subsidies and production tax credits. And it does not deeply discount the intermittency of either, and properly account for the conventional sources needed as backup.
Nice try on a silly talking point.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 5:11 pm

How many stand-alone wind turbines would it take to fully replace one coal-fired power plant? [No cheating now; capacity factors and the costs of intermittent backup have to be used in any analysis.]

And, please, don’t try to B.S. someone who has spent a lifetime in electric system planning, finance, design, construction and operation and maintenance of all power system components.

Reply to  Dave Fair
June 16, 2019 7:07 pm

How many stand-alone wind turbines would it take to fully replace one coal-fired power plant?

That correct answer to that question – no amount of wind turbines can replace a coal fired power station.

A better question would be how many wind turbines with combined energy storage systems can replace a coal fired power station.

The answer to this depends on the cost of wind turbines; the cost of the storage systems and the degree of intermittency of the wind.

In most circumstances you could work on a wind capacity factor of 10% and a storage system able to supply load for 5 days. So to replace a 1000MW coal station you would need 10,000MW (say 3,000 x 3MW turbines) of wind turbine capacity and 120,000MWh (say 1,000 Hornsdale Power Reserves) of storage capacity with 1000MW peak output.

In current prices, such a system could deliver power at a cost of $400/MWh; almost an order of magnitude higher than the current cost of coal generation.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 5:17 pm

Weather solar and wind are cheaper is debatable. If they were cheaper they wouldn’t need to be subsidised for their construction and operation. But once built, they might be cheaper to run at midday. Clearly at night they don’t work at all, so they aren’t a solution to anything.

If weather was getting more extreme, the cheaper solution is the harden the assets subject to those extremes. The proposed solution actually does nothing to insure safety or to prevent damage. Nothing.

Solar and wind do not reduce particulates in the air.

Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 5:18 pm

“Solar and onshore wind are cheaper than coal or nuclear now.” Is that why they’re subsidized? Or is that why as we add both our electrical bills go up? And with a lifespan of 10 to twenty (guess, but look at how many have been around longer than 10) years how will be replace ALL them practically, and economically? Particulates? Solved.

Bryan A
Reply to  markl
June 17, 2019 10:07 am

Obviously they are subsidized by the Man Camp Porn Rings that operate at the materials extraction and processing sites.

William B. Grubel
Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 5:21 pm

Don’t know where you’re getting your numbers from, but the system I just put in (state of the art for now) will never pay for itself compared to being connected to the grid. Even if it runs maintenance free for the rest of its life simply replacing the batteries at the end of their life will cost more than grid supplied for the same time period. Solar NEVER makes sense unless you are totally off grid.

Tom Konerman
Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 5:22 pm

“Solar and onshore wind are cheaper than coal or nuclear now”
On a cold windless night they are absolutely worthless.

Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 6:00 pm

Uhhhh, errrr, ahem… for the foreseeable future, grid scale wind and solar require spinning backup. It makes more sense to eliminate the intermediate step and cut straight to the spinning backup.

Wind and solar have some place as they are sometimes the best choice in specific applications, but grid scale? Not so much.

Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 16, 2019 7:23 pm

Realistically, renewables are more expensive. The reason they appear cheaper is because the externality of renewables requiring hydrocarbon backup, along with other things already mentioned, aren’t priced in.

Reply to  Tim Jarrett
June 17, 2019 3:50 pm

If that is true, why are countries still building coal burning power plants? Those countries may or may not believe in climate change, but they certainly believe in economics.
When your opinions do not match the reality, then you must re-evaluate your opinions and what they are based on.

June 16, 2019 4:03 pm

the environmental activists and politicians who make use of them are on a deadline. They have to instigate stringent policies so when the weather cycles around to cooling they can claim to have cured the problem.

They are then positioned to solve the next great crisis.

Fail to instigate their cure and they will be exposed for the fakes they are and lose all those government grants.

Bruce Cobb
June 16, 2019 4:05 pm

Not to worry; Trump will mop the floor with him, wring him out, and hang him out to dry. It’s like the Dems WANT to lose.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 16, 2019 5:23 pm

Biden’s going to be gone before the 2020 primaries. He’s old, tired, and phoning it in the way Hillary did. The only slogan he could reasonably run on is “It’s My Turn.” And 95% of the population wants the Obama economy back like a root canal. The rest of the pack spew SO much stupid nonsense that I’m already seriously wondering of the Powers That Be (World Bank, IMF, Gnomes of Brussels and Davos) like what they see and have ordered the Dims to throw the election to Trump. Either that or their soy-based diet has finally shrunk their regressive brains, you tell me!

