Guardian: “The Trump years may well have been the death rattle of influential [climate] denialism”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the Guardian, despite “unease among some unions” about destroyed jobs, Biden’s transformative first week will set the course for America’s future. But nobody has a coherent explanation for how Biden will make it all work.

Dizzying pace of Biden’s climate action sounds death knell for era of denialism

Oliver Milman @olliemilman
Sat 30 Jan 2021 18.30 AEDT

The vision laid out in the actions signed by Biden on Wednesday, however, was transformative. A pathway for oil and gas drilling to be banned from public lands. A third of America’s land and ocean protected. The government ditching the combustion engine from its entire vehicle fleet, offering up a future where battery-powered trucks deliver America’s mail and electric tanks are operated by the US military.Biden signals radical shift from Trump era with executive orders on climate change

Biden may eschew the politically contentious framing of the Green New Deal but there was even an echo of the original New Deal with his plan for a civilian climate corps to restore public lands and waterways. “The whole approach is classic Biden; working-class values, putting people to work,” said Tim Profeta, an environmental policy expert at Duke University.

“It truly is a new day for climate action,” said Carol Browner, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton. “President Joe Biden is taking unprecedented actions and sending an unmistakable message to the world that the United States is back and serious about tackling the climate crisis.

Biden is yanking every possible governmental lever, it seems, to lower emissions but is also cognizant of attacks from Republicans, and unease among some unions, that ditching projects such as the Keystone XL oil pipeline will kill jobs. Battle lines have already formed – Republicans are trying to prevent any halt to drilling, with Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, vowing to “protect the oil and gas industry from any type of hostile attack launched from Washington DC”.

There will probably be bipartisan agreement in certain areas, such as tax breaks for wind and solar and upgrades to ageing infrastructure that is being increasingly battered by floods, storms and wildfires. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, is confident some climate spending can sneak into overall budget bills. Biden could do more unilaterally if he declared a state of emergency over climate, Schumer has suggested. “Trump used this emergency for a stupid wall, which wasn’t an emergency. But if there ever was an emergency, climate is one,” the New York senator said last week.

The Trump years may well have been the death rattle of influential denialism. The American public’s concern over the climate crisis is at record levels, with even a majority of Republican voters supporting government intervention in the wake of a year of unprecedented wildfires and hurricanes that cost hundreds of lives and tens of billions of dollars. The question is now whether the US is able to change quickly enough to avert further disaster, rather than if it will change at all.

Read more:

So far Biden’s plan appears to be to kill the fossil fuel industry, which generates massive tax revenues without government help, and replace it with a renewable industry whose representatives always have their hands out for government cash.

What is the plan when Biden burns through the two trillion dollars stimulus, and renewable energy corporatists still want more money? Does anyone seriously believe two trillion will be enough to pump prime the renewable economy? After all, the Obama one trillion dollar green stimulus disappeared without trace, other than a scary increase in the USA’s national debt. Why would Biden’s two trillion dollar stimulus be any different?

One inescapable fact is green energy costs more than fossil fuel. Renewables will always be expensive – the materials input to build and maintain a renewable installation is orders of magnitude greater than an equivalent fossil fuel installation. Another way to look at it, if renewables didn’t cost more, proponents wouldn’t have to keep demanding government handouts.

Somehow that additional cost will have to be borne by ordinary Americans, either through higher taxes, higher costs, a weaker economy, or passing the debt on to the grandkids, through increased government borrowing.

When I say Biden has no plan to make it all work, its the money I’m talking about. Even the USA cannot borrow money indefinitely, to fund the Democrat’s bright green impossibilities – especially after they crash government revenues by wrecking tax paying fossil fuel industries.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin kilty
January 30, 2021 6:06 pm

I would guess the banishing of the ICE vehicle from the Federal fleet of cars to be the early point where the wheels come off this fantasy. Ought to be a total mess — cars that “No Va” when its cold, no heaters, no AC, inadequate charging capacity; chargers shut off when the grid begins to creak, etc.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 30, 2021 6:11 pm

I think this fantasy will crash well before any meaningful number of BEVs reach service.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 30, 2021 6:25 pm

I would love to see how long a heavy bulletproof President’s car lasts running on batteries.

Dave Fair
Reply to  fred250
January 30, 2021 8:18 pm

The Beast will be trailed by diesel generators for recharging.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charlie Skeptic
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 31, 2021 6:54 pm

Abrams tanks will have huge arrays of solar panels on their turrets which will be programmed to follow the sun’s rays and big windmills on the engine decks which will be the new incantations of “multi-fuel” engines.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 30, 2021 8:27 pm

I feel sorry for the troops that have to set up solar panels, or wind turbines, to charge the electric tank during combat.

Reply to  Cam_S
January 30, 2021 9:41 pm

Solar panels would be a prime target for a couple of mortars.

Hard to envisage how wind turbines would be erected and function in a war zone !

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 31, 2021 12:46 am

They’ll still use fossil fuel powered generators to charge the batteries …but they’ll feel so much more warm and fuzzy inside.

Reply to  fred250
January 31, 2021 5:29 am

Not only that, those nasty bombs, mortars, and cartridges all produce CO2. They’ll have to be replaced with arrows and slingshots. GPS guided sandbags, anyone?

Reply to  Cam_S
January 31, 2021 12:29 am

but they already set up solar panels to power bases in conflict areas…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 6:36 am

Do you really believe the nonsense you post?

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 7:54 am

Actually they don’t. But who cares, you have a paycheck to justify.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 8:20 am

They don’t power *bases* with solar power. They might power ancillary functions or lower power combat equipment (squad level comms, charging cell phones, etc).

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 8:52 am

Powering a minimally energized temporary base (where most soldiers live in tent like structures) is vastly different than trying to power high tech armored military vehicles in a similar fashion. Battles would be fought with hour long intensive bursts followed by 20 hours of silence while your tank is recharging.

Reply to  Bryan A
January 31, 2021 5:14 pm

I foresee a UN arms agreement “treaty” to manage combatants’ needs to recharge their armaments. Some type of temporal “charging” truce – say noon to three after skirmishes and a full sunny and/or windy day for major engagements. Of course all combat operations would be required to cease during wind lulls and cloud cover. and those time restraints would have to calculated for solar or wind “down” time. To meet popular democrat “equity” requirements there would need to be some compensation when one side of a conflict gets more wind and sun than their opponent. Solar panels and wind generators would have to be considered as non-combat targets like hospitals or the wars would end too quickly.
Oh, bother

Reply to  Cam_S
January 31, 2021 8:25 am

I would not be surprised if this were not the first “clarification”. (Oops, I really didn’t mean what you thought I said).

If the US were to proceed, imagine the cost to first develop the fighting vehicles and to design a mobile grid to service them, and then the cost to replace serviceable war machinery!

Reply to  George Daddis
January 31, 2021 1:18 pm

Actually, I think military vehicles would use battery packs, rather than charge in the field. Fuel tankers are already following the troops. Just start carrying battery packs. Think of a cordless drill, on a larger scale. I think the M1 Abrams already has a quick change set-up for the gas turbine engine. Can anybody confirm this?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Cam_S
January 31, 2021 2:52 pm

You’ve still got to keep the packs charged. For them to be useful they’ve got to be close to where the tanks are or they are useless. The tanks can’t just pull off the line and move away from their mission to meet a “pack truck” somewhere.

Engines aren’t changed while on the front line!

Reply to  Cam_S
January 31, 2021 4:30 pm

CAM_S has a point here. The Abrams tank is a real fuel hog. The turbine is great for performance, but it sucks fuel faster than a jet fighter. An F-16 can do a 750mile round trip mission on 7000lbs.of fuel. The Abrams can do something a bit over 500 miles round trip
The readily available specs are rather thin for either, though.
So the fuel bowsers have to follow behind at a carefully calculated distance. They have to be able to join up with the tanks for a quick refueling without getting targeted and then bug back to safety for their own refill.

lee riffee
Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 30, 2021 9:46 pm

I can just picture postal vehicles sitting on the sides of roads and streets waiting to be towed by ICE powered tow trucks….so really, how does one go about bringing some “juice” to a fully electric vehicle that has run out of charge? And we know this will happen – we all know how company vehicles are treated by workers. You run out of gas or diesel, someone can bring you a couple of gallons. You run out of battery power, guess either you tow to a charging station or ironically, bring an ICE powered truck with an ICE generator! And how long does the generator truck have to hang around in order to bring the battery up to enough charge to enable the vehicle to get to the nearest charging station? Or perhaps just easier to hook it up and tow it….either way it will be our tax dollars at waste.

Reply to  lee riffee
January 31, 2021 12:30 am

Postal vehicles are ideal for EVs: they run a fixed route… doesn’t take much to calculate the daily charge and power up beforehand, does it?

Kevin Stall
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 2:22 am

And do you pay the driver while they wait for an opportunity to charge their vehicle? And what will they do on a day when there is fog? No wind, no sun? lived in SLC one year when we didn’t see the sun for 90 days. inversion, cloud cover, and no wind the entire time. With temps below freezing.

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 4:40 am

In the UK milk used to be delivered to one’s doorstep by electric vehicles (milk floats). That’s the only real use of EV’s.

Bryan A
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 31, 2021 8:54 am

They work pretty well on the Golf Course too

Krishna Gans
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 5:38 am

A parcel service never run a fixed route…..

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 5:53 am

They run a fixed route of acceleration and then stopping. Not the most efficient way to drive a vehicle. But, of course, with electric vehicles going from a dead stop to about 15 or 20 miles an hour is very efficient. And the regenerative braking will probably put back more energy into the batteries than the acceleration uses. So the postal carriers can then take their vehicles home and use the surplus energy to power their homes.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 31, 2021 8:00 am

And the regenerative braking will probably put back more energy into the batteries than the acceleration uses.

Perpetual motion has been achieved?????

Anywho, stop and go driving is precisely where regenerative breaking performs worst.
The slower the vehicle is going, the less power you get from regenerative breaks, and the more you have to rely on mechanical breaks.

Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 6:59 pm

Spot on! The birth of the perpetual motion machine!!!

Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2021 8:34 am

One common theme I’ve noticed from the greens is a complete lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. They really DO believe you can get more energy out of a system than you put in.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 31, 2021 8:08 am

Conservation of Energy would say otherwise.

Reply to  DrGEM
January 31, 2021 4:33 pm

You can rely on the regenerative breaking if you don’t mind coasting slower and slower for several hundred feet, hopefully down hill in order to get max charge.

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 7:57 am

Actually it does take a lot to calculate the daily charge.

You have to account for the weight the vehicle is carrying that day.
You have to account for differing traffic conditions.
You have to account for whether it is raining or not.
You have to account for temperature, both hot and cold affect battery capacity, as well as accounting for whether the heat or AC have to be run.
You have to account for the driving habits of different drivers.
You have to account for the exact number of stops the vehicle will have to make each day.

Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2021 8:35 am

Just run some computer models, that will give you accurate data, right?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 8:25 am

What happens when you miscalculate? Have you ever lived in the real world or just your parents basement?

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 12:16 pm

Maybe in a city but not for rural deliveries.

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 1:51 pm

Wow, I’m a sceptic about the universal applicability of EVs (at the current level of technology), but the IC zealots around here seem desperate to “prove” that they can’t work in any situation.

If a mail collection truck has a daily route that’s 50 miles, then obviously if it has a range of 100 miles it’ll just be charged up over night, and still have plenty of capacity to spare.

Listen, dinosaurs, EVs may not be suitable for your lifestyle now, but they’re already perfect for most city and suburban dwellers, and in another 10 – 20 years you’ll all be driving them, because the decline in IC vehicles will mean you’d have to travel miles to get access to a gas station.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Observer
January 31, 2021 3:04 pm

What’s the 100 mile range based on? 70F weather or 20F weather? Makes a big difference in range. Heaters pull the charge out of a battery pretty fast. Do you have two vehicles in the fleet for every route? One for summer and one for winter? Where’s the efficiency? And if you buy just one sized for winter then where is the efficiency during the summer?

They really are unusable for either urban or suburban users that take long trips. That requires having two cars – one an ICE and one an EV. I don’t know about you but I can’t afford to have two cars – one to drive around town and one to take on a trip to Dallas or Houston.

This isn’t being desperate about anything. It’s engineers questioning the assumptions being made when claiming EV’s are the answer to all our needs.

Cuba still has a plethora of cars from the 50’s and 60’s. Why can’t Americans be as adaptable?

Reply to  Observer
January 31, 2021 4:40 pm

An electric EV for mail delivery is probably usable. In the city they usually run no more than 30mph ever. Any semi-rural route will be much more demanding and cost a lot more. A gas-powered delivery is about the only way to do rural routes unless the routes are short. Plan on lots of back to office to fill up with mail and electrons.

Reply to  Observer
January 31, 2021 4:46 pm

I hope you read my post about hybrid vehicles. They are light years ahead of electric vehicles once your trip gets over maybe 100 miles. They halve the fuel use for typical gas cars, have unlimited range. They DON’T require any substantial changes in long distance travel. Nobody counts the costs that would be required to use individual electric cars for random travel anywhere outside a city. Government subsidies can only go so far.

Reply to  Observer
February 1, 2021 7:40 am

Demonstratint that EV’s aren’t fit for the tasks that they are being touted for, really does get the EV lovers panties in a knot.
How much are tax payers on the hook for in order to build millions of charging stations?

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkW
Reply to  Observer
February 1, 2021 7:41 am

Where is the energy for charging them up over night going to come from?

Ron Long
Reply to  lee riffee
January 31, 2021 10:11 am

No problem lee, the mail will be delivered by gas-powered unicorns, like the header shows. Since unicorns are special there is not any methane involved in the gas. Good to go!

Reply to  Ron Long
January 31, 2021 7:03 pm

Unicorns now have optional catalytic converters for their “exhaust pipes”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  lee riffee
January 31, 2021 10:18 am

so really, how does one go about bringing some “juice” to a fully electric vehicle that has run out of charge?”

Lucid Motors will be coming out with BEVs that have the ability to charge other vehicles from their own batteries (V2B).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 31, 2021 10:49 am

And that helps how when you are 30 miles out on a rural route and have mail to deliver?

How does help when you are stuck in snow with no heater?

Reply to  Roger Knights
February 1, 2021 7:44 am

How long does the recharge take? How big is the battery on the vehicle doing the charging.
Remember, after charging, it has to have enough energy left to get itself back to base.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2021 9:05 am

Or it brings an ICE generator with it to do the charging – a hybrid EV in other words!

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 31, 2021 12:34 am

I notice the notably non tropical city of Oslo has one of the world’s highest % of EVs – and none of the issues you mention

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 2:47 am

Norway is probably the wealthiest country in the world with a sovereign wealth fund accumulated thanks to – wait for it – North Sea Oil. It is, I believe, the single largest investor in European Stock Markets.

Norway can afford to invest in expensive infrastructure in a way that almost no other country on the planet can.

It also has a population of only 55M or so.

Please stop bleating.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Hotscot
January 31, 2021 3:05 am

Actually you missed the decimal point it is 5 and a half million people live in Norway

Reply to  Hotscot
January 31, 2021 3:32 am

The key word in replying to griff about EV adoption in Norway is SUBSIDIES

Reply to  Analitik
January 31, 2021 11:49 am

And those subsidies come from the sale of its massive supplies of OIL. !!

They also have the terrain and snow/rainfall to go almost 100% HYDRO

Reply to  Hotscot
January 31, 2021 4:49 am

Yes they live off the ‘Devil’s Excrement’ but they manage it well-
The devil’s excrement: how Norway warded off the oil curse (
But they’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them or the dills and Gretaheads like you impressed with their EV rollout to hide behind-
Norway Court Green Lights Arctic Oil – Life in Norway
Look at us everybody and how Green we are and Griff is tickled pink.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 3:51 am

America is a huge country so we drive long distances. I bet the drivers in Oslo aren’t going far most days.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 5:41 am

Yes. right, but not because of wind or / and solar, but water.
And there is an other infrastructure being old, car pre-heating in wintertimes….
Every car can be plugged everywhere.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 5:55 am

Griff, that is a very stupid statement. Of course you can run an EV in a non-tropical location. You just need to generate electricity using fossil fuels or hydroelectric sources. How does that solve the “climate crisis”?

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 31, 2021 8:30 am

griff confused EV with solar driven EVs 😀

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 8:01 am

In griff’s world, if the papers don’t cover something, it didn’t happen.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 8:33 am

EXACTLY what percentage? How do you judge if you don’t know the actual percentage.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 31, 2021 4:14 pm

The really sad part is that hybrid vehicles actually to reduce emissions of CO2, for what that’s worth, save fuel, and don’t require ridiculous amounts of funding for a huge number of all-electric cars. All to pay off “green jobs” to no effect.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 31, 2021 4:41 pm

We have never met, but could it be you have been hacking my mind.

January 30, 2021 6:14 pm

Ha ha. Think again Guardian. we’re just getting started..

Reply to  Mike
January 30, 2021 6:39 pm

The American public’s concern over the climate crisis is at record levels, with even a majority of Republican voters supporting government intervention…”

Well, when a reporter doesn’t get out to talk to actual American people at all, and when a reporter believes the drivel that flows out of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication while seeking out no other corroborating info, this is the natural result.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Russell Cook
January 30, 2021 8:37 pm

And when non-leftists are effectively silenced in mass and social media…

Climate believer
Reply to  Russell Cook
January 31, 2021 3:46 am

…. yes, they tried asking the public what they thought in Europe, turned out nobody gave a toss.

“Climate change was only mentioned by 2% of respondents in the UK (in the month before the EU referendum), by 3% of the respondents in Germany, and by 6% of the respondents in France. In Norway, climate change received more attention than in the other three countries with 10% stating climate change as the most important issue for their country and 11% stating pollution/environment. With these scores climate change was the 4th most mentioned issue in Norway and Pollution/Environment the 2nd most mentioned issue. “

The European Perceptions of Climate Change Project (EPCC) 2016/17

I doubt anything has changed.

Mark Thomas
Reply to  Climate believer
February 1, 2021 8:34 am

Except that many Norwegians that I know wouldn’t mind a little global warming.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mike
January 30, 2021 9:59 pm

Just another Flatulential Grauniad article

Reply to  Mike
January 31, 2021 12:16 am

hopefully the “whinging poms” at the guardian will all go to the wall first.

They never stop (like all good socialists) demanding cash handouts for their shitty little bit of toilet paper.

It’s on every single article you might ever download from their web site… “the reminder” about how “journos have to be paid for” for “quality” journalism. LOL!

The only thing they do relatively competently at the guardy is obituaries.
Perhaps writing their own will hit the headlines ASAP?

Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 31, 2021 5:10 am

The Graun only just outsells The Daily Record, a downmarket Scottish tabloid on sale exclusively North of The Border. Without the daily sales to the BBC, the situation would be inversed.

Serge Wright
January 30, 2021 6:24 pm

“The question is now whether the US is able to change quickly enough to avert further disaster, rather than if it will change at all”

This sentence epitomizes the absurdity of the climate alarmist beliefs. All of the increase in emissions has been coming from the developing world for the past 40 years and the USA has already been steadily decreasing emissions for 20 years due to the gas revolution. All this policy does is to fast track the exodus of US industry to a developing country that will have more reliance of higher emissions energy, driving up emissions faster.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Serge Wright
January 30, 2021 8:20 pm

It also lies about increasing natural weather disasters.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 31, 2021 11:04 am

Yes, “further disaster,” LMAO. Like there has been any “disaster.” Weather, not climate, first of all, and WE are not the cause of any “climate change” you can measure in any event.

January 30, 2021 6:26 pm

“But nobody has a coherent explanation for how Biden will make it all work.”


ESPECIALLY not Biden and his minders.

Coherent thought, is a thing of his past. (if ever)

Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
January 30, 2021 10:02 pm

Biden doesn’t have “Minders”, he does have “ers” though

Sweet Old Bob
January 30, 2021 6:28 pm

Sock puppets don’t really have any power.
Prime example : Biden.
But he will take the blame …..

January 30, 2021 6:32 pm

Usual virtual signalling LeftyBollocks™. Nothing will change until we get a three day blackout somewhere in the world. And then Questions Will Be Asked.

And after a huge propaganda war, it will become apparent to hoi polloi that in fact we need nuclear power after all.

January 30, 2021 6:32 pm

“The American public’s concern over the climate crisis is at record levels

Like the old Soviet tell Moscow what they want to hear and carry on with business as usual-
Average New Vehicle Sales Price Tops $40,000 For First Time Ever (

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  observa
January 31, 2021 11:08 am

Yes, “record levels” probably means 3% as opposed to only 2%, and they get that far only by carefully selecting the crowd to “poll” and by inserting their desired response into the choices given for answers.

Ask people a “fill in” question where they answer without pre-canned responses, and the number who include “climate change” on any list of “concerns” will be so small it is of no consequence.

January 30, 2021 6:40 pm

Biden’s handlers installed a national very pro-union labor relations guy – so despite 11k O&G jobs vaporizing, the thought is this new guy is going to make nice with lots of the other unions getting them much sweeter ‘positions’ to negotiate from…so the thinking goes

Reply to  rickk
January 30, 2021 8:40 pm

On the union side, they know what they are doing. Look for “card check” organizing, end runs around the prohibition of mandatory dues from the non union members, etc. The union leaders will make out like bandits.

CD in Wisconsin
January 30, 2021 6:56 pm

“…It truly is a new day for climate action,” said Carol Browner, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton. “President Joe Biden is taking unprecedented actions and sending an unmistakable message to the world that the United States is back and serious about tackling the climate crisis.”…”

Ms. Browner should be one to talk. She was one of the signatories of a letter sent to Facebook to silence skeptics on that social media site. Such actions demonstrate (at least to me) that deep down they know that there are scientific problems with the CAGW narrative. Browner and her ilk need to keep it all hush-hush if this whole narrative is to be kept from collapsing on the foundation of bad science on which it is built.

The Guardian’s editorial staff probably know that as well. That is why they keep posting stories like this. The longer this goes on, the more uneasy they get.

Facebook Must Stop the Spread of Climate Misinformation | Climate Power 2020

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
January 31, 2021 6:46 am

Browner is a Clintonista, through-and-through, she will hoe the party line.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 1, 2021 7:50 am

Clintonista and hoe. Need mind bleach, need mind bleach.

January 30, 2021 7:10 pm

That’s what I’ve believed all along — the Green Raw Deal is impossible. There simply are not enough resources to even come close to fulfilling any of its tasks. All the money in the printing room cannot hire non-existent workers, dig up and process non-existent ores, or produce non-existent inventions. All current technology is not up to the task, and some of them are physical impossibilities no matter what politicians demand.

It’s not to say trying to implement any part of the Green Raw Deal won’t do a lot of damage. But that too is self-limiting. All of its elements are so far removed from reality that even the first baby steps will do more damage to the economy than voters will accept. The 2022 elections will be an eye opener to the Green Raw Dealers, although they will be as blind as always.

Reply to  Felix
January 31, 2021 5:08 am

When criminals get away with a crime, rarely do they stop. Usually, they keep committing crime, while getting bolder and bolder. This cycle repeats until the criminal goes too far and gets caught. The ones with the most power find a way to prevent themselves from being caught.

Fraud was committed in the last election, and that was a crime. Because of the corrupt media and corrupt courts, they got away with it. Most of the media literally worship the democrats. They want their gods to be in charge, so they will cover-up any corruption. The courts have shown to be equally as corrupt. Since the criminals know they can get by with fraud, they will repeat in 2022, but more brazen. The democrats and their worshipers will make sure they keep winning and make sure the masses do not know about the corruption. There will be no eye-opening because the criminals know they can by with election fraud.

Reply to  Wade
January 31, 2021 6:59 am

I don’t believe there was widespread fraud. The election results can be explained by the same random fluctuations that gave Trump his 2016 squeaker of a win; he won by luck then, and lost by luck in 2020.

If there had been widespread fraud, it would have been a much more consistent state-by-state win for Biden, and it would have carried through to the House (where Dems lost seats) and the Senate (where Dems won fewer seats that predicted).

Top it off with what ludicrous “evidence” his lawyers showed in court.

Reply to  Felix
January 31, 2021 8:07 am

First off, corruption only occurs where the situation on the ground permits. In those places where Democrats weren’t in complete control, it would be a lot harder to get away with the fraud.

As to ludicrous evidence, there was no evidence presented in court because no case got to that point.

Reply to  MarkW
January 31, 2021 9:16 am

As to ludicrous evidence, there was no evidence presented in court because no case got to that point.”
….. because there was no case. There finished it for you.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simon
January 31, 2021 11:12 am

And exactly how would they know, since they refused to consider the evidence without looking at it?!

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 31, 2021 2:30 pm

Lawyers present evidence in public all the time. Except these times, where nothing but accusations was ever presented.

Trump won in 2016 by a small chance spread of key votes, and lost in 2020 by the same. Crying foul without showing evidence is like sportsball complaints about umpires and referees after an 18-19 loss.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Felix
January 31, 2021 3:09 pm

How do you learn about the “public evidence”? Through the media, perhaps? Think about it!

Reply to  Simon
February 1, 2021 7:52 am

As usual, Simon races ahead of the data to enforce the beliefs he’s paid to push.
If you look at the reasons given by the courts, you would find that your belief are not in line with what actually happened.
But then, if you cared about evidence, you would have to abandon pretty much everything you believe.

January 30, 2021 7:18 pm

“When I say Biden has no plan to make it all work, its the money I’m talking about.”
If he had the unlimited money he pretends to he could not “make it work” if he thinks it is about controlling the weather.

January 30, 2021 7:43 pm

“Influential climate denialism” (?) doesn’t exist. The narrative is totally controlled by the MSM and their handlers. It won’t be a matter of proving anyone/thing wrong. It will be a matter of who controls what the people are told.

Dave Fair
Reply to  markl
January 30, 2021 8:25 pm

I agree, but it will be very difficult to hide high unemployment, falling wages, rising living costs (especially for energy); an overall significant fall in living standards for the average person.

Reply to  Dave Fair
January 30, 2021 9:56 pm

The coming rise in gasoline prices might be the first setback. I wonder if they will repeat the price control fiasco of Nixon? Increases for electricity and natural gas might not provide the same shock.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Felix
January 30, 2021 10:15 pm

It will when ‘journalists’ discover they can make a buck off of reporting it.

Bill Everett
Reply to  markl
February 1, 2021 3:35 pm

Why do we never see mention of the percentage of human CO2 contribution into the atmosphere? It is only about 1/500th of one percent.

January 30, 2021 7:53 pm

It’s not just a dollar issue, it’s an energy impossibility.

Simple arithmetic demonstrates windmills are a loser.

5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 3 cents per kwh  produces $8.8E6.
Installed cost @ $1.61E6/mW = $8.05E6.
Operation & maintenance @ $210,000/yr = $4.2E6 
Total life cycle cost = $12.2E6
Add the cost of energy storage facility and energy availability loss during storage/retrieval, or initial and maintenance cost of standby CCGT for low wind periods.
Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse with special concern for disposal and/or recycling at end-of-life (about 15 yr for PV).
Combined cycle gas turbine $614/kw ($0.6E6/mW) installed cost.
The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation (the earth does not charge). Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.
Without the energy provided by other sources renewables could not exist.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
January 31, 2021 6:49 am

“But what about the unicorns??!??”

January 30, 2021 8:25 pm

Leftists double down on BS. Normal people up the resistance by factor of 10.

January 30, 2021 8:37 pm

The National Socialists in Germany set out on a rather similar Radical Course in the 1930’s and that did not end well a decade later on.

Jeff Alberts
January 30, 2021 8:44 pm

This just gets more and more surreal.

  • Constant bleating about an ongoing disaster/crisis/doomsday with no supporting evidence
  • Biden signing al these EOs like he knows what’s going on.
  • And now, some of the MSM are finally talking about Hunter’s laptop, now that Joe is in. How long before he resigns in disgrace, paving the way for Pres Harris, just like many of us were saying 6+ months ago?

Then we’ll be even worse off. Although, Harris will probably be such a disaster that a Republican might actually have a chance at the presidency in 2024.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 31, 2021 1:46 am

We have had a young left wing woman running our government in Finland for a while already and doing a horrible job at that. Still she’s very popular because she is young and female. For people who don’t pay attention to details, it’s way easier for people to see Biden as incompetent than Harris.

Last edited 1 year ago by vieras
Richard Page
Reply to  vieras
January 31, 2021 8:55 am

If they are canny enough, they may ramp up the stupidity and incompetence under Biden so that Harris looks relatively benign by comparison.

January 30, 2021 8:44 pm

This story in The Guardian epitomizes what political parties have cottoned onto over the past few decades –

they work out what ideologies the media outlets’ readers/viewers/listeners subscribe to, and then formulate policies that they know the media outlets will unquestioningly promote.

It just becomes a circle-jerk, and good policy and rationality don’t get a look in any more.

This is just a western democracies disease though – China, India & Russia haven’t caught it.

James F. Evans
January 30, 2021 8:47 pm

I’m concerned: The Democratic Party just might break us with their policy.

And they are going for broke.

“I believe in science.”

No, it is a process or methodology, starting with reasonable skepticism to proposed hypothesis, but having an open mind to evidence.

Most people who say, “I believe in science,” have no concept of the scientific method.

A response to the charge of “denialism” is that science is always open to reasonable skepticism, and if their idea isn’t open to that debate, it isn’t science, it’s dogma.


Carlo, Monte
Reply to  James F. Evans
January 31, 2021 6:54 am

Correct, it is a religion.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 31, 2021 2:48 pm

That’s correct. And the name of that religion is “scientism”. Many people confuse “I believe in science” with actual science.

Reply to  James F. Evans
February 1, 2021 9:10 am

Most people who say, “I believe in science,” have no concept of the scientific method.

Even worse is “I believe the science”
The best word I’ve seen to describe that is scientism.

January 30, 2021 8:49 pm

Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
Most politicians are too uneducated to even opine on energy, let alone set energy policy.
Witness the energy idiocy of recent politicians in Western Europe, Britain, Canada, the USA, and Australia. These imbeciles have squandered tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources on costly, intermittent green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, all to save use from imaginary catastrophic global warming – all in a (probably) cooling world.
Fully 85% of global primary energy is still generated from fossil fuels – oil, natural gas and coal. The remainder is largely generated from nuclear and hydro. Hardly any useful energy is generated from green sources, despite tens of trillions in wasted subsidies – enough money to buy too many corrupt politicians, civil servants and academics.

Anti fossil fuels, anti pipelines, anti fracking, anti oilsands, pro green energy, etc. etc. – these scams are all promoted by the same people, all deliberately harming our economies while wrapping themselves in the cloak of phony environmentalism.

These people are not pro-environment – many of their programs such as clear-cutting of tropical rainforests to grow biofuels, draining the Ogallala aquifer to grow corn for fuel ethanol, clear-cutting eastern US forests to provide wood pellets for British power plants, erecting huge wind power towers to slice up birds and bats, etc are ALL anti-environmental.

Their successful efforts to delay and ban fracking of petroleum-rich shales have caused great harm in Britain, continental Europe , and have hampered growth in Canada and the USA. Their successful efforts to shut-in the oilsands through anti-pipeline lies have cost Canada tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs.

By driving up the cost of energy and causing instability in electrical grids they have increased winter mortality and cost lives. Even greater loss of life has been caused in developing countries, where the installation of reliable fossil-fueled energy has been displaced by insistence on intermittent, near-worthless wind and solar power schemes.

Perhaps the greatest cost and loss-of-life has been due to the gross misallocation of global resources, where obvious first priorities such as clean water and sanitation systems, the fight against malaria, and the fight against world hunger have been displaced due to excessive spending on green energy follies.

Gregory Woods
January 31, 2021 2:26 am

So, would you consider those actions to be sabotage perpetrated by traitors?

Joseph Zorzin
January 31, 2021 4:04 am

“clear-cutting eastern US forests to provide wood pellets for British power plants”
The forests are managed for all sorts of wood products. Only the wood that has no other use goes to pellets. The better wood goes to- sawlogs for construction and furniture lumber, then wood for pulp, what’s left might go to pellets. STOP THE LIE that forests are being clear-cut for pellets. That’s as crazy as the climate alarmists. Also, a pellet burning power plant provides base load power AND wood is a RENEWABLE resource. I think I’ve seen you pitch this lie before on this site. Grow up and do your homework. Also, most forestry in the American southeast is clear-cutting- that’s how they do it. If you don’t like it, go down there and talk to them and they’ll explain it to you. Then they replant the forests.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 31, 2021 4:27 am

Wood burns much quicker than it grows.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  4 Eyes
January 31, 2021 4:32 am

That’s utterly irrelevant. For every cubic foot of wood burning, many acres are not being cut that year and growing more wood (which is why wood use and burning wood is sustainable). And, to those who hate to see trees cut- I hope you don’t live in a wood home with wood furniture and paper products. Don’t dare you toilet paper.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  4 Eyes
January 31, 2021 5:53 am

And, wood gets turned into homes, furniture and paper a lot faster than it grows, but guess what, there’s lots of wood out there. Must be a miracle. No, it’s common sense- while some trees are being harvested, others on far more acres are not.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 31, 2021 3:37 pm

That relationship holds only as long as your primary energy source is fossil fuels. Stop fossil fuel usage, and your “sustainable” wood burning WILL consume available wood far faster than it grows, i.e. it will be unsustainable.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 1, 2021 3:21 am

You are partly right and partly wrong. As for land that would produce commercial pellets or chips for a biomass power plant- that land in most cases is forest land managed for the long term- and that forest will be sustainable. If all fossil fuels were ended- certainly many people with smaller, non commercial woodlots, would use and abuse them- cutting in an unsustainable manner. But, I certainly am not calling for the end of fossil fuels- I detest wind and solar energy. Oh, a little here and there isn’t so bad- but not the idea that we can run the world with them. What’s wrong is when biomass energy is thought to be similar to wind and solar. It’s not for many reasons. For one, it is a carbon based fuel- so it’s similar to fossil fuels in that regard. It can be renewable and sustainable. Because it results in carbon emissions- the climatistas hate with a passion- just like the way they hate fossil fuels. This is where Michael Moore got it wrong- mixing biomass in with wind and solar. Furthermore, biomass allows for superior forestry work because many forests that are being managed for the long term are loaded with trees that should be removed to grow better trees but there often is no market for them other than biomass. Unfortunately, too many people who discuss biomass have no idea what they’re talking about since they don’t bother to discuss the subject with the experts, professional foresters.

January 30, 2021 8:52 pm

According to Cambridge University Emeritus Professor of Technology Michael Kelly, replacing all the United Kingdom’s 32 million light duty vehicles with next-generation EVs would require huge quantities of materials to manufacture the EV batteries: [i]

  • more than half the world’s annual production of copper.
  • twice its annual cobalt.
  • three quarters of its yearly lithium carbonate output; and
  • nearly its entire annual production of neodymium. 


One can easily see that the world may not have enough minerals and metals for the EV batteries to support the EV growth projections when you consider that today:

  • Combined worldwide car sales in 2019 were more than 65 million vehicles annually. [ii]
  • There are 1.2 billion vehicles on the world’s roads with projections of 2 billion by 2035. [iii]

[i] Kelly, Michael, Until we get a proper roadmap, Net Zero is a goal without a plan, June 8, 2020,

[ii] Henk Car Sales Statistics, January 16, 2020,

[iii] Green Car Reports,

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Ronald Stein
January 31, 2021 6:57 am

Now map this onto America, will the USA go to war against the UK to fight for copper and cobalt?

Richard Page
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 31, 2021 9:02 am

Why? Do we in the UK have large deposits of copper and cobalt? Chile appears to have the world’s biggest reserves of copper and Congo has the cobalt. Think you might be looking in entirely the wrong places mate.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Page
January 31, 2021 12:00 pm

You missed the point: if there isn’t enough copper etc. worldwide for the UK to GoGreen, what does this mean for all other countries?

Richard Page
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 31, 2021 1:25 pm

Exactly – this is empty virtue signalling. It won’t go anywhere and the same old useless idiot’s will keep bickering until each of these failed ideas grinds to a halt in a cloud of wasted money. At which point they’ll blame something else and try another idiotic idea doomed to failure. Your idea that it will be judged serious enough to fight over scarce resources is missing the point – this will go nowhere.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard Page
January 31, 2021 8:48 pm

Hoping that the cold water of reality will sink in before civilization sinks into a new dark age.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 1, 2021 7:58 am

Japan’s entry into WWII was primarily so that it could secure the resources it needed, but didn’t have.

Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  MarkW
February 3, 2021 9:38 am

And Germany’s assault on Russia was to secure a “breadbasket”. Neither of these worked out very well.

Chris Hanley
January 30, 2021 9:01 pm

‘… Senate where climate denialism is still rife, as demonstrated on Tuesday by the Republican senator Rand Paul promoting a baseless theory that global heating is caused by the Earth’s tilt rather than human activity …” (at link).
In a garbled comment Paul referred to Milankovitch cycles in an interview (but did not exclude some human influence) highlighting the fact that