Biden Cabinet Nominee Open to New Taxes to Pay for “Climate Agenda”

From Goverment Accountability & Oversight

Biden Cabinet Nominee Open to New Taxes to Pay for “Climate Agenda” — as Gov., Sued Energy Cos. to Obtain “Sustainable Funding Stream” Because Legislature Refused

WEBEDITOR GAO

GAO and ClimateLitigationWatch readers are familiar with the effort by the State of Rhode Island to sue energy companies in state court for causing climate change, hoping to cash in after the administration concluded that the State’s “Assembly [had] very conservative leadership — don’t care about env’t”, leaving the Governor “looking for sustainable funding stream”.

So it should be no surprise that at her confirmation hearing to serve as Pres. Biden’s Secretary of Commerce Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo continued the line that the “climate” agenda spending ambitions cost a lot of money, “We need funds”, and someone’s just going to have to suck it up and hand over their money to pay for them.

“We need funds”. — Commerce Sec. Nominee Gina Raimondo

According to two contemporaneous sets of notes from a meeting at (natch) the Rockefeller mansion — one set handwritten by a Rocky Mountain Institute aide, another by a rep from Tom Steyer’s energy Foundation — Raimondo’s own Cabinet aide, Department of Environmental Management chief Janet Coit, laid out that that meant suing “in state court” for “priority — sustainable funding stream”.

So dig deep, they’ve got a spending agenda. And you’re just the folks to pay for it.

4.8 12 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 30, 2021 10:17 pm

There should be no surprise here! Look at the string of “Executive Orders” signed during the first week of the new administration.

Last week I took gas in Texas in the low $1.60s. Next year? Expect it to double (minimum) and triple (realistically). The difference between those price hikes and a Tax? ZERO, as they are both sides of the same coin, and all are leaving your pockets emptier!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  tomwys
January 31, 2021 1:43 am

I read he has signed MORE EO’s than Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump combined. That should worry Americans and the world. Here in Aus, the Western Australian (WA) Premiere has shut down the whole city of Perth and closed borders for *ONE* case of “COVID-19”. People in WA have gone in to panic buying mode.

2021 seems to be off to a start similar to 2020.

Last edited 5 months ago by Patrick MJD
ozspeaksup
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 31, 2021 3:38 am

yeah and the same old story
OS immigrant security moonlighting as a uber? driver and gadding about for 5 days
just wonderful
did make me smile for WA to cop a case though
been so smug about themselves

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 31, 2021 8:59 pm

I read he has signed MORE EO’s than Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump combined.”

Well, yeah. He has to “unify the nation” – with the salve of his political conscience, which he is smearing all over the country’s wounds. Can’t you feel it? So warm and good.

Total EOs of some of our more recent presidents:

Richard Nixon – 346
Gerald Ford – 169
Jimmy Carter- 320
Ronald Reagan – 381
George HW Bush – 166
Bill Clinton – 364
George W Bush – 291
Barack Obama – 276
Donald Trump – 220
Joe Biden – 25 (in his first two weeks)

Still, Biden will have to get busy to equal Franklin Roosevelt. In a little over 10 years, Roosevelt issued 3,728 executive orders. George Washington had the second most with 2,553.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

fred250
January 30, 2021 10:44 pm

Energy companies need to take this battle to these miscreants

They sue.. you with-hold supply.

John Bell
Reply to  fred250
January 31, 2021 6:39 am

That is hyphen-abuse.

lee
January 30, 2021 11:35 pm

How do you decrease the size of that pesky middle class? Tax them so they become part of the lower class. Simples.

tonyb
Editor
January 31, 2021 12:41 am

I am sure here everyone wants to do their bit, so how about a trebling of Fuel taxes on vehicles and a doubling of energy prices?

Brings in lots of money and Americas consumption of fossil fuel will halve. A genius solution.

