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 (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.
‘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)
Griff
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]
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
—
Texas wind /solar energy issues 2019 testimony to legislature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGjilBZWIYM
——-
6 Min video summary from the Netherlands Sept 2020
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.
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.