The Guardian: Joe Biden’s $1.7 Trillion Investment Could Reduce Global Warming by 0.1C

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian has inadvertently revealed the utter futility of throwing trillions of dollars of borrowed government money into the bottomless renewable energy pit.

Joe Biden could bring Paris climate goals ‘within striking distance’

Biden’s presidency could help reduce global heating by about 0.1C if plans fulfilled, say experts

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Sun 8 Nov 2020 22.32 AEDT

The election of Joe Biden as president of the US could reduce global heating by about 0.1C, bringing the goals of the Paris agreement “within striking distance”, if his plans are fulfilled, according to a detailed analysis.

Biden’s policy of a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and plans for a $1.7tn investment in a green recovery from the Covid crisis, would reduce US emissions in the next 30 years by about 75 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalents. Calculations by the Climate Action Tracker show that this reduction would be enough to avoid a temperature rise of about 0.1C by 2100.

However, Biden is likely to face stiff opposition to many of his proposals, from the Republican party nationally and at state level, while his room for manoeuvre will be limited by the Democrats’ showing in the Senate. If legal challenges to his plans are brought, they will be decided by a heavily conservative supreme court.

Read more:

Hey I can play this game too – if I get $1700 of that cash, I promise to cut back on eating Chilli beef. Paying a billion people to eat less chilli beef would likely have a comparable impact on global warming to spending the money on renewables. The EPA estimates CH4 accounts for 10% of observed global warming. The study I linked estimates human activity like raising beef cattle and eating chilli beans is responsible for up to 40% of detected CH4 emissions.

Alternatively the cash could be used to give all the cattle in the world that special seaweed supplement the CSIRO discovered, which is supposed to cut back on intestinal methane production.

To put this level of expenditure into perspective, the cost of launching a 0.03C manned mission to Proxima Centauri using technology developed in the 1950s has been estimated at around $2 trillion. I’m not saying that building a starship is a reasonable use of $2 trillion of taxpayer’s money, but the first step in mankind’s expansion throughout the galaxy would surely be a lot more fun than spending all that money on reducing global temperature by an amount which cannot even be directly measured.

And of course, the obvious point – if it costs $1.7 trillion to reduce global warming by 0.1C, we now have a Guardian provided method of estimating the cost of eliminating our alleged impact on the global climate, reducing global warming by 1.0C: 1.7 x 1.0C / 0.1C = $17 trillion.

You get eight starships for that kind of money, enough to start your own United Federation of Planets.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sky king
November 8, 2020 6:10 pm

Only 34 trillion will get back that 2C! We are saved!

Bryan A
Reply to  sky king
November 8, 2020 11:09 pm

So why does the GND cost $94 Trillion over 10 years?
Unless the “G” stands for Graft
And the “N” stands for Needy
And the “D” stands for Democrats

Reply to  sky king
November 9, 2020 8:24 am

When the UK Prime Minister committed £2 trillion to the same heart warming cause early this year New Scientist calculated it would make 2 hundredths of a degree Centigrade difference to global temperatures by 2050, so that chimes very nicely with the larger American economy contributing 0.1C

I am sure we are all very happy to give China et al a free ride if we can help save the world in such a dramatic fashion. Some might unkindly say that someone needs to renegotiate the China/Obama deal and some might even more unkindly point out that Man contributes 4% of global CO2 and we all need to have a serious talk with Nature..


November 8, 2020 6:24 pm

No doubt that 0.1C is based on the hyper inflated climate sensitivity presumed by the IPCC. A more realistic ECS would put the effect at no more than .03C.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 8, 2020 7:23 pm

Assumptions built on top of assumptions built on top of assumptions. Kick one leg out at the bottom and the whole thing comes crashing down. Or in this case, the world suffers unnecessarily.

David A
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 8, 2020 11:43 pm

So a GAT reduction of 0.1 C or 0.03, neither is detectable, or provable.

However that 1.7 trillion is likely to cost an additional 2 to 3 trillion in the real world economy, and that will be felt. No worries for the Biden’s however, Joe’s bag man will be able to purchase his own porn web-sight.

willem post
Reply to  David A
November 9, 2020 5:43 am

This article shows the WORLDWIDE spending would be about $1.5 TRILLION PER YEAR.

It also shows the CO2 reduction of wind and solar would be much less than claimed.


World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017) from the US Energy Information Administration.

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.


China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.

They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less EXEMPT from the Paris agreements

NOTE: Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

NOTE: A UN Council would have determined a level of spending, say $500 billion/y, to be allocated by UN bureaucrats, to save the world from climate change. It would have assessed all members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. The non-OECD countries would continue to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements. The US would have been assessed for more than $150 billion/y!


It is very difficult, and expensive, to reduce world energy consumption, and associated CO2, with a growing world population, that requires a growing world economy to spread increased prosperity to more and more people.

It took 28 years to increase renewables from 7.0% in 1990 to 10.7% in 2018, requiring about $5.6 TRILLION, at an average investment of about $200 billion per year.

It would take 32 years to increase renewables from 10.7% in 2018 to 50% in 2050, requiring at least $49.5 TRILLION, at an average investment of at least $1.5 TRILLION per year


Whereas world and US renewables goals may be partially achieved by 2050, CO2 reductions would be significantly less than claimed by wind proponents.

If gas turbine power plants perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing, to counteract variable, intermittent wind and solar on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more frequent start/stops (less efficient). Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear, and 4) more grid augmentation/expansion/storage.
The more wind and solar on the grid, the more extreme the output variations, and the more frequent the start/stops.

In the appendix are three articles that explain in detail the less-than-claimed CO2 reduction of wind electricity on the electric grid.

willem post
Reply to  willem post
November 9, 2020 5:45 am

Replacing US Fossil Fuels

Biden, et al, want to replace US fossils with renewables by 2035, or 2050, “at the latest”
Spending would have to instantaneously increase from:

– About $55 billion in 2020 to $8500/15 = $567 BILLION on January 20, 2021, and continue at that level for 15 years, if 2035
– About $55 billion in 2020 to $8500/30 = $283 BILLION on January 20, 2021, and continue at that level for 30 years, if 2050

This spending does not include the cost of financing, and the cost of replacing short-life items prior to 2050.

NOTE: In the real world, spending would be ramping up for 5 to 10 years, to reach the necessary levels.

Replacing World Fossil Fuels

The US primary energy consumption in 2019 was 100.4 quads, which was only 17% of world total primary energy.
Worldwide spending to replace fossil fuels would be at least 5 times greater than the US.
Spending would have to instantaneously increase from:

– About $280 billion in 2020 to 5 x 0.567 = $2.835 TRILLION on January 20 2021, and continue at that level for 15 years, if 2035
– About $280 billion in 2020 to 5 x 0.283 = $1.415 TRILLION on January 20, 2021, and continue at that level for 30 years, if 2050

The latter is close to my above estimate of $1.5 TRILLION/y.
This spending does not include the cost of financing, and the cost of replacing short-life items prior to 2050.

NOTE: The above world and US capital costs do not include:

1) The cost of financing
2) The capital cost to replace short-life systems, such as heat pumps, EVs, batteries, etc.
3) Recycling the wind turbines, and solar panels and EV batteries
4) The cost to the earth’s surface covered by all these things to provide 50% of world total energy consumption by renewables, for 10 billion people, in 2050.

Each wind turbine system and solar system would require a battery installation, because of a lack of sufficient gas-fired power plant capacity for peaking, filling-in and balancing. Elon Musk would supply those batteries?
Also, as more and more quads are added to prior levels, adding quads becomes more difficult, and expensive.

NOTE: World renewable energy spending was more than $2.5 TRILLION for 2010-2019, an average of $250 billion/y
World RE spending was about $282.2 billion in 2019.
I assumed it was 280 billion in 2020, i.e., less due to COVID

John F Hultquist
November 8, 2020 6:26 pm

There must be about 1.7 Trillion other alternatives to better spend such money on.
Can I get just a measly $170,000 for house improvements to protect my mental health while Joe has be locked in and wearing a mask?

Reply to  John F Hultquist
November 13, 2020 5:23 am

This. All day long, this!

November 8, 2020 6:30 pm

Bjorn Lomberg thinks if all 193 Nation signatories to the Paris Accord kept their commitments the reduction in world temperature would be 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.
And the cost to achieve that would be$1 trillion to $2 trillion a year going forward.
The Guardian figure of 0.1 C for the US efforts looks to be an over estimate!

Reply to  Herbert
November 8, 2020 7:03 pm

The 0.1 C may be, but I bet the $1.7 trillion isn’t – well in their dreams, including their wet dreams. I hope the site trolls/useful idi0ts will weigh in on this, including providing their math(s). I won’t hold my breath.

Reply to  philincalifornia
November 8, 2020 9:12 pm

Blast! “ Lomborg” not “Lomberg ”.
Sorry, Bjorn.

Reply to  philincalifornia
November 9, 2020 1:02 am

Being a ‘useful idiot’, happy to add this…

November 8, 2020 6:50 pm

La Nina will do it for free.

Reply to  Phantor48
November 8, 2020 8:21 pm


Captain Climate
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 9, 2020 5:57 am

*3 = +30

November 8, 2020 6:54 pm

Mankind would sooner find a method for FTL travel than control the planet’s weather…ahem…climate.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Martin
November 9, 2020 6:18 am

I’m sorry, but travel to Ft. Lauderdale airport (FTL) is temporarily suspended due to Tropical storm Eta. It should resume on Tuesday. / sarc

November 8, 2020 6:57 pm

You can’t blame Darwin for how we got here. Sadly, I think the proposed new normal in democracy is going to be tested with live ammo. I hope I’m wrong but, if I’m not, I’ll be sequestered somewhere out of the line of fire.

Reply to  philincalifornia
November 8, 2020 7:58 pm

Actually you can blame Darwin, at least for getting the ball rolling. There’s a direct line from survival of the fittest and looking at people as mere animals, to Nazis and Communists treating people as farm animals and resources for production, and useful idiots for advancing their power.

Reply to  PCMan999
November 9, 2020 1:26 am

You are indeed correct. What a snitch he was …. !!

Reply to  PCMan999
November 9, 2020 3:42 am

Many power groups have been calling outsiders worthless animals, or useful slaves, for at least thousands of years. Darwin had nothing to do with it except possibly to modify the excuses a little.

November 8, 2020 7:05 pm

and……>>>>>>>>>> China

what about China?…why are we doing any of this crap?

we’re just pizzing in the wind

Reply to  Latitude
November 8, 2020 7:22 pm

“we’re just pizzing in the wind

By a bunch of pee-brains. 😉

November 8, 2020 7:22 pm

The Guardian. Masters of :
Coulda, woulda, shoulda,,,,,,,,,

November 8, 2020 7:27 pm

Given a choice between a 0.1 degree temperature reduction or 1.7 trillion dollars, I think that I will reluctantly take the money and go.

November 8, 2020 7:28 pm

I’m beginning to think that Biden won’t be president.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  icisil
November 8, 2020 8:17 pm

It all depends on whether his handlers can keep his raging and accelerating dementia hidden from public view as they (mostly) did with a compliant media for the last 8 months until inauguration day, January 20th 2021.
If they can’t, then it’ll put Komrade Kamala and her mentor Obama to the task of orchestrating the coup on the President-elect Biden. I suspect Biden will be a lot easier to eject than Trump. Trump proved resistant to their best efforts. Only the ballot box (rigged or not) ousted Trump.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 8, 2020 9:08 pm

IF Biden is elected….

…. he will be pasturised in a very short time.

David A
Reply to  fred250
November 8, 2020 11:48 pm

President elect Biden, nope, IF he becomes President it is Coup installed Biden.

Kiwi Gary
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 8, 2020 10:09 pm

Harris had already, even before the election, started polishing up the Constitutional amendment [ 25th, if memory serves ] that allows the removal of a sitting President on the grounds of incapacity. She also spoke freely of the “Harris Administration”. Joe is purely a figurehead, noting that KH received just 2% support during the primaries.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 9, 2020 3:51 am

I don’t think it has anything to do with that. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming. Trump is going to war. There are going to be lawsuits in every relevant state starting today. The Republicans hold all of the levers of power: the Supreme Court, the state legislatures, delegations in the US House. All the Dems have is theater. It might go their way, but it is looking very promising for Trump.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  icisil
November 9, 2020 5:08 am

That is retarded.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 5:14 am

LOL, retarded response. You have no idea what’s gong on.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 6:21 am

LOL. The retard thinks he “knows what’s gong on”. Yeah, becuz the prez. said it, and his brainless supporters are parroting it, it “must” be true. LOL.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 6:55 am

LOL retard thinks he knows what’s going on because he watches TV.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 11:04 am

‘Kay, retard. You win.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 11:42 am

Bruce Cobb

You should be thanking Trump, not slagging him off.

If there is evidence of voter fraud, he, like anyone else knowing of it, or participating in it, has a responsibility to ensure it’s investigated.

And I include Biden in this. Suppose it comes out two years down the line (assuming Biden is still in post) the course of Democracy would suffer an enormous setback.

If Trump doesn’t prove fraud, collusion, vote rigging etc. then Biden comes out as clean as a whistle.

The only way Biden can come out the whole mess clean, if the votes were found to be rigged, is if he joins with Trump and demands a legal inquiry himself. And if something untoward is found, but the vote still swings Biden’s way, he should be on the rampage, sacking those responsible.

It’s been pretty well established by credible witnesses (Republican observers) that there were events that require investigation (the legal obligation to allow observers from both sides to witness the counting). Both Republican and Democrat observers are suitably vetted (I presume) and are considered trustworthy enough to witness the Democratic process in action, so their word should carry considerable weight in court.

I’m damn sure I wouldn’t want to be Biden right now.

George Daddis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 9, 2020 7:56 am

It took a LOT less alleged “evidence” to tie up the Trump administration for 3 1/2 years compared to the hard evidence of Biden and Biden family corruption. It is likely we have only seen the tip of the iceberg, and that Joe is compromised by many foreign governments (his constant defense of China is a possible example).

The Left never denied the accusations, only suppressed discussion. Is it possible that THIS is the leverage they will use to get JB to step down in favor of Kamala?

>i>”Look Joe, you achieved your dream and have been elected President. Issue your initial Executive Orders (including the ones we supply) and then “resign for the good of the country” because those “unfounded and scurrilous accusations” could tear the nation apart. You will have preserved your legacy and President Harris will forever remind folks how much she owes you!”

November 8, 2020 8:10 pm

It’s scary how scientifically illiterate is “Fiona Harvey, Environment correspondent”. 0.1°C is nothing, mere noise. 0.1°C change in anomaly compared to the 15°C baseline is even less than nothing, especially after 100 years. $1.7 trillion is definitely not nothing, but that spent to achieve nothing is criminal. We have people living in carboard boxes in the winter, students coming out of school with essentially no education, energy requirements that need real, inexpensive solutions and these idiots breathlessly proclaim their hope for $1.7 trillion to be flushed down the Green toilet.

Reply to  PCMan999
November 8, 2020 9:10 pm

With US industry locked out of all viable energy sources…

… who is going to make al the solar panels and wind turdines ?

George Daddis
Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2020 7:58 am

I presume that was a rhetorical question.
The answer of course is “China.”.

Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2020 8:49 am

It’s already China supplying most of this. Biden is in the CCP’s back pocket, so I don’t see this changing. Most of the value added to sand and bauxite in the manufacture of solar panels is from energy and there’s no possible way to be competitive manufacturing any energy intensive product while depending on unreliable and expensive ‘green’ energy when others, specifically China, can use reliable and inexpensive fossil fuels with impunity. It’s unfortunate that so many are so blinded by hate that they can no longer perceive truth and have been coerced into believing that to save the future we need to impose policies that make the future not worth saving.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  PCMan999
November 8, 2020 9:54 pm

“Fiona holds a degree in English Literature from Cambridge University”.
I wouldn’t assume Fiona knows what the symbols ‘ 0.1°C’ mean.

November 8, 2020 8:14 pm

Lomborg agrees with the NZ estimate of 5 trillion $ to hit NET ZERO by 2050 and NZ is just 0.1% of global emissions.
But USA’s 14% is 140 times that and therefore it would cost 700 trillion $ for USA to reach NET ZERO by 2050.
So far Trump was more accurate when he told Biden that it would cost at least 100 trillion $ if he started to go down this path.
Of course Biden barely knows what day it is, or where he is or what he was running for so I suppose we can just laugh at the poor old fool. China must be laughing their heads off.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Neville
November 8, 2020 8:21 pm

Presidenty Xi is preparing the Taiwan invasion task force. His time for laughter will be over when the PLA amphib landing craft are heading for the beaches of Taiwan in late January or February as the jets and missiles battle in the skies above.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 8, 2020 11:20 pm

He’d have to get past a US carrier fleet first.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 9, 2020 6:42 am

Biden would withdraw it.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
November 9, 2020 6:11 pm

He is stupid enough to do that.

David J Bufalo
November 8, 2020 8:42 pm

What just about all politicians who advocate doing something about global warmng forget about the part called “global”. The atmospher is not a static system just sitting over the United States. It is a global world wide system. If the US alone eliminated all GHGs, the rest of the world would continue to pump out CO2. Unless the rest of the world alsocut its CO2 emmisions, any US effort will be for naught. Of course, the assumption is that man’s generation of CO2 is the primary cause of global warming, which it is not.

November 8, 2020 8:49 pm

“I’m beginning to think that Biden won’t be president”
He won’t be. He’s a sock puppet. He’ll last only until Harris thinks it’s safe to roll him.

David A
Reply to  Damon
November 8, 2020 11:53 pm

My perspective if the steal us successful us that Biden will last only until Harris is told to assume the Presidency. They are both tools to an evil crowd.

willem post
Reply to  Damon
November 9, 2020 7:15 am

You may be right.


In Vermont, a blank ballot was mailed to each active registered voter, dead or alive, moved away or not.
Registered voters 506,312
Votes cast 372,366,

Those who received a ballot, but lost it, could obtain a new one on Election Day by signing an affidavit at their polling place.
When I arrived, early morning, on Election Day, there already were boxes with signed affidavits.

Spare Ballots: That means an extra quantity of blank ballots were printed, and available at each polling station.
Some of these ballots could be used by polling station insiders to tip close races one way or another.
It is likely, an extra quantity of blank ballots was kept “in reserve” elsewhere, to be distributed, as needed, to tip close races one way or another.

Swing States: This would especially be the case in swing states, in, such as in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada and Arizona.
Various irregularities have been reported in five Democrat-Big-Machine cities, such as Detroit, Mich.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; Milwaukee, Wis.; and Las Vegas, Nev.

The Coup d’Etat: As if orchestrated, facilitated with cell phones, ballot counting was halted or slowed down, at about the same time, in a number of key states, starting late Tuesday, November 3, and early Wednesday, November 4.
Panic! Trump was too far ahead! Have the Media put out the word ballot-counting will be delayed!
More Biden votes were needed to be distributed to polling centers for counting on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

A few hours later, starting about 4 am, there were steady influxes of Biden votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.
Trump saw what was happening, and wanted to stop the counting. All to no avail.
Poll station monitors were not allowed to watch, or were allowed to watch from a distance.
Windows were being boarded up. No peeking while we cook the books

Call the FBI to investigate?
The FBI would be of no help, because it has been actively undermining Trump, with help of the Media, which is 93% anti-Trump.

The allegations are:

1) Mysterious ballot drops that seem to show tens of thousands of votes for Joe Biden and zero votes for President Trump,
2) Inexplicable record turnouts in late-counting counties (all Democrat-dominated) that far surpass turnouts in counties in other states where the votes were counted on a timely basis; and
3) The illegal banning of election observers in those very counties where the most outrageous anomalies were reported.

In all these states, Trump was ahead, then using the mantra “all votes must be counted”, Biden votes were appearing from various places.
Counting went on for days after the election, until Trump ended up behind, and was not elected.

willem post
Reply to  willem post
November 9, 2020 7:16 am


Ballots should be numbered, similar to lottery tickets.
All ballots must be run through a machine on or before Election Day.
No universal mail-in of ballots.
All absentee voters must request ballots.
No harvesting of ballots from anywhere, including nursing homes.
If absentee, all nursing home ballots must be properly notarized.
If absentee, no ballots are valid, unless properly notarized and post-marked on or before Election Day.

With a proper computer system, immediately after the polls close, it will be known which ballot numbers are missing, such as someone died, moved away, or did not bother to vote.
Those numbers would immediately be declared void, to avoid them being used for nefarious purposes, as happened in Michigan, Wisconsin, Philadelphia, etc.

There would still be many smaller ways to game the system, but at least the barn door would be closed before the horse got out.

Before the present election, truckloads of ballots were printed, and filled out, for Biden, and distributed, as needed, to tip the various races in favor of Biden; a pre-meditated plan, hatched in Democrat-Big-Machine cities, such as Detroit, Mich.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; Milwaukee, Wis.; and Las Vegas, Nev.

Trump litigating likely would not catch enough fraud to make a difference.
Changing the rules?

Will never happen, because power and control folks like losey, goosy rules.

NOTE: The Trump poll-monitoring team canvassed all early voters and absentee mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.
They found over 100 people who likely were dead; 15 of them voted, even though verified as dead!
Senator Graham stated: “Here is the one that really gets me: Six people REGISTERED after they died, and then voted. In Pennsylvania, I guess you’re never out of it.”

That means, voter lists were checked by Democrat voting operatives, to determine who likely had not voted.
Ballots were prepared, and sent in under their name, to polling stations, for counting, until Biden was safely ahead.

Eager operatives, in a hurry, even registered dead people, even after they had died.
That was just an honest mistake? Horse manure!

George Daddis
Reply to  willem post
November 9, 2020 8:18 am

The problem in my mind is that the Progressives have already achieved a “tipping point” ( a phrase they love) in the US.
– Restrict what some would consider election integrity regulations (voter ID, signattures etc)
– Hamper verification of voter rolls (Stacy Abrams as champion)
– Encourage mass distribution of ballots.

Pelosi already has legislation ready to expand that effort including national mass distribution of ballots with prepaid return postage

New 3rd world voters of course are much more likely to vote Democrat. This explains the about face by Democrats (Clinton et al) re illegal immigration, and large scale “refuge” programs with citizenship to urban areas . (The Squad was re-elected mainly by immigrant populations in their districts. If that is a racist comment so be it.)

Joe promised his first EOs would stop the wall, end deportations, undo travel from hostile nations with no verification processes and start citizenship for current DACA residents and their families.

Reply to  willem post
November 12, 2020 12:27 am

They could print all the ballots they want. Those would be deemed illegal since the don’t have the original CISA encrypted micro dot watermarks from the DHS.

November 8, 2020 8:59 pm

I’ve got a mo’ bedda idea…

Let’s not spend one more DIME on irrelevant CO2 sequestration for the already disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis, and enjoy the benefits of CO2’s ECS of around 0.6C~1.2C.

Doubling CO2 to 560ppm would: increase crop yields by 30%, extend growing seasons, reduce crop-frost loss, make all plants more drought resistant, reduce energy requirements for winter heating, increase arable land in Northern latitudes, fossil fuel energy would be 4 times cheaper than wind/solar generated power, etc.

All this is moot anyway because all countries will eventually have to switch to Thorium MSR reactors in around 10 years after China’s first LFTRs go online around 2030 producing electricity at around $0.03/kWh compared to around $0.40/kWh for wind/solar.

If Leftists were smart and truly concerned about CO2, they’d spend this $1.7 trillion to develop LFTR technology, which could power the planet for centuries with near zero CO2 emissions, until even cheaper fusion-reactor technology eventually becomes available, but alas…

Peter W
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 9, 2020 7:39 am

But all of that increase in plant growth would create more shade, and everybody knows it is cooler in the shade, so the result would be the next ice age!

Plants would grow so fast and so strong they would crowd us out of the green areas of earth, forcing us to spend years wandering in the deserts.

Al Gore’s next movie about this growing threat will feature terrifying scenes of hurricane winds toppling massive supertrees, able to demolish tall buildings with a single crash. The proposed title of his movie is “Little Planet of Horrors.” It will be required viewing in our schools on a weekly basis., along with instructions on how to minimize breathing, since our breath contains carbon dioxide.

November 8, 2020 9:12 pm

The effect from Biden’s hypthetical expenditure of the $1 trillion is indeterminate in view of a mistake that was made by Svante Arrhenius in the design of his study of the rise in the global surface temperature at thermal equilibrium from a rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. This mistake and its consequences are exposed in the recently published article at .

November 8, 2020 11:10 pm

Is.1 degree even within error margin in measurable terms.

Peter Tari
November 8, 2020 11:29 pm

I don’t know whether CO2 can cause global warming or not, but trying to reduce level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is definitely a bad idea, because the supply is inexhaustible.
The ocean contains 100 times more of it than the atmosphere.

November 8, 2020 11:41 pm

Or for $1.7 trillion we could prevent 830,000 deaths per annum for 11.5 years (9.5 million) by providing clean water and sanitation to the 2.5 billion people who have no access to clean water.

Reduce the temperature by 0.1C or save the lives of 9.5 million people.

It’s up to you Biden.

Reply to  Redge
November 9, 2020 1:29 am

I’m guessing he’ll go with planet depopulation. It’s all the rage these days and might make him feel young again.

Reply to  philincalifornia
November 9, 2020 1:36 am

Certainly is, and depopulation always starts with the non-white people.

Who would have thought environmentalists were white supremacists?

Hang on a minute……

Reply to  Redge
November 9, 2020 2:45 am

Who would have thought that a political party called the Democratic Party would eschew democracy, or that the word “liberal” would mean one-party totalitarian rule, or that “progressive” would make the Amish look like a visitation from the future?

Hang on a minute…… the feudal system wasn’t all bad, honestly.

Reply to  philincalifornia
November 9, 2020 5:08 am

Here in the UK we have the Liberal Democrat Party – you can probably figure out how awful they are 🙂

William Haas
November 9, 2020 12:34 am

The reality is that 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 zero.. So this huge expenditure may lower CO2 emissions and at the same time damage the economy but it will have no effect on the Earth’s climate.

willem post
Reply to  William Haas
November 9, 2020 7:20 am


Whereas world and US renewables goals may be partially achieved by 2050, CO2 reductions would be significantly less than claimed by wind proponents.

If gas turbine power plants perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing, to counteract variable, intermittent wind and solar on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more frequent start/stops (less efficient).

Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear, and 4) more grid augmentation/expansion/storage.

The more wind and solar on the grid, the more extreme the output variations, and the more frequent the start/stops.

In the appendix are three articles that explain in detail the less-than-claimed CO2 reduction of wind electricity on the electric grid.


Coeur de Lion
November 9, 2020 1:45 am

Btw did you notice that 0.1 degC was described as
‘global heating’ not ‘global warming’. This is because of a language diktat by the idiotic Guardian editor designed to scare us all and to which all the silly little Guardian journos roll over and obey or get fired.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 9, 2020 2:50 am

I know complete BS and well within error ranges.

November 9, 2020 3:07 am

Does that estimate of $1.7 trillion include Hunter’s 20% with half of that held for the Big Guy?

Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 4:57 am

In the feeble minds of Greenie Weenies, idiotic hope for an idiotic energy policy based on idiot science springs eternal.

November 9, 2020 5:27 am

I saw some extracts from the vice-president debates. I don’t think I’ve seen such an impressive false smile as Harris maintained. And she’s made very clear what she really thinks of Biden. It’ll be an interesting relationship until such time as Biden is dumped.

Americans can look forward to their energy bills rising but will have the warm glow of satisfaction that they are saving the planet. Welcome to the European way of doing things!

Mike Maguire
November 9, 2020 5:39 am

And for most life that means .1 deg C of less beneficial warming!m

Mike Maguire
November 9, 2020 5:42 am

.1 deg C less of beneficial warming.

November 9, 2020 6:37 am

The likelihood of the US joining the Paris Accord is almost zero. This is PR designed to make Biden look presidential and appeal to those who already drink the cool aid. It has to go through the Senate. The Senate will consider it an International Treaty which will require a two thirds majority to effect it. Dream On.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Pipedream
November 9, 2020 6:48 am

Don’t see what stops him achieving the same as Obama did. Which will keep the toothless “should”s in place of bi ding commitments

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pipedream
November 9, 2020 8:13 am

NAFTA was done without a Senate treaty approval.

Captain Climate
November 9, 2020 6:57 am

I say without exaggeration that our educational institutions and journals and publishers need a full reboot and that in lieu of that all we can do is launch new schools, publishers, journals, etc., who actually value objectivity. There is definitely a market for this. Fortunately Covid lockdowns have made many question the value of their 4-year brainwashing and marginal institutions have faltered. Can the same happen with journals and publishers in a way that restores skepticism and actual discourse?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
November 9, 2020 8:09 am

Biden’s policy of a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and plans for a $1.7tn investment in a green recovery from the Covid crisis, would reduce US emissions in the next 30 years by about 75 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalents. Calculations by the Climate Action Tracker show that this reduction would be enough to avoid a temperature rise of about 0.1C by 2100.

According to this source, world carbon emissions in 2019 were 33.3 gigatonnes, with “advanced economies” accounting for 11.3 gagatonnes and “Rest of the World” accounting for 22.0. Since 1990, the trend in advanced economies has been essentially flat; the absolute peak of 13.0 was reached in 2007 followed by a steady decline since. The 2019 total of 11.3 is exactly the same as it was in 1990. In the same period “Rest of the World” emissions have gone from 9.2 to 22.0 – a 239% increase.

The figure in the quote (75 gigatonnes for the US) clearly has to be cumulative emissions over the next 30 years, which means the US would have to on average emit 2.5 gigatonnes less than currently.

From the same source:

The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.

So starting at the current base of 4.8 gT annually and assuming we do nothing, US emissions over the next 30 years would total 144 gT and the Biden proposal aims to cut that in half. In the same time the US has cut annual emissions by 1 gT (2000 – 2019), the “Rest of the World” has increased it by 11.5 gT; not an encouraging trend.

Even on the dubious assumption the Biden plan achieves the stated goal and the US is a net zero emitter by 2050 (lowering annual word emissions by 4.8 gT), if the growth in the rest of the world continues at current rates, they will add another 17.3 gT or so. On the even more dubious assumption that all other advanced economies likewise become net zero by 2050, the total world emissions would be about 39.3 gT – approximately an 18% increase from today; all driven by the developing countries.

Pop the champagne corks – the world is saved!

November 9, 2020 8:36 am

Those who observe the development of molten salt small modular reactors and their costs, can prove that less than one trillion dollars could buy enough molten salt reactors, which,, when combined with the current nuclear generation (20%) and the current hydro generation (10%) , would create a carbon and emission free power grid, and also provide power for a fleet of electric vehicles. Done’ expect senile Joe Biden or his equally senile advisers to understand that technology, not 16th century wind mills or solar disks, will eliminate emissions.

Gordon A. Dressler
November 9, 2020 9:11 am

Hey, if we (the USA) need to spend $1.7 trillion in the next 4 years to avoid a 0.1 °C rise in global temperature by 2100 (80 years from now) . . . well, we just have to do it!

After all, we’ve been assured the world will suffer an unrecoverable climate catastrophe if we (all nations of the world) don’t stop global warming in the next 10.25 years (!) from now, according to that prominent climate “scientist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And as ascribed to by Joe Biden, US President-elect.

BTW, who cares any longer about the increases in annual US budget deficients or the total US national debt . . . laissez les bons temps rouler!

November 9, 2020 9:34 am

Biden has also said he will ban fracking. But fracking is responsible for the major drop in US emissions, down below 1990 levels.

So his net zero plans will cut emissions while his fracking ban will raise them?

I suspect his plans, if implemented would be very successful in cutting emissions, not because the actions themselves would be effective, but rather because they’ll result in a major crash of the US economy. When your economy is shut down, emissions fall.

November 9, 2020 9:46 am

I guess we are about to get the explanation of what Climate Justice really is. It’s for purchases of emergency backup generators for the poor and people of color. The rest of you can wait on your back ordered units—from China.

November 9, 2020 10:46 am

Your estimate of $17 Trillion presumes each 0.1C reduction in warming will cost equal amounts. History suggests they won’t.

Assuming this $1.7 Trillion for 0.1C is correct (which it won’t be, but let’s indulge and assume it is) that’d be for the low hanging fruit. The easy, obvious reductions, if such a thing even exists.

The more warming you have to reduce beyond easy reductions the harder you’re going to have to work, which will be more expensive pro-rata.

The Law of Diminishing Returns strikes again. $17 Trillion, and probably a whole lot more. What a total farce this entire cAGW s*** show is.

November 9, 2020 12:00 pm

Let’s remember the $1.7 trillion is just a down payment. You have all the other 0.1s to deal with, especially near election time.

November 9, 2020 12:19 pm

If they wait two years and a day before removing Biden for his foreign corruption. Kamala would be able to serve the less than two years remaining of Biden’s term and still be eligible for two more four year terms. I imagine Biden would be very easy to control during the first two years.

November 9, 2020 1:16 pm

Remember to treat the whole country like it’s California. They mind until later.

Allen Stoner
November 9, 2020 4:09 pm

America’s 10 trillion dollar investment in Covid theater saved 0 lives and likely cost hundreds of thousands.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights