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 (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

4 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.

MJER VK5ELL

Sf
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.

Gamecock
June 17, 2019 5:55 am

I won’t read beyond ‘Environmental Justice.’

They aren’t serious, or they are insane.

Editor
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.

Verified by MonsterInsights