Ps I don’t need to put ‘sarc’ do I?
Pps Hope this doesn’t give anyone in Biden’s administration ideas?

tonyb

Tom
Reply to  tonyb
January 31, 2021 5:27 am

Actually, IF you want people to stop using gasoline and diesel, that is the way to do it.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom
January 31, 2021 6:35 am

Using domestically yes. However any surplus is likely to be exported if it’s cost effective. Biden is trying to shut down the whole thing, domestic use and exports. At some point he’s likely to try to stop imports as well, if he’s allowed to go that far.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  tonyb
January 31, 2021 7:55 am

21 months to your mid-terms.
I see Biden over reaching dramatically right out of the gate

He’s setting up the conditions for the republicans to take both houses of Congress but only if you tone down the crazier elements.

Stick to basics like “it’s the economy stupid”, Biden’s policies should be causing massive pain by then

George Daddis
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 31, 2021 9:37 am

Both parties consist of humans and unfortunately humans have a small subset that are “crazies”. Recently extremists and radicals on both sides have made the news.

The difference is by controlling the media narrative and political discourse everyone on the Right are being unfairly maligned as “domestic terrorists”. (What is the Left doing to “tone down the crazier elements”?)

Don
Reply to  George Daddis
February 1, 2021 8:34 am

The “crazier elements” are the ones in control on the Left.

beng135
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 31, 2021 9:40 am

The US election system is now rigged.

Last edited 5 months ago by beng135
MarkW
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 31, 2021 11:17 am

Crazier elements? Like AOC claiming that Senator Cruze tried to have her killed?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 5:55 pm

Exactly.

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2021 12:00 pm

Her ego is growing very fast.

And she needs to be careful about what she wishes for … as there are a good number of crazies out there.

Vincent Causey
January 31, 2021 12:45 am

There is going to be serious overreach of federal authority over state authority. Some of it already is unconstitutional like dictating how states shall elect officials. Expect to see independence movements like in Texas to be reinvigorated, and more. Can civil disobedience at the State level be a thing?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vincent Causey
January 31, 2021 5:57 pm

“There is going to be serious overreach of federal authority over state authority.”

Biden might try but the U.S. Constitution gives the States plenty of power.

Our situation today is one reason the Founding Fathers created a Republic. A Republic has more tools to fend off a dictator.

starzmom
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 1, 2021 5:29 am

The Supreme Court will have to rein in Biden from his overreaches. I don’t know if they have the appetite for that.

Don
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 1, 2021 8:37 am

And that is why they’re already talking about packing SCOTUS with leftist justices who will declare all their blatantly unconstitutional actions “constitutional”.

marlene
January 31, 2021 12:51 am

“We need funds”, and someone’s just going to have to suck it up and hand over their money to pay for them.” Hand over? No, he means “ripped” out of our hands so THEY can suck it all up – to pay for the air we breathe…

Ken Irwin
Reply to  marlene
January 31, 2021 1:01 am

When last did you see an elected official say “We need to reduce our costs.”

That’s the problem with the swamp !

They treat the taxpayer an a bottomless cash cow.

There are no new sources of revenue to be had – none !

There are in fact only two sources of tax….

You !

or

Me !

Scissor
Reply to  Ken Irwin
January 31, 2021 7:02 am

Exactly.

starzmom
Reply to  marlene
February 1, 2021 5:30 am

Time to open up that overseas bank account.

Peta of Newark
January 31, 2021 12:53 am

That Raimondo woman is physically thus mentally ill.
Not an ad-hom – actual statement of fact.

In that picture – her head is too big for (what we can see of) the rest of her body
Characteristic of Size Zero models

See here ##

The BMI calculator for the NHS says this about her, assuming she does ‘Moderate Physical Activity’
Quote:
“”You are in the healthy weight range, but at the lower end. Keep an eye on your weight and try to stay in the healthy range.
There may be an underlying medical cause for your weight, or your diet may not be providing you with enough calories. We suggest you discuss this with your GP.””