I’m sure of one thing, though; nobody in real life’s gonna dismantle our newly-attained energy independence any time soon. To me, the GND’ers come off like electric-car geeks from the 1970’s.
This is not of the mainstream, folks!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 16, 2019 9:48 pm

A colourful metaphor about Trump cleaning up.
An Australian Commentator is on record as saying that Trump will go through the Democratic contenders like the German Panzers through Northern France.
Equally colourful.

June 16, 2019 4:06 pm

… Mr. Biden’s “climate emergency” exists in computer models and alarmist reports, but not in the Real World.

If you could write a model, just based on physics plus starting conditions, and if that model accurately portrayed reality, then that model might be valid.

Provided, however, that the observed trend has in no way entered the construction or operation of the models, the procedure would appear to be sound. Edward Lorenz

Lorenz has been arguably the most influential meteorologist in history, having laid the foundations of chaos theory. He discovered chaos theory as a result of his pioneering work on climate models.

The trouble is that all GCMs are tuned. link The other problem is that the tuning is anything but transparent. IMHO, it’s no better than a glorified curve fitting exercise.

The use of models to support CAGW theory is no better than junk science.

old engineer
June 16, 2019 4:32 pm

What is the difference between Biden’s tariffs and Trump’s tariffs? Oh, I see, Biden would not put tariffs on Chinese goods. Because, for the Paris Accords, China pledged to do nothing until 2030, and since they exactly that, they have NOT “failed to meet their Climate obligations.”

old engineer
June 16, 2019 4:34 pm

What is the difference between Biden’s tariffs and Trump’s tariffs? Oh, I see, Biden would not put tariffs on Chinese goods. Because, for the Paris Accords, China pledged to do nothing until 2030, and since they are doing exactly that, they have NOT “failed to meet their Climate obligations.”

Geoff Sherrington
June 16, 2019 4:35 pm

Why does this stupid concept persist?
Little formal analysis is needed to show its impossibility.
What has gone wrong with the collective mentality of the citizens of the USA ( and my Australia)?
Has the power of lifetimes of bombardment by advertising saturated the available brain space for independent thinking?

The whole concept is so weird that it is past my mental ability to understand all about it except its impossibility. Geoff

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 16, 2019 5:12 pm

I don’t mind if the population is stupid, they are mostly harmless in their stupidity. It’s when the leaders of the nation, and the leaders of the science institutions are stupid, that they destroy the nation out of dumbness.

Yes, anyone with the slightest ability to consider cause and effect will quickly realise the science and the solution are both ridiculous.

Understanding why these leaders are so daft is beyond me. And sadly, even if they ask their advisors, they are twice and dumb as the politicians. It’s a deadly spiral.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 16, 2019 5:26 pm

“Why does this stupid concept persist?” +1 Propaganda/media. There’s been excellent papers on the fallacy of wind and solar taking over electricity generation and energy requirements but they are ignored.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 16, 2019 7:39 pm

What has gone wrong with the collective mentality of the citizens of the USA ( and my Australia)?

This is a good question and deserving of serious consideration.

In describing the malady, I find the term dingbatitis to be most fitting as this describes an affliction where delusion becomes paramount; often the result of overusing various drugs.

It is reasonably apparent that it is highly associated with inner city living and working. If you look across the Anglospere you find that green socialist views thrive in the inner city environment; this environment is conducive to dingbatitis.

One of the possible causes is the low level of negative ions in the inner city environment. People constantly exposed to positive ions, without relief, become depressed. Experiencing a change to higher level of negative ions increases serotonin and improves brain function. People who work in the inner city but move out to the suburbs on a daily basis are less likely to suffer dingbatitis. People who work in fresh moist forests and farmland are less likely to suffer dingbatitis.

Another possibility that needs to be considered is living and working in high-rise buildings. There are studies that show the prevalence of heart disease and stroke increase with the height above ground level that people work and sleep. This could be a function alone of the increasing static electric field at elevation but could also be associated with a reduction of negative ions at elevation.

There may be simpler explanations but there is no doubt that dingbatitis is predominantly an inner city affliction.

One of the compounding factors with dingbatitis is that the MSM offices are inevitably located in the inner cities resulting in MSM journalists being at high risk. I recall after Trump was elected, some MSM commentators expressed the need to get out into the suburbs and country more to get a broader perspective but I expect that was fleeting.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 17, 2019 2:19 am

Geoff – take heart. Our Australia is not so daft, in fact. Witness, the election of Scott Morrison. What happens when the bully-boys try to intimidate everyone into submission is that the general public just keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Even opinion pollsters won’t be told their thoughts. But, as Jo Nova put it: Bullying works in public, but people vote alone.

Just hope that the growth of dingbat inner city populations slows down enough for sanity to prevail.

Eric Brownson
June 16, 2019 4:51 pm

Mr. Biden hasn’t mentioned the expected effect on the climate as the result of his proposals. The MSM is particularly uncurious, as well. I wonder why?

Don’t Americans deserve to know what they’ll be getting for their hard-earned TRILLION$?

June 16, 2019 5:42 pm

I still think it is all about a retrovirus that infects the brains of certain people. Most get first exposed in school, especially the elite universities. Just kidding at least I hope.

Following this issue scientifically and politically since well before Hansen preached his gospel to Congress, each year I tell myself it just can’t get any crazier. Every year I am proven wrong. It is indeed like they were all brainwashed or drank truly some strange Kool-Aid. Sad part is I basically understand most of what happened that got us to this point in Western Democracies. The greatest civilization in history and we have political parties preaching our own destructions. Why? Ask some people and they will say their are just guilt ridden liberals. Nope, this is all about power, absolute power. How many people in history have sought world domination? For those believing in the UN world domination hypothesis it just ain’t so.

Kevin R.
June 16, 2019 6:07 pm

Sounds like something a hostile foreign power would want done to us until we’re so weak they feel they can safely invade.

June 16, 2019 6:17 pm

We need leadership which can do something. Sleepy Biden is a step backward.

The US should lead the world in terms exploiting more energy sources.
A major source of energy is in the heavens- space has potential of near infinite energy.
If for some weird reason you are anti-space exploration, another fairly large source of energy would
ocean deposits of Methane Hydrates.
And moderate direction in terms having the current technology is using fracking- as US is currently doing and can do much more of.
If for some weird reason you anti-space and don’t want to use hydrocarbons for energy.
The next option is dramatic increase in nuclear power electrical generation. Or I don’t favor using much more nuclear power than 30% of electrical power generation of US needs [currently about 19%] but one could increase it to say 50% of all electrical power and make electrical power cheap enough that using electric vehicles makes some sense [using a lot electric vehicles will require more electrical power, so 50% of all electric power from Nuclear is an even larger increase than merely slightly more than doubling our nuclear electrical generation of nation which currently uses more nuclear power than any other nation.
Or quite dramatic increase and nuclear energy takes a lot time to develop, so massive increase and in very short time period- it’s fit emergency situation rather sort of an “adjustment” or new direction to go in.

Anyways, I think we should explore the Moon to determine if there is commercially viable lunar water to mine, which could done in less than 10 years, and then do major exploration of Mars.
So the US plan to land female crew on Moon by 2024 and at total cost of 20 to 30 billion, is generally in that direction. I would favor a more robotic exploration of Moon and finish lunar exploration within 10 years by land crew and having lunar samples returned to Earth. And then start the Mars exploration.

If you mining lunar water, you doing it to make rocket fuel. And you need a lot energy to make enough rocket fuel. And the Moon, and particularly the lunar polar regions are good place to make electrical power from sunlight.
The near term goal involves selling lunar water at about $500 per kg and making rocket fuel which sells at about $1500 per kg. And selling electrical power [as much as is needed and whenever is needed] for about $75 per kw hour [on Earth electrical power sells for about $.05 per Kw hour.
If that can be done, the Moon becomes viable destination. Or getting to Moon in near term lowers by about 1/10th of current costs, and getting stuff off the Moon surface costs about 1/100th of current cost.
Such situation allows cheap lunar bases and people [tourists or experts] to go to the Moon. But more important is future uses of moon, because in that situation costs could 1/2 every say 5 years. Or Moon is gold rush in terms of growth.
Meanwhile, one is exploring Mars. And you exploring Mars to determine if Mars could viable place for human settlements. Millions of people assume Mars is a viable for human settlement, but I think Mars needs to explored in order to determine if this is the case, and degree that it’s viable. And where would be better places on Mars to have future human settlements. And if life is found on Mars, that could a serious problem in regards to human settlements. Many might assume alien life found on Mars, would only be a good thing, but I think this is question. And question that needs to be explored and determined what risks there could be.
If one has lunar rocket fuel being made and if Mars could have viable sites for human settlement. lunar activity could greater increased, and larger amount of activity on the Moon will make Mars settlements even more viable [cheaper and safer, and better standards of living, and better future prospects [faster development].
So in such a future, within 50 year of lunar water mining, lunar water might sell for $10 per kg and lunar electrical power could as cheap as electrical prices currently bought on Earth.
At such point in the future, one can make space power satellite which could provide 1/2 of global electrical power needs and at lower cost they current electricity costs.
Also you move global manufacturing and industry off Earth. And etc.
And etc includes possible star travel within a century after this- mainly to explore in order to see if maybe it’s worth going there. Of course simple things like having very huge telescopes in orbit would be first be used to explore these other worlds.
Anyhow, solar energy in space is quite different than solar energy on Earth surface.

Flight Level
June 16, 2019 6:29 pm

Civilisations have risen, fallen. Not all of them monarchies BTW. If self-destruction has become the major election wining argument, then, ok, it’s all said, one more chapter closes.

It’s all about natural selection. The most fit survive. Even more so when an entire system is unfit to the point of actively working for the demise and destruction of it’s survival means.

My guess is that not all cultures are so dependent on their own ideal for self-harm and will survive and actively combat the green intellectual terrorism that started it all.

June 16, 2019 6:36 pm

Ha Ha
You people have such short memories. Typical deniers.

Do you not remember when AOC promoted her Green New Deal ?
It fell under the scrutiny that all brilliant, novel ideas are subject to and wisely,
for a gal of her age she realised it was a joke. You would have to have the brain of a sea-sponge not to see that.

Now the erudite and wordly-wise Biden has a similar idea and all you can do is mock.!!
Don’t you realise that it’s a deadly serious effort to save the planet. or just another joke (depending which way the voters swing)

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  EternalOptimist
June 16, 2019 10:10 pm

A serious effort or a joke?

When a Democrat speaks it, it is both simultaneously. Pretty impressive to be honest…

Rod Evans
Reply to  EternalOptimist
June 17, 2019 1:38 am

Look up Schizophrenia. You may find it helpful.

June 16, 2019 6:58 pm

I don’t disagree with you on a lot of these points, but I think it’s important not to go too far on your criticisms–particularly when you open yourself to criticism that may be warranted, but which can result in painting the entire point of view as fallacious, when perhaps only a few points are debatable. Some examples:

> speed the rate at which 100% of all cars and light trucks become electric.
> (But what about replacing those batteries – and wind and solar
> backup batteries?)

What *about* replacing those batteries? There’s a big business in used car parts, either parts that weren’t damaged in an accident, or parts that can be recycled for their content. Always has been. And so far, Prius batteries (the case that I’m more familiar with) have been pretty darn reliable, meaning they aren’t the part that goes bad first.

> upgrading home and neighborhood electrical systems to
> provide far more power for rapid vehicle charging, and
> longer hours of peak demand. Another trillion dollars?

Lots of power companies have policies in place that make it cheaper for the owner to do the charging in non-peak hours, spreading the load out more evenly. And house-top solar panels can help too. (Is the “trillion dollars” a real estimate, or a shot in the dark?)

> Extending mileage for (much more expensive) electric vehicles
> would mean lighter, smaller cars … and thus thousands of
> additional deaths and millions of additional serious injuries.

I think this is just plain wrong. First, I’ve had several hybrids. In each case I debated with myself whether it would make sense to just get a conventional car–and each time, when estimating the number of miles I’d drive the cars, and the difference in what I’d pay for gas, the hybrid came out cheaper. (I’m actually knocking myself for not having gone with the Prius Prime this time around, for exactly that reason.)

And as for the deaths and injuries, yes: a smaller car suffers in a collision with a larger vehicle. But cars these days are designed for safety. A relative had two car crashes in hybrids (it would probably have been the same in any small car). In both cases the car was totaled, and she walked away with virtually no injuries. The car absorbed much of the impact in its crumple zone, and the airbags and seatbelt did the rest. Also, if two smaller, lighter, cars collide, it’s no worse than if two Detroit Dinosaurs collide; size only comes into play when one vehicle in the collision is much larger. So if all cars become lighter, the danger of welterweight vs. heavyweight is lessened.

> Federal tax and environmental laws, subsidies and other incentives would be
> used to persuade counties and communities to “to battle climate change” by
> altering their zoning and other regulations “to eliminate sprawl and allow
> for denser, more affordable housing near public transit.”
> This would significantly impact suburban living and property values.

Yes, it might increase suburban property levels, since people who don’t want to live in denser housing will want to live in those suburbs. You have a problem with that? (Ok, here’s a problem: I may not live long enough to see my house go up in value because of this.)

> And packing more people into more apartment buildings
> would likely mean diseases spread more rapidly and to
> more people.

Oh, come on. Get real.

> Other federal programs would provide subsidies and incentives
> for home and business owners to reduce “the carbon footprint”
> of US buildings 50% by 2035.
> This could involve retrofitting them for improved energy efficiency
> and/or replacing gas furnaces with electric heat or heat pumps –
> or just tearing down and replacing entire buildings. More trillions
> of dollars.

Yes, big bucks–but. Last month I had to replace my aging worn out heat pump. Guess what–the new one is much more efficient than the old one was when it was new, meaning over the next ten years (should I live that long) I’ll recover my investment. And buildings get torn down and new ones built all the time, for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment. I saw the first large event (a Billy Graham Crusade) at the Kingdome in Seattle in 1976, and it was demolished in 2000. That’s probably an extreme example (the Notre Dame lasted a lot longer), but things happen.

So yes, I agree that there’s lots of fault to find with these “green” plans, but don’t exaggerate. It paints your whole argument with bogosity.

June 16, 2019 7:23 pm

It’s called an economic emergency from a hard recession. Keep in mind that many trading partners have adjusted their corporate tax rates to remain below the US. That means going back to pre Trump Era sky high rates would be a massive mistake. Also beware the next crisis opportunity as Rahm Emmanuel would say in designing a massive stimulus spending surge for all pet Party programs of the last fifty years.

Biden is either checking off special interest groups on his long list without intent to deliver or GND extra lite is the final plan. Also telling trade partners to wait out Trump is a massive mistake in the overdue effort to undo sixty years of tariff surrender and retreat at mfg. worker expense.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 16, 2019 11:48 pm

I think the solution to all of these problems is to make the minimum wage $1,000,000.00 a year. That way, no one has to worry about the cost of gasoline, or food, or anything else.

I’ll bet some of you conservatives out there would have a beef with that proposal, but that’s only because you are inhuman scum and unworthy of being listened to, to end on a preposition.

June 16, 2019 7:31 pm

This is hilarious. Check out these peoples’ faces when reality bites.

Johann Wundersamer
June 16, 2019 10:30 pm
Johann Wundersamer
June 16, 2019 10:43 pm Panorama

Actually not to fight: When electric cars catch fire

Firefighters face new challenges Actually not to fight: When electric cars catch fire,brennende-e-autos-feuerwehr-100.html

Adam Gallon
June 17, 2019 12:19 am

Now, how much Cobalt, Lithium & Rare Earth Metals will this require?
It’s been calculated, that if the UK switched to EVs, we’ve around 31.5 million cars, then we alone would be consume twice the amount of Cobalt that’s currently mined, globally.
Lighter cars, leading to thousands more deaths due to car crashes? I doubt it. Try learning to drive & wear seat belts.

John Pickens
June 17, 2019 1:34 am

It is amazing to me that my tax dollars are being used to subsidize electric cars and charging stations when:

1. There is absolutely no plan to increase electrical generation and transmission to levels needed should adoption of EV’s increase to levels desired by “environmentalists”.

2. There is currently not a single lithium battery recycling facility anywhere in the world except for pilot plants vying for subsidized contracts from EV manufacturers.

3. Since there is no example of a successful lithium battery recycling plant, there is no way to calculate the true life cycle energy consequences of EV operation. It is very likely that recovery of lithium and Cobalt from used batteries will consume more energy than expected, and will further tilt the life cycle balance more into the red.

June 17, 2019 1:43 am

Philo, June 16th. He sums it up perfectly. There is nothing wrong with
the word “”Liberal””. In the 18 the century in the UK, to be Liberal was
to be basically a middle of the road person, not a hard right Conservative.
Back then they were known as the Wigs and the Tories.

In Australia we have a Conservative government but it is called Liberal.
In the 1930 tees its founder Robert Menzies went to the UK and found that
there were three political parties. Labour from about 1850, and its base were
the poor to lower middle class. The Liberals were from the lower
middle class to the middle of the road, with many rich people liking its
values and joining it. The Conservatives were hard right wing., but in my
opinion the USA Republicans are not as right wing as the original Tories.

Words change their meaning, or are forced to change by being misuded by
certain groups. A good example is the wor Gay. Read Agnathia Christies
novels, its frequently used in its correct sense, mening happy and yes gay.

For example a Gay batcheler was a hetrosexuel who enjoyed a
relationship with the ladies, but did not want to be married to them. He
wanted the best of both worlds.

The USA Liberals were once the traditional Liberals , but today would
correctly be the USA equivalent of the Labour Party, in fact the left
wing of the Australian Labour Party, which is close in its thinking to the
Australian Green Party.

Languages change all of the time, new words are invented, old words are
captured and misused, and so the language evolves.


June 17, 2019 5:44 am

From my months of reading of journal articles, I have deduced that private/public entities must finance maximal research on carbon and methane and let the free markets take care of renewables. This even satisfies change skeptics.

June 17, 2019 5:55 am

I won’t read beyond ‘Environmental Justice.’

They aren’t serious, or they are insane.

June 17, 2019 11:03 am

Home Power Connections ==> “It would also require upgrading home and neighborhood electrical systems to provide far more power for rapid vehicle charging, and longer hours of peak demand. Another trillion dollars?”

This aspect of changing over to electric cars is often overlooked. “To take full advantage,…. you’ll need a Tesla Wall Connector attached to either a 60 or 90 amp circuit,” Many modern US homes have only 100 amp service — that means to add the required 60-90 amps the electrical service to the home will have to be upgraded to 200 amp service — especially considering that the average US household owns two cars (well, 1.97 cars in 2016) — so adding two electric cars requires an additional 120 to 180 extra amps of electrical service per home — Upgrading to just 200-amp service from 100-amp service costs between $3,500 to $5,000 per home. (times 127 million homes….)

If every home using the same street-side electrical service wanted to double their amps, the whole service line would have to be replaced to accommodate them.

The work involved in upgrading even1/2 of American homes might take a generation or two….

Steve Z
June 17, 2019 12:26 pm

“Railroaded” is a good term for what Biden would try to do with high-speed trains. While a train full of passengers uses less energy per passenger mile than a car or plane, people will only use trains if they are cheaper and/or more convenient than other forms of transportation. Advocates of high-speed rail like to point to the success of the European system, but European cities tend to be closer together, more densely populated, and have more flat land between them than American cities.

For train travel to be competitive with air travel, the cities connected need to be 200 to 400 miles apart, have more than a million people each, and have mostly flat land between them. If the distance between the cities is too short, the time spent driving to a train station in one city and driving away from a station in the other city is more than the time saved over simply driving a car to the other city. If the distance between the cities is too long, the time gained by the speed of airplanes outweighs the delays in getting through airport security.

Although the high-speed trains (TGV) in France travel at about 180 mph, the rail lines have to have very gentle slopes and curves, overpasses or underpasses at every road crossing, and be fenced everywhere to prevent people, livestock, or wildlife from being run over by speeding trains. This can be feasible over relatively flat and sparsely-populated land, but the cost of building rail tunnels through mountains becomes prohibitive trying to connect places like San Francisco to Los Angeles. Why spend billions of dollars tunneling through mountains when existing technology with existing infrastructure (planes and airports) can fly over them?

High-speed rail can be feasible in some areas for some cities, but it can’t be applied willy-nilly to the whole nation. A cost-benefit analysis is necessary for each case considered, and if cars or planes are cheaper and/or faster, the train should not be built.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights