The U.S. House “Selects Committee on the Climate Crisis” is a symbolic committee, not a real one. It cannot draft and introduce legislation, which is what House Committees do. It is more of a study group and as such it has produced a study.
Well sort of. The document in question is not a Committee report. It is not even a Committee staff report. It is just a report by the Democrat half of the staff. In fact technically it is just a report to the nine Democrats on the Committee.
But for a nothing little report it is very big, detailed and wildly ambitious. In fact it dwarfs all previous nut bar climate action proposals I have ever seen.
In a way the title shouts it all — “SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS“.
The subtitle is truly grand — “The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America“. Not just a plan, it is “the” plan.
The Plan itself is a whopping 547 pages long. The table of contents has over 100 entries, poking into many different parts of our economy and society. The detail, while foolish, is impressive. There is not a lot of fluff here.
To begin with, much of it is about just two things. First, making electric power net zero carbon emissions by 2040, which cannot possibly be done. Second, converting most other forms of combustion usage and power, especially transportation and industry, to being heated and powered with electricity. This means that the new electrical grid, intermittently powered by wind and sun, will have to provide something like twice as much reliable juice as today’s fossil fuelled system. It cannot be done.
The impossible goal is for the entire American economy to be net zero emissions by 2050.
But that is all just on the side of stopping climate change. There is also a whole bunch of things about dealing with it, because the hot models say that no matter how much we restrict or impoverish ourselves, we got it coming.
Of course all these things cost big money, but hey that means jobs, right? Democrats think costs are benefits because somebody gets the money. Where all this money comes from is not a consideration.
For example, flood insurance should be based on computer projected floods, not history. Coverage and premiums will definitely soar then. We will insure against floods that have never happened, and never will.
There is even stuff about paying people who want to move out of the way of climate change. I am not making this up.
There is much, much more, roughly one page for every word in this article. Multi-billion dollar sentences are everywhere you look. If you want a quick summary that covers all the big ticket items, it cannot be done. Fortunately this monster comes in PDF so you can at least search for specific items, if you know the language.
Speaking of language, there is even a “Definitions” section, because they want words to mean just what they want. There are some real mouthfuls (because lawyers have big mouths?). Here is an example:
“Environmental justice (EJ)
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies to ensure that each person enjoys (1) the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards; and (2) equal access to any federal agency action on environmental justice issues in order to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, work, and recreate.”
Given that some jobs, places, and recreations, are more dangerous than others, I cannot see how everyone can have the same degree of protection from all environmental and health hazards. But it sure sounds good.
In summary, this tome is meaningless as it lays there. But it reveals a great many wacky ideas that might show up in future proposed legislation.
Be ever vigilant.
David Wojick Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see