She Is Not Fit – not fit for ‘life’ not fit for office.
It gets even worse, the Reality Disconnect that is

Read further on at ##, about Net Worth and Salary
Sickening
She stole money from pensioners
jeez

I stand by, even more convinced now, that folks with obsessions/addictions should not be in Public Office, Education or Science. Science Not Least

Having a bad BMI tells you that you have A Problem, a mental problem actually, with sugar
Sugar, both ‘Refined’ and as Cooked Starch, destroys minds as well as bodies
As far as Raimondo goes, she perfectly illustrates Magical Thinking – or – what might/could/would be and often is described as, Blinding Hypocrisy and comes straight out of Chronic, Chemically Induced, Depression

It gets worse.
See the rosy red cheeks in her publicity (happy family) photo?
Mmmmm OK, maybe that’s make-up, or is it = trashed blood vessels brought on by the consumption of White Wine and Gin?
NO, There is no ‘Safe Recommended Amount’ and NO, only Magical Thinking tells you that ‘It’s OK, I can handle it
If ‘You can handle it’, meaning that it has No Effect on you, why do you continue to drink it and so strongly protest the fact that ‘You can handle it’

The blind are leading the blind – are we in trouble here or what?
Those of you presently on Day 396 of Peta’s Dry January will know that.

Last edited 5 months ago by Peta of Newark
Martin Buchanan
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 31, 2021 1:14 am

Calm down Carrie Nation.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 31, 2021 3:18 am

Come on Peta, give her a break. If you had to carry that much dead weight about on your shoulders all day, you would look ill too…. 🙂

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 31, 2021 3:43 am

Peta until I hit late 50s I was her height/weight and was perfectly healthy and muscled
she may be a fine bone frame she would be an aussie size 10 to 12 and thats a GOOD thing looking at the generally overweight to obese american

Scissor
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 31, 2021 7:05 am

Sounds like she needs an anal swab more than I do.

griff
January 31, 2021 1:09 am

Here’s an article detailing the immense benefits from fleet Evs – directly applicable to Biden decision to make federal vehicles EVs:

How Fleets Will Propel The Consumer EV Market (cleantechnica.com)

‘Electric vehicles are superior to their combustion engine counterparts in terms of both cost and emissions. They are more efficient, cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain, and longer lasting while boasting zero emissions and low noise. During the second half of the 20th century, electric motors displaced combustion engines across every industrial process for the same operational advantages that EV drivers are realizing now.’

An individual EV owner may save more than a thousand dollars annually on fuel and maintenance costs over a comparable combustion vehicle while reducing their individual carbon footprint. For a fleet of a thousand round-the-clock buses, trucks, or rideshare vehicles operating at 50,000 miles per year or more over the course of ten years, the savings escalate quickly into the millions.’

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 9:05 am

Of course, nothing in that article is true. But what the heck, we’re trying to save the world here, we can’t let facts get in our way.

They are more efficient: False
cheaper to operate: False
cheaper to maintain: False
boasting zero emissions: False
low noise: Partially true, IC cars are low noise as well.
During the second half of the 20th century, electric motors displaced combustion engines: False, combustion engines were never used in industrial processes. Beyond that, the issue is the batteries, none of those electric motors were powered from batteries.

Last edited 5 months ago by MarkW
Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 6:02 pm

And beyond that, the issue is the enourmous amounts of natural resources that will be required to electrify the whole US automobile fleet.

England will have used up all the world’s resources electrifying their automobile fleet, so where does that leave the U.S. and every other nation on Earth? Answer; Short of resources.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 9:40 am

cleantechnica.com supplies marketing pablum, not science-based information.

“By the sources they reference, yea shall know them.”—adaptation of a Biblical proverb.

Let me simply that for griff: to compare fixed-location electric motors as used in industry from 1951-2000 to mobil electric motors as used in EVs post-2000 is idiotic.

I’m not at all surprised that griff chose to lean on such a reference, with his sophomoric comment of it being “directly applicable to Biden decision to make federal vehicles EVs.”

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 10:02 am

The author of this article was “Sponsored Content”. What a joke. Talk to an automotive design engineer sometime.

EV autos are *heavier* than equivalent ICE vehicles. This strains every component of the car, from the frame to the shock absorbers, to axle bearings, to steering components, to even body panels (because of frame distortion) and tires and wheels. The only way around this is to use *very* expensive exotic materials in the auto construction which raises the price significantly. Therefore EV’s are *not* cheaper to operate or maintain. Nor will they be as long lasting. As for cost, copper gets more and more expensive every single year and EV’s have lots of copper in their drive motors, any drop in battery cost will be offset by increased motor costs.

Low noise? Ask a blind person at an intersection if that is a advantage!

BTW, unless you add the cost of power generation for charging, including emission costs, you are comparing apples and oranges.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 31, 2021 11:20 am

The only internal combustion cars that make a lot of noise, are those that have been modified by their owners to do so. When going down the road, by far the loudest noises (not including radios and other devices that are supposed to make noise) are wind and tire noises.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
February 1, 2021 7:27 am

I seem to remember that a number of German cities got quite excited about their new electric buses a few years ago. However after two or so years of operation they found that the buses batteries needed replacement because their routes were so hilly. The cities decided the cost was too much and cancelled the buses.

Fletch'
Reply to  griff
February 1, 2021 12:34 pm

Well I will chime in on a couple of facts and that is that the U.S. Navy tugboats and salvage ships were run on diesel electric drive and the concept is now come full cycle that the Navy is creating all new electric drive ships at the very beginning, but not necessarily diesel. The Coast Guard has a series of icebreakers which use diesel for slow movement and gas turbines for heavy icebreaking. Controllable pitch propellers allow the ship to drive up on the ice and back down rapidly and drive forward again in short order. I can’t comment on the reliability of electric motors but is certainly an issue of how to charge them, which is usually via fossil fuels.

James
January 31, 2021 2:52 am

But only if you make over $400,000, right? (sarc)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  James
January 31, 2021 8:14 am

There simply aren’t enough people making $400K or more to fund the green agenda!

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 31, 2021 11:21 am

But there are enough “journalists” who believe that there are, to keep the lie going.

john
January 31, 2021 3:46 am

OT…If you recall the shenanigans back on 08, the current admin may need to be impeached. We are on a war footing after all.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=241454

PS: There are rumors the White House was directly involved. If that proves up — and so far it’s a claim of an alleged whistleblower — whoever you voted for you damn well better demand and enforce an immediate impeachment, removal and barring from office for life for both Biden and Harris. No ifs, ands or buts.

Last edited 5 months ago by john
goldminor
Reply to  john
January 31, 2021 9:29 am

The other day I noticed the standard comment of denial that anything nefarious occurred in regards to the hedge funds asking for trading to be halted. Someone from Robinhood called it a conspiracy theory. Nothing to see here, and we all believe that. Don’t we?

very old white guy
January 31, 2021 5:21 am

America like Canada is pretty much bankrupt, it should not take too many more years of having democrats and liberals in control to finish the job.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  very old white guy
January 31, 2021 9:31 am

Govt has found the secret. Authorize mortgages, guarantee big loans…let the banks loan out the money, let the banks assemble their loans into mortgage backed securities…have the Fed buy those securities and they become an asset to the gov’t books. The banks get money for the security sale years ahead of waiting for loan payments to arrive, and thus have much more money to loan out. Works good until someone doesn’t make their payments or someone doesn’t believe the gov’t decree that newly printed monopoly money can be used to buy groceries. They learned this from Goldman-Sachs in 2008…..haven’t yet studied where it went wrong in Greece, Ireland, Venezuela, post WW1 Germany…..economists claim such events are predictable, but so far only after the event has occurred…./s

Last edited 5 months ago by DMacKenzie
goldminor
January 31, 2021 6:08 am

Here is another story of obvious corruption from one of the top Dem leaders, Pelosi. Six days ago Biden stated that he would mandate that the US government would switch its vehicle fleet to EVs. The day before Biden said this Pelosi’s husband purchased around 1 million dollars of Tesla calls. She needs to be called out for this obvious insider trading. … https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/nancy-pelosi-discloses-1-million-call-options-tesla-stock-2021-1-1029998372

goldminor
Reply to  goldminor
January 31, 2021 6:48 am

I should have read the entire story. The purchase was made in late December, and not last week. Still it raises questions in that Pelosi will be passing legislation which can certainly affect the price of the stock.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  goldminor
January 31, 2021 7:51 am

No surprise, this is how all of these “servants of the people” show up in Washington broke and leave decades later as multimillionaires.
It isn’t from their salaries.

That is the real swamp

lower case fred
January 31, 2021 7:33 am

Dig deep? No, it’s all paid for with credit. These people are clueless to the extent that our “prosperity” is provided by expanding credit. I will admit that they have kept the expansion going longer than I thought possible, but it will not last forever. When it ends, there will be a reckoning.

MarkW
Reply to  lower case fred
January 31, 2021 7:51 am

Presidents are required to put their assets into blind trusts before they take office.
Senators and Representatives should have the same requirement.
For good measure, most of the bureaucracy should have the same requirement as well.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 9:10 am

That was supposed to be in response to goldminor.

ColMosby
January 31, 2021 7:39 am

Proof that these climate activists know even less about how to lower carbon emissions than they know about the effects of increased carbon levels. Within the next 7 or 8 years, small modular molten salt reactors will be ready to commercialize. They are manufactured in a factory and quickly installed on a small parcel of land , which will require little or no cooling water. Their cost is
such that the U.S. could install enough capacity which, when added to the current nuclear and hydro capacity (20% + 10%) , the total would be less than $1 trillion dollars. They can load follow, so no mid and peak level fossil fuel capacity is required. These climate activists only believe in technologies which are expensive and inadequate. Their idiotic “solutions” are the reason they get little support from skeptics.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  ColMosby
January 31, 2021 7:49 am

Hope you are right, 20th century technology (as per J Currie) is a dead end

MarkW
Reply to  ColMosby
January 31, 2021 7:52 am

How long have you been making that claim?
They still haven’t figured out how to work around the many problems with MSRs, but they are ready to start building them.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 8:16 am

Think cold fusion.

Notanacademic
Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 12:27 pm

I read some years ago about liquid fluoride thorium reactors and that China was developing them did anything become of this or is this another one of those things that’s always ten years away.

Pat from kerbob
January 31, 2021 7:48 am

Here is a link to a report prepared for the Allan commission set up by the AB Govt to look into foreign funding of efforts to kill our energy industry, and the whole great reset scam
https://albertainquiry.ca/sites/default/files/2021-01/Nemeth%20Report%20%28Supplement%29.pdf

Pat from kerbob
January 31, 2021 7:57 am

Repost from below
21 months to your mid-terms.
I see Biden over reaching dramatically right out of the gate

He’s setting up the conditions for the republicans to take both houses of Congress but only if you tone down the crazier elements.

Stick to basics like “it’s the economy stupid”, Biden’s policies should be causing massive pain by then

Kevin kilty
January 31, 2021 8:30 am

So much for the fantasy that Raimondo is one of those Democratic “moderates”. Two years is going to be a long time to suffer until there is another “election” to demonstrate disapproval.

Gordon A. Dressler
January 31, 2021 9:07 am

Just one question: Why is this newsworthy?

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 31, 2021 6:40 pm

It’s more evidence of what the Democrats have in store for us.

beng135
January 31, 2021 9:34 am

Biden Cabinet Nominee Open to New Taxes to Pay for “Climate Agenda”

Well duh. Everyone in the Biden junta is “open to new taxes”, for whatever the cause. Their goal is to suck the US taxpayers dry.

Last edited 5 months ago by beng135
MarkW
January 31, 2021 11:15 am

Progressivism is an ideology that is characterized by the belief that taking money from people who work and giving it to people who will vote for you, will boost the economy

Beta Blocker
January 31, 2021 12:08 pm

The fact remains that the Executive Branch now has all the authority it needs to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions on a highly aggressive fast-track schedule. What remains to be seen is whether or not President Biden will use that authority. 

If climate change is indeed the existential threat to our existence President Biden claims that it is, then he is ethically and morally obligated to act in accordance with his claims and to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions just as far and as fast as current law allows him to do.

More important, under current law, President Biden can do it unilaterally without another new word of legislation being passed by the Congress.

Every action listed under the following five-point GHG reduction program — the ‘Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP)‘ — has a past historical precedent in the application of environmental and national security law.

I: Establish the Legal Basis for Regulating All of America’s GHG Emissions (Status complete)

I-a:  File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007)
I-b: Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009)
I-c: Successfully defend the CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012)
I-d: Establish a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020)

II: Expand and Extend Regulation of all Carbon Emissions (2021)

II-a: Issue an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
II-b: Assign a joint task force comprised of all cabinet level departments, plus the National Security Agency, to manage the carbon pollution emergency. 
II-c: Create a joint interagency control board to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
II-d: Place this control board under the direct supervision of the president and his national security staff.
II-e: Research and publish a US Treasury policy plan for redirecting energy market financial investments as needed to support the government’s GHG reduction plan.
II-f: Defend the president’s emergency actions as needed in response to specific lawsuits filed in the courts.  

III: Establish an Expanded Carbon Emission Regulation Program (2021, 2022)

III-a: Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
III-b: Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
III-c: Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
III-d: Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
III-e: Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.
III-f: Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
III-g: Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
III-h: Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
III-i: Establish the legal basis for sharing the revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines among the federal and state governments.
III-j: Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.

IV: Establish a Carbon Fuel Rationing Program (2021, 2022)

IV-a: Research and publish a system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing.
IV-b: Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
IV-c: Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
IV-d: Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
IV-e: Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
IV-f: Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.

V: Perform Ongoing GHG Reduction Monitoring & Control Activities (2023 through 2050)

V-a: Issue a further series of Executive Orders, as needed, to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
V-b: Issue a further series of Executive Orders, as needed, to further define and further implement America’s carbon fuel rationing program.
V-c: Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulation framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
V-d: Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
V-e: Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
V-f: Monitor the effectiveness of carbon fuel rationing programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
V-g: Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags. 
V-h: Adjust the carbon fuel rationing targets upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
V-i: Continue to defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations and the government-mandated energy rationing programs in the courts.
V-j: Continue to assess the need for enforcing the government’s GHG reduction programs beyond the year 2050.

REMARKS:

The plan described above is completely legal and constitutional. Under current law, the SSCECP can be implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch using its existing environmental protection and national security authorities. Not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress either to enable the plan legally or to fund its operation.

Nor does the plan require a separate line of funding in the federal government’s budget. The planning activities and regulation roll-out activities are easily accomplished within the existing spending authorities of the US-EPA, the US-DOE, and the US-DHS.  

A plan like the SSCECP will generate many lawsuits. But if the plan is applied with equal force against all major sources of America’s carbon emissions and with equal impact upon all affected economic sectors and demographic groups, those lawsuits will go nowhere. It is specifically designed to survive any lawsuits brought against it.

Even if the House of Representatives and the Senate were both in Republican hands in January, 2023, and passed legislation specifically forbidding the adoption of a plan like the SSCECP, a presidential veto can kill that legislation with the stroke of a pen.

So the big question remains. How far will President Biden go in acting upon his stated convictions? Will he, or won’t he, do all that is in his power as Chief Executive to reduce America’s carbon emissions just as far and as fast as climate activists say is necessary?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Beta Blocker
January 31, 2021 6:02 pm

He just signs whatever they put in front of him.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 31, 2021 7:22 pm

Yes, that is how it works. And for the obvious reason. The man simply isn’t all there. The climate activists in Joe Biden’s administration run the environmental and energy policy show. He himself is merely the public face of the policy wonk ideologues who tell him what to sign.

But the basic point still remains. Whoever actually runs the policy show inside the Biden Administration, a plan which does what the SSCECP does — i.e., one which imposes an artificial shortage of fossil fuel energy while greatly increasing its price — this is the only way America’s GHG emissions can be reduced as quickly as the climate activists say is necessary.

starzmom
Reply to  Beta Blocker
February 1, 2021 5:39 am

What convictions does Biden have? So far they all seem to be in support of enriching himself and his family. Otherwise he is just a puppet. The enrichment is a reward for being a puppet.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  starzmom
February 1, 2021 7:19 am

starzmon: What convictions does Biden have? So far they all seem to be in support of enriching himself and his family. Otherwise he is just a puppet. The enrichment is a reward for being a puppet.

Regardless of who it is inside the Biden Administration who actually makes these kinds of decisions, the fact does remain that the Executive Branch now has all the authority it needs to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions just as far and as fast as climate activists say is necessary.

Even if this means America must become an energy poor nation relative to the energy abundance we enjoy today.

The profit making opportunities that a plan like the SSCECP offers are immense. Both for government and for private enterprise, if they cooperate together in managing the plan.

The plan removes price competition from the energy marketplace. It’s a feature of the SSCECP, not a bug. The federal and state governments take a large fraction of the price at consumption for a gallon of gasoline or a cubic foot of natural gas. Fossil energy corporations make higher profits on lower volumes of production.

Prior to the 2020 election, the threat of voter reaction to a GHG reduction plan along the lines of the SSCECP would have been enough to keep it from ever being given serious consideration.

Not so today. Climate activists now control the outcome of all future national elections through their control of the political machines in the large urban areas of the swing states. They have nothing to fear, and everything to gain, from imposing a plan which does what the SSCECP does in eliminating competition from the energy marketplace.

James D Russell
January 31, 2021 12:30 pm

In as much as the government has implemented MMT (Modern Money Theory) at the Federal level, there should be no need for any increase in taxes.

Walter Sobchak
January 31, 2021 2:27 pm

The headline should say: “Biden Cabinet Nominee Open to New Taxes”
They can always find ways to spend money on their friends and supporters. What they really want is new taxes. Climate is just an excuse.

Streetcred
January 31, 2021 2:46 pm

How about just appropriate the funds from the Democrat elites who think that this is all such a good idea … Bezos, Zuckerberg, Wall Street gurus, all of Hollyweed, every single Democrat representative & senator, etc.

starzmom
Reply to  Streetcred
February 1, 2021 5:40 am

All those folks have their money in safe places off-shore.

William Haas
January 31, 2021 3:00 pm

They do not need to tax anyone. All they have to do is authorize and print up a lot of billion dollar bills and before they put them into circulation, burn them and let the smoke fight climate change. Doing that will be about as effective as any of the other efforts they are proposing.

ResourceGuy
January 31, 2021 3:44 pm

Your money and property are not your own. It’s an illusion in between edicts of the more powerful.

Edward Katz
January 31, 2021 5:51 pm

Everyone should carefully watch where the revenue from these taxes goes. In Canada, it didn’t take long for several provincial governments to start diverting the money away from what were supposed to be climate initiatives to prop up other areas in order to keep the electorate happy. Meanwhile if there were any emissions reductions, they were well-kept secrets.

William Haas
January 31, 2021 5:57 pm

There is no need for a climate agenda. The burning of wood by a Danish power plant has solved the climate problem for now and for all time for the entire World. Add to that, that New Zealand is planning to bread a larger cattle will certainly solve the Earth’s climate problems should such climate problems exist. It is all ready a done deal. No funds from us are required to support it.

SAMURAI
January 31, 2021 7:09 pm

Let’s see….

The “evil” top 1% pay almost 39% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay 70%, the top 25% pay 86%, the top 50% pay 97%, and the bottom 50% pay… 3%….

I’m sorry, who isn’t paying their “fair share”, again?

Elizabeth Warren wants a new “2 cent” wealth tax, so people with say $100 million in assets (acquired from after-tax purchases) would pay an additional $2 million/year, on top of the $millions/year paid in: income, property, sales, state, local and capital gain taxes…

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”― Benjamin Franklin

We’re now at that stage, folks…

Quilter52
January 31, 2021 8:40 pm

I suggest you start the funding with wealth taxes on Tom Steyer, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and all those other tech billionaires that thought it was a good idea to put these bozos in charge and used their technology companies to help make sure of the Biden win. They will surely be in favour of this, after all it is part of the progressive agenda.

Michael in Dublin
February 1, 2021 6:47 am

Here is a tweet from the Netherlands exposing the political hypocrisy:

John Kerry as Climate Pope? Only Democrats can choose a guy with 6 houses, 12 cars, 2 yachts and a private jet (to) tell you that YOU have to take the bus to combat CO2 emissions.

Fletch'
February 1, 2021 12:23 pm

Rhode Island should get in line behind all the other cities and states that have unsuccessfully tried to do this.

%d bloggers like this: