The Biden Family Green New Deal

The Biden Family Green New Deal

Some will profit, while most people’s life, living standards and environment take a big hit

Paul Driessen

Some 90% of all US wells are now hydraulically fractured. Fracked wells in shale formations open up vast supplies of oil, natural gas and petroleum liquids that previously were locked up and inaccessible. Fracking conventional wells expands and prolongs production, leaving less energy in the ground.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, the Democrat Party and US environmentalists are determined to make climate change, the Green New Deal, and replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, battery and biofuel power the centerpiece of their foreign and domestic policies. They would ban fracking outright – or price and restrict it out of existence through a slow, painful death of a thousand regulatory cuts.

That would cost up to 19 million jobs and billions of dollars in annual royalty and tax revenues, send energy prices soaring, and end America’s newfound status as the world’s foremost oil and gas producer.  

It would also hammer environmental quality, especially in sunny and windy locations, such as Western, Midwestern and coastal states. Their fossil fuel revenues would disappear; their wind and sunshine would be exploited; their open spaces, scenic areas and wildlife habitats would be blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and warehouses filled with backup power batteries.

But some would benefit greatly – including those with financial and other interests in mining, mineral processing and manufacturing related to wind, solar and battery technologies. Hunter Biden’s email trove and growing cascades of other evidence continue to reveal fascinating Biden Family connections to China, Russia and Ukraine: countries that would profit mightily from a US Green New Deal, because they supply most of the metals, minerals and components that are absolutely essential under any GND vision.

Many news media, social media and search engines routinely spike, censor or bury stories that could harm the Biden candidacy, sow doubt about manmade climate chaos, or undermine claims that the GND transition would be easy, affordable, ecological, sustainable and painless. It would not be.   

Wind and sunshine are certainly clean and renewable. Harnessing them to power America is not.

Fossil fuels still provide 80% of US energy. In 2018, they generated 2.7 billion megawatt-hours of electricity. Another 2.7 billion MWh worth of natural gas powered factories, emergency power systems, and furnaces, ovens, stoves and hot water heaters in restaurants and homes. Cars, trucks, buses, semi-trailers, tractors, bulldozers and other vehicles consumed the equivalent of another 2 billion MWh.

That’s 7.4 billion megawatt-hours per year that the GND would have to replace! We’d also have to generate another 142 million MWh per year to charge batteries for each week of windless, cloudy days.  

The more we try to do so, the more we’d have to put turbines and panels in low quality wind and solar sites, where they’d generate electricity only 15-20% of the year: 80-85% below “nameplate capacity.”

That means this transformation to an all-electric nation would require millions of onshore wind turbines, thousands of offshore turbines, billions of solar panels, millions of vehicle battery modules, billions of backup energy storage battery modules, thousands of miles of new transmission lines, millions of vehicle charging stations, tens of billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earth elements and countless other materials – and digging up hundreds of billions of tons of overburden and ores!

Even if the United States and world could somehow mine, process and smelt enough metals and minerals – and manufacture, transport and install all those turbines, panels, batteries and transmission lines – the GND would require the greatest expansion of mining, manufacturing and land use in human history.

With Democrats and Greens still adamantly opposed to mining anywhere in the USA – even though the USA likely has all those metals and minerals literally beneath our feet – America would be dependent on China, Russia and Ukraine for the critical materials that make wind turbines, solar panels and rechargeable batteries possible. US foreign and domestic policies would be held hostage.

Nearly all this mining, processing and manufacturing would require gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal … in foreign countries … because those operations cannot be conducted with wind, solar and battery power. Global CO2 and other emissions would increase. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would continue to rise. They would simply come from locations outside the USA.

Moreover, that overseas mining, processing and manufacturing would mostly take place under nearly nonexistent workplace safety, fair wage and child labor laws. The horrors we already see Africa’s Congo region would be minor compared to what would accompany GND demands for cobalt and other materials.

Replacing oil and gas for petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics would require importing those feed stocks or planting millions of acres in canola, soybean and other biofuel crops. The water, fertilizer, pesticide, tractor, harvester, processing and transportation requirements would be astronomical.

The wind, solar, battery and biofuel facilities would impact hundreds of millions of acres of America’s croplands, scenic areas, and plant and animal habitats. Raptors, other birds, bats, and forest, grassland and desert wildlife would suffer substantial losses and even be driven into extinction in many areas.

The GND would also mean ripping out perfectly good natural gas appliances, replacing them with electric models, installing rapid charging systems for vehicles, and upgrading household, neighborhood, state and national electrical systems to handle the extra loads. That would require still more raw materials.

Would Biden AOC & Co. require “responsible sourcing” for all GND materials and components, meaning certified compliance with all US wage, workplace safety, child labor and environmental laws?

Would they require that wind and solar companies go through an extensive, multi-year NEPA environmental review process for every industrial installation and transmission line? Demand compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean Water Act and other laws that have been strictly enforced for decades for other industrial facilities?

Or will they claim all those turbines, panels, batteries and power lines are needed to “save the planet from imminent climate cataclysms,” and thus must be exempted from wildlife and environmental laws? Will they claim killing birds, bats and other wildlife is “inadvertent” and “unintentional,” and thus should be excused or legalized – exempting even the massive slaughter associated with GND-scale installations?

Families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses accustomed to paying 7-11¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity would pay 22¢ per kWh as they already do in “green” US states – or even 35¢ a kWh as families now pay in Germany. Gasoline and natural gas prices would also skyrocket, until the GND banished those fuels. How many businesses would survive? How many jobs would disappear? How many people would have to join the ranks of those who must choose between heating and eating?

When electricity supplies cannot meet demand, or when California-style rolling blackouts hit, who would get cut off first? Politicians who imposed the GND and Deep State bureaucrats who operate it? Big Tech servers? Environmentalist groups and schools whose teacher unions backed the Biden-Harris-AOC Deal? Or innocent hospitals, factories, workers and families? Who would get to make those decisions?

If states or counties are forced to erect wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines, can they decide to meet their own needs during shortages, before exporting electricity to progressive states and cities? Could they declare themselves fossil fuel sanctuaries and refuse to close mines and power plants?

Who will design and enforce the GND income confiscation and redistribution schemes, in the name of “social, environmental and economic justice” – with much of the redistribution likely going to ruling elites and their corporate and activist allies? Do we really want to further enrich the originators of COVID?

All these issues demand open, robust debate – which too many schools and universities, news and social media outlets, corporate and political leaders, and Antifa mobs continue to censor and cancel. America deserves answers, before November 3, and before any actions are taken on any Green New Deal.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

3 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert of Texas
October 24, 2020 11:11 am

Biden is a mob boss criminal. If the people elect him, they will get what they deserve. The biggest problem with a democracy is people are so easily misled, and those that are not duped sometimes have to live the the consequences of those that are.

The only way to fight for the future is to take back education and teach actual science, math, and engineering. Get rid of all these ridiculous modern anti-scientific, anti-common sense courses and degrees.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 24, 2020 1:18 pm

Robert, a good comment about where our education focus should lie. If any student completes a degree without being able to work things out though careful observation, reasoning and working from first principles – which science, math and engineers are most likely to encourage – they are a worthless parrot.

There is another matter. If youngsters have to work to pay their way for their university education, before and during their university years, there would be far fewer students pursuing rubbish degrees.

Eileen Kuch
Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 25, 2020 12:14 pm

Robert of Texas, you’re absolutely right, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Creepy Joe Biden’s nothing more than a mob boss criminal. If the people really do elect him – which I truly doubt – they’ll get what they deserve. However, our country’s a republic, not a democracy, thank God. As the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates one remarked: “Democracy always devolves into anarchy and turns into dictatorship”.
Yes, Robert, the sole way to fight for the future is to take back education and teach real science, math, and engineering. Trash all these ridiculous modern anti-scientific, anti-common sense courses and degrees.

Steve Case
October 24, 2020 11:24 am

America deserves answers, before November 3…

That was a joke right?

“The Green New Deal isn’t about controlling the climate, it’s about controlling you!” Paul Joseph Watson

October 24, 2020 11:29 am

“would pay 22¢ per kWh”

This is less than the current California baseline rate whose usage limit is relatively low and ranges from 6 KWH per day up to 20 KW per day for an all electric house in winter. AC or a couple of computer servers easily pushes the usage into tier 3.

From the PGE tarif document for E1 residential service:

Total Energy Rates ($ per kWh)
Baseline Usage $0.24430 (I)
101% – 400% of Baseline $0.30743 (I)
High Usage Over 400% of Baseline $0.38428 (I)

JimH in CA
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 24, 2020 1:54 pm

Yup..! and if you don’t want to charge your EV at those rates, the EV-B rate is a ‘low’ $0.15 /kWhr
But , that’s not what it costs to recharge the EV battery. There is the battery charge-discharge efficiency of 90% and the 90% efficiency of the charger, which results in an actual rate of $ 0.1852/ kWhr.
So a Tesla 3, using 0.33 kWhr/mile costs $0.061 per mile.

Comparing that to my 20 yr old Chevy that gets 35 mpg ave, and our $3.20/ gal gas, it costs me
$0.091 /mile. And I didn’t have to take out a loan for $40k..!
If I lived where the gas cost is $2.20, my cost would be $ 0.629/ mile, darn close to that ‘green EV’.!

So, the EPA MPGe is a very wrong way to rate EVs , because the cost of a gallon of gas is not the same as the net cost a kWhr of electricity .

Reply to  JimH in CA
October 24, 2020 4:44 pm

I’m currently visiting my mom in Charleston SC and the gas here is well under $2 per gallon. For some reason, I’ve only seen one Tesla since I’ve been here …

Reply to  JimH in CA
October 25, 2020 8:41 am

Just to clear up the EPA’s MPGe- it is a totally meaningless measure. By definition it is the conversion of 100% of the chemical energy in gasoline to kW. It has NO relationship to how the energy in gasoline relates to the electrical energy used by an electric car. At best it is a measure for comparing the small differences in MPGe among different electric cars.


Second problem- even ordinary “mpg” is misleading because it results in an exponential function. 40 mpg does not use 1/4 the fuel of 10 mpg. the curve for equal reductions goes 10:20:40:80:160.

No automobile will get over 60mpg. That, like a combined cycle gas turbine power plant or diesel engine, is in the range of 50-55% efficient. ~60% efficiency is the theoretical limit for a chemical combustion process.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 24, 2020 11:29 am

Paul Driessen,
An excellent article, thank you, but I am sorry to say that you presented far too many facts for the “crowd”—which includes Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, the Democrat Party and many US environmentalists—that has uncritically embraced the twin memes of climate change™ and climate crisis™.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 24, 2020 3:09 pm

“Facts” Gordon? Like “19 million jobs”? Paul Driessen is an inveterate liar. You’d do well to be a little more skeptical.

Reply to  Loydo
October 24, 2020 4:52 pm

Yes, Driessen is quite wrong. Way too conservative an estimate, there.

Implement the Green Nude Eel, and there will be no question about Mexico paying for a border wall – on THEIR side.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Loydo
October 24, 2020 5:33 pm

The “green” failure is history repeating itself worse than usual. I think it was early 80s I was told that without fossil fuels “we will starve.” I already had had a short course in thermodynamics, took two generations to overcome the facts, which will prevail. Biden defamed the industry talking about old pollution for Delaware. I went through there in the late 50s, been back several times, is cleaned up like most places, good example Houston which was worse than the Delaware pollution.

Try this for jobs.

Reply to  Loydo
October 24, 2020 5:56 pm

Anyone who believes that government will create 19 million new jobs by forcing a change to expensive unreliable energy, is as stupid as they come. For every job government creates, 2 to 3 real jobs are destroyed.

Serge Wright
Reply to  MarkW
October 24, 2020 9:09 pm

Traditional economics 101 tells us that we want a minimum number of people working to produce cheap energy, and a maximum number of people employed by using the energy to create value adding goods and services that can be sold to generate economic growth and maintain the health of the nation.

Green economics 101 tells us that as many people as possible should be engaged to produce renewable energy, which is too expensive to produce value adding goods and services and will result in the destruction of vast amounts flora and fauna, as well as the loss of economic growth and national prosperity. But, this we are told will save the planet.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Serge Wright
October 25, 2020 5:17 pm

Save the planet!?!?!? The planet doesn’t need saving: Some people are (beep), but the planet’s doin” just fine.

George Carlin

A wise man, more people should listen to him.

george Tetley
Reply to  MarkW
October 25, 2020 4:55 am

American schools don’t teach HISTORY if HISTORY was a school subject in America you would not have so many IDIOTS !!!!!!

Reply to  MarkW
October 25, 2020 1:29 pm

Describes loydo well.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
October 24, 2020 7:30 pm

Loydo, poor Loydo,
You, and others supporting you below, have carelessly (intentionally?) overlooked the fact that Paul Driessen in his article did NOT originate the claim of “UP TO 19 million jobs”. Just click on that phrase in the reference paragraph in the above article (hint for you and others: it is highlighted in blue to indicate it is a link). That will take you to the source of the claim . . . and it is not Mr. Driessen.

BTW, I never asserted that that particular phrase was indeed a fact . . . but that is most obviously impossible for you to understand

So, by your post claiming Mr. Driessen to be a liar all that you have accomplished is to show your less-than-sophomoric understanding of how WUWT articles can be read, including embedded Web links, and how easily you are confused by posted comments.

As to your advice for me being a “little more skeptical”, I will certainly give that all the value that it truly deserves.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
October 24, 2020 9:52 pm

“…all that you have accomplished…”
Oh stop it Gordon. If you click on the link concocted by Driessen it takes you to some other alarmist’s bs, which he has eagerly repeated.

“Skeptical”? so-called skepticism died on WUWT years ago. All you read here these days is unbridled credulism.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
October 25, 2020 8:13 am

Obviously, you visit WUWT often. Why is that, if it upsets so much as you feign in your post immediately above? You must get a certain kind of gratification out of flagellation from others.


BTW, it is you yourself that exhibits all the characteristics of “unbridled credulism”, as if you knew what what term meant specifically.

Now, you were saying something about “eagerly repeating” . . .?

Reply to  Loydo
October 25, 2020 1:34 pm

Typical of your closed mind and intolerant attitudes.

Thank you for correcting the apparently paid trollop.

Maybe after this election the alarmist billionaires will stop funding trollop activism, pretending their paid activists are swaying public opinion.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Loydo
October 24, 2020 7:40 pm

Loydo, you may not have heard of the multiplier effect. It’s used by economists to estimate real effect on job figures of a closure or opening of an economic activity. The oil industry, for example, has 1.5 Million direct employees. The multiplier effect

is 6.9 (=10.35 Million). Coal direct is 850,000 with a multiplier of 4.4 (=3.74 Million). Okay, so that is 14 Million … so far!

Now Petro chemical and coal chemical products is a whole new area and includes plastics, textile fibres, construction materials, piping, electrical insulation, Neoprene rubber, astroturf, insecticides, ad infinitum. Then there is Nitrogen fertilizers and explosives ~200 Million tonnes a yr, a quarter of which is made in the United States. Then there is corn methanol which makes up 10% of gasoline products – they would be shut down effecting farmers, transporters, blenders, and we would be replacing all gas stations with a self operated electrical plug in stops.

Then there is pipeline construction and operation, a sizable percentage of sulphur production cleaned from oil and gas- a major reagent feedstock for sulphuric acid, something that is essential for manufacture of 10s of thousands of everyday products.

A true estimate of the employment effect makes 19 Million workers a very conservative estimate. I hope you have had your scope of the importance to the economy of oil and gas grandly expanded. If not you are being ingenuous and disingenuous at the same time.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 24, 2020 10:13 pm

If anyone was proposing to shut down the fossil fuel industry overnight then sure those numbers may well be conservative. But claiming 19 million jobs are going to “go” is just alarmist claptrap. The proposal a “transistion”, probably an indefinite one.

I’d make three points.
1. Any political party, like the Democrats, that accecpts rivers of gold from fossil fuel companies is going to lie through its teeth and do nothing as long as it can.

2. That “as long as it can” is already way too late. Massive economic disruption has been baked in since the 80s or 90s.

3. Any economic system that relies perpetual growth as one of its building blocks was doomed from the start. Climate disruption is just one of the countless ways economies and the civilisations which rely on them collapse.
Chris Hedges has some interesting things to say about this.

Reply to  Loydo
October 25, 2020 12:16 am

You guys have your own version of socialism, I guess; one that you think will work, because you’re special. It is interesting though that none of you can explain how this new socialism is going to work.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
October 25, 2020 8:26 am

Loydo posted “Climate disruption is just one of the countless ways economies and the civilisations which rely on them collapse.”

There is a distinct difference between natural climate disruption and man-made climate disruption. It takes average or above-average intelligence to know the difference, keeping in mind that climate is defined by most scientists to be weather for a specified, relatively-large geographical area averaged over 30 years or longer (excluding here small areas having defined “microclimates”).

I am hard pressed to think of one single example of man-made climate disruption.

Maybe Loydo can come to my rescue . . . maybe not.

Reply to  Loydo
October 25, 2020 9:19 am


Climate disruption certainly affected past civilizations, but this was long before we knew how to use fossil fuels to mitigate the influence of temperature variability outside of mans survival zone. If the alarmists have their way, we will become highly vulnerable to future natural climate variability as we will no longer have the required energy to mitigate cold. Surviving heat only requires hydration.

Curious George
October 24, 2020 11:31 am

You are complicating the description unnecessarily. The basic principle of a one-party state is extremely simple. Ask any German who survived.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Curious George
October 24, 2020 6:38 pm

“the GND would require the greatest expansion of mining, manufacturing and land use in human history.”

And this would be only retooling the US and not the rest of the world. UK’s future is equally bleak.

Bill Powers
October 24, 2020 11:35 am

From the article: “wind, solar, battery and biofuel power…”
Question: Which one of the above is not like the others?

Reply to  Bill Powers
October 25, 2020 5:47 pm

Coal and crude are technically the products of biology, so shouldn’t they count as biofuels?

October 24, 2020 11:40 am

“Biden is a mob boss criminal. ”

Yes, and if RICO doesn’t apply to Biden’s criminal enterprise, why do we even have the statutes?

October 24, 2020 11:41 am

If 100% of the production of Elon’s Gigafactory were devoted to making batteries just for the US energy needs, one source recently pointed out that 500 years of production would be needed to story the energy requirements of the US for about one day… that is if they can find all the resources to make that many batteries….

Charing them all with solar panels and windmills is equally mind boggling on the hundreds of square miles that ill be covered with industrial blight, let alone all the power lines and resulting mining needed for the raw materials…

For me, I’m thinking of putting all my money on Burisma Holdings on November 4th if we know the election results by then. I figure that if Hunter Biden can make millions from them, so can I as pop shuts down our petroleum industry and we’ve got to import our needs from the despots once again. I guess all of the greenies still think that all those windmills and solar panels must be made of fairy dust, unicorn farts and unobtaininum, and aren’t made in China…

Reply to  Лазо
October 24, 2020 1:51 pm

Путин и Арапи ће Бајдену дати потребани гас и нафт, Кина ће произвести све што му је потребно, а САД ће постати сила треће класе.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Vuk
October 24, 2020 3:10 pm

For those of us who don’t speak Serbian, Google Translate says:

Putin and the Arabs will give Biden the necessary gas and oil, China will produce everything it needs, and the United States will become a third-class power.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Vuk
October 24, 2020 3:14 pm

The US must produce something that Russia and China want. Otherwise why would they accept worthless dollars for their products?

Patrick Healy
Reply to  Лазо
October 25, 2020 8:00 am

Unobtainium – great – I am a part time poet. Can I borrow that please?

Gunga Din
October 24, 2020 12:04 pm

GND (now known as The BidenPlan) supporters remind me of those Greens who signed a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide at an Earth Day rally a few years ago.
It sounded good to them but they didn’t know what they were doing.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 24, 2020 12:39 pm

Watched it. Loved it!

Reply to  Gunga Din
October 25, 2020 9:43 am

H2O is water, otherwise referred to as hydrogen hydroxied, NOT dihydrogen monozied. It’s a single hydrogen (H) atom linked to a hydroxide molecule (OH). H2O is the shorthand.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sara
October 25, 2020 10:02 am

Aw c’mon Sara. Don’t you see how the English majors and grievance studies undergrads would easily fall for some EVIL CHEMICAL with monoxide in the name? Gotta be a dangerous toxic substance?

Hydroxide doesn’t sound dangerous. What is that, they’d wonder, is it an ingredient in those generic Oreo cookies? (Hydrox)

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sara
October 25, 2020 10:17 am
Joseph Zorzin
October 24, 2020 12:07 pm

Great article! If only the MSM would read it and try to learn from it.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 24, 2020 12:23 pm

+ 100% Joseph.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 24, 2020 2:05 pm

There are two things wrong with your comment Joseph. The MSM do not read and cannot learn.

Mike Maguire
October 24, 2020 12:09 pm

You don’t frack for sun and wind
Started by metmike – Oct. 24, 2020, 1:20 p.m.

Michael in Dublin
October 24, 2020 12:21 pm

This gives a new spin to the old nursery rhyme:
There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse,
and they all lived together in a little crooked house.

October 24, 2020 12:24 pm

In the post-modern world the needs of the one or the the few outweigh the needs of the many

October 24, 2020 12:30 pm

The GND is just another bandwagon scam the Democrats and every other government/aspiring government knows can never be achieved.

The whole socialist movement is infesting the Western world via the MSM, the BBC is totally immersed in it as are the commercial stations. Adverts are now almost dominated with black actors as the BLM movement pressurises corporations to convince the white majority population they are all evil.

One way or another, there will be a price to pay for all this, and it’s not going to be pleasant.

I do note, however, a distinct lack of BLM/antifa activity on our streets. Are the ringleaders/organisers being quietly scooped up? Or is it just because winter is coming?

Gunga Din
Reply to  HotScot
October 24, 2020 2:42 pm

They got their orders to lay low until after the election day. (Or Maybe they’ll pop up at polling places on election day.)
They’ve driven enough too many people away.

Patrick Healy
Reply to  HotScot
October 25, 2020 8:10 am

No HotScotthe demonstrators have not gone away.
All those over paid under achieving footballers are still genuflecting to some pagan God before kick off here in Scotland.

Bruce Cobb
October 24, 2020 12:38 pm

I’ll say one thing; If Biden/Harris win the election, the stock market will say “buh-bye, nice knowing you”.

Gary Pearse
October 24, 2020 12:39 pm

I think there may be an elephant in the room here that’s being missed because of the strong antagonism between Republicans and Democrats in the political and punditry class. There must be a sizable population of Dem-leaning investors, retirees (401K) employees, consulting firms, etc in the fossil fuel industy who are scared of a Biden-Harris W.H. There must be Dem business owners and employees outside of the cronysphere that would be worried by taxation, fiscal and recessionary aspects of the brave new world of Biden- Harris-AOC. There must be Dem farmers …

Biden’s reduced cognitive ability with Kamala and Nancy Plesiosaur in the wings is another mastodon.

October 24, 2020 12:41 pm

The surge to the US economy after Trump’s election was due mainly to two factors: Reduction in business rules and mandates and opening up the fossil fuel industry. Say bye bye to both under a Progressive administration. The impact will be immediate and severe.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  markl
October 24, 2020 7:06 pm

what surge? Prior to COVID the economy grew at the same rate under Trump as it did under Obama.
Have a look at

CD in Wisconsin
October 24, 2020 1:26 pm

If anyone were to level any kind of critique against democracy, it might be the voters go to the polls and vote blindly and in the dark. They vote without REALLY knowing who and what they are voting for and what it is exactly they are getting themselves into. Today in the U.S., the mass media and the Trump Administration have done all to little (if anything) to enlighten voters with ALL the facts about the issues of climate change, fossil fuels, wind and solar energy and the GND, among other things — facts that cast a light on those issues which differs considerably from popular belief.

I won’t talk about voters in history who ended up making bad decisions, especially if the reader already knows who and what I am talking about. I pray that the potentially frightening picture Paul Driessen is painting in this post does not come to pass, but I fear that it could if Biden and the Green radicals see a sizable enough victory on November 3rd.

As I have said in the past, the biggest enemy of human prosperity and well-being is its own ignorance.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 24, 2020 6:05 pm

Doesn’t have to be a large victory. Even with a slim victory they can continue to rewrite the rules of the system to give themselves a bigger advantage and to make vote stealing even easier.
If Biden wins in 2020, then 2016 will be the last fair and honest election this country sees.

October 24, 2020 1:38 pm

“Global CO2 and other emissions would increase. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would continue to rise. They would simply come from locations outside the USA.”
Wrong. Emissions would increase, right so far. Atmospheric levels will rise, right again. They would come from other locations, right but not as implied. Atmospheric increases of CO2 are mostly natural and come from warming oceans. Read Dr. Berry’s new book “Climate Miracle”. It is wrong to keep accepting the erroneous assumption that our emissions control atmospheric content and letting that fuel the alarmists wish to fix what we have not caused.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  DMA
October 24, 2020 4:07 pm

I wrote something similar to Monckton in 2007. But he wrote something like this back to me:
This may be technically correct, but it is complicating things when trying to explain the role of CO2.
Monckton preferred to simplify by showing that CO2 change had little effect on temperature and would not make much of a difference.

To further Monckton’s simplification philosophy, Driessen’s post is spot on for us, but when we convey this to “the other side” we have to form simple powerful non-ambiguous emotional statements.

Let me try, even though I am very bad at it:

No fossil fuel, no electronics.
More wind & solar, less nature.

Then we need support from advertising professionals to design and advertise the slogans.

A similar action was done in the 1970s’ attempt to ban and spread fear from electricity production with nuclear power. (No thanks to nuclear power)
This insanely simple, emotional and ignorant statement became the driver for a whole movement. People bought these round yellow batches in massive numbers.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 24, 2020 5:35 pm

I remember the yellow patches and telling some folks that had them my high school buddy operated a nuclear power plant in a submarine. That mostly went unheeded though. I am to simple to understand marketing with phrases and feelings but I see your point and I think you might have the right pair of emotional phrases to get it done. I’ll use them when I can.

October 24, 2020 4:02 pm

I’m not convinced that Biden could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Reply to  Scissor
October 24, 2020 7:53 pm

He could he just might not remember doing it 🙂

JP Guthrie
October 24, 2020 4:13 pm

Biden has made a lot of green deals during his political career, “green” being the color of money. During Joe’s 47 years in politics, he has made himself, his two brothers, his sister, and all three of his children into millionaires. He has done the same for a number of his friends.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  JP Guthrie
October 24, 2020 7:17 pm

Actually that is not true. Biden made his money after leaving politics in 2016. His financial disclosure
form from 2017 showed a net worth of between -700k and +400k. He then managed to make 9
million from being an ex-VP in a couple of years. Have a look at

Also Biden’s wealth is not that un-usual for a senator. In 2018 the average wealth of a senator was
nearly 2 million. So if anything Biden has actually made less money out of his political career than
the average US senator.

October 24, 2020 4:37 pm

I despair that more people are not alert to the fact that the Socialists in our midst are not attempting to make our countries (I’m an Australian) better but to destroy them from within. Note the countries they are not trying to destroy; China is lauded at every stage along with those poor Russians and Ukranians and the misunderstood and mistreated people of the Middle East with the exception of course of the despicable Israelis.

The march of socialism and it’s destructiveness continues at a more rapid rate and many conservatives seem to think they are just nice people but somewhat misguided. Wake up people- they are trying to wipe you out and from where I sit they are winning. Trump is our saviour and hopefully enough will vote to keep him in power for the next 4 years.

Mike Maguire
October 24, 2020 4:58 pm

OK, this is the more appropriate Biden thread on this particular topic.

The previous one above deals with his other huge problem(sorry about that):

More smoking gun evidence on Bidens
Started by metmike – Oct. 14, 2020, 7:39 p.m.

October 24, 2020 6:19 pm

You just need more solar panels on your rooves and it’s all free from Gaia-
Makes you wonder why the power prices are so high now doesn’t it? Those clever watermelons have rewritten the economics textbooks and and overturned those pesky supply and demand curves ceteris paribus.

Lady Scientist
October 24, 2020 7:12 pm

The feed of advertisements following the article included an ad from CommBank for “7 handy items for when the power goes out”

Reply to  Lady Scientist
October 24, 2020 11:13 pm

Yes I did notice this one flashing up on the side-

“Physical risks: Energetics’ innovative methodology engages with climate science to understand the effects on assets, productivity and profitability. Our approach can be seen in CBA’s 2019 Annual Report where we modelled climate impacts for 65% of the bank’s agribusiness portfolio though to 2060, across Australia and down to a 5km grid.

Transition risks: When assessing transition risks, we draw on scenario analysis to identify and document risks, with a range of time-bound modelling (dependent upon specific requirements)”

They are the very model of the modern climate modellers….

October 25, 2020 9:08 am

‘It would also hammer environmental quality, especially in sunny and windy locations, such as Western, Midwestern and coastal states. ‘

and there’s no environmental impact on home owners from fracking wells at all? Nott hose heavy tucks and whatnot? They are somehow a visual amenity?

(Most windfarms offshore aren’t even going to be visible… neither are windfarms out on the windy prairie… or those cunning Tesla solar roofs, which look just like tiles etc)

Bill Zipperer
Reply to  griff
October 25, 2020 5:08 pm

IFRC the Obama EPA spent yrs & ~ $36 million investigating fracking, desperate to find a reason they could kill it, and the resulting report could not find any environmentally significant impact from the process.
The “heavy trucks” are only used for a month or so to ferry equipment & water to ~2 acre site during the drilling. Once done it’s quiet & very unobstrusive – totally unlike wind turbines! Google “infrasound” with resepct to turbines, and the numerous articles on turbines’ effects on bird, bat, raptor and insect populations.
As to Tesla: I suspect the roof top solar charging is a rounding error compared to the needed charge. It is more virtue signalling. Tesla is just scamming their customers with another feel-good feature and will pad the bottom line. Here are some wind turbine links: [the last one is quite interesting]

Texas wind /solar energy issues 2019 testimony to legislature:
6 Min video summary from the Netherlands Sept 2020

William Haas
October 25, 2020 1:56 pm

What they want to do is insane. It is an economic nightmare and will do nothing to improve the climate of the Earth. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is effectively zero. Hence there is no climate crisis. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

For example. look at the chart showing temperature and CO2 over the past 650,000 years that Al Gore showed in his first movie. Al Gore claimed that the chart shows that CO2 controls climate but the opposite is true. In higher temporal resolution it is clear that CO2 follows temperature and not the other way around. The mechanism is clear, warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water so as the oceans warm more CO2 enters the atmosphere and vice versa. There is no evidence in the data that Al Gore presented that CO2 has any effect on climate. Al Gore also included today’s CO2 level on his chart. If CO2 really caused warming then it should be a heck of a lot warmer than it actually is but it is not. Our modern warm period has not been as warm as previous warm periods during the current interglacial when CO2 levels were lower than today. Our current interglacial period has not been as warm as the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, when CO2 levels were lower than today. If Al Gore’s data shows anything it is that CO2 has no effect on climate.

AGW is a conjecture based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of so called greenhouse gases or because IR radiation is trapped inside the greenhouse. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass, gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount of warming derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected. If CO2 really affected climate one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is hence science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

But for those who still believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, initial calculations of the climate sensitivity came up with a nominal figure of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 not including feedbacks. Christopher Monckton and associates came up with the conclusion, based on measurements, that if all the warming since 1850 were caused by CO2 then the climate sensitivity of CO2 could not possible be more than 1.2 degrees C including feedbacks. A researcher from Japan pointed out that the original radiametric calculations forgot to include that fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect that lowers the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, from 1.2 degrees C to less than .06 degrees C which is too small to measure. So no wonder that no one has been able to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2 because there is nothing to measure.

Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. The AGW conjecture assumption is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming that causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so forth. Not only is H2O a greenhouse gas but molecule per molecule H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 times more H2O in the atmosphere. Compared to H2O the contribution of CO2 to the overall radiant greenhouse effect must be trivial. What the AGW conjecture ignores is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. So instead of a potentially unstable positive feedback, H2O provides a negative climate stabilizing feedback. So instead of multiplying the climate sensitivity of CO2 by a nominal 3 we should divide the climate sensitivity of CO2 by 3 yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is too small to measure and is effectively zero. So all of this effort to reduce CO2 emissions because doing so might provide a better climate is a total waste of money. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing as it has been doing for eons, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are both part of the current climate. If the future is anything like that past, the current interglacial period may gradually end but it may take many thousands of years to do so and the next ice age will be upon us for roughly 100,000 years so we should all learn to enjoy the warmth of the current interglacial period while it is still here.

Ronald Bruce
October 26, 2020 5:42 am

It would seem the marxist greens haven’t allowed for any for these problems, or maybe they have, the GND will be responsible for the greatest reduction of life on this planet that has ever occurred. Maybe that is the plan, wipe out the entirety of life forms on earth. This is the forte of all communists marxists, wipe everything out. 100,000,000, in the 1900s probably 300,000,000 in 2000s maybe a lot more if they get into power say 5,000,000,000 or more, now life is on its way to extinction.Be very careful who you vote for or allow to have any powers, once tyrants gain power they never ever relinquish it. DON’T THINK 5,000,000,000 IS IMPOSSIBLE THE 100,000,000 THEY KILLED LAST CENTURY DIDN’T THINK IT COULD HAPPEN EITHER BUT IT DID HAPPEN.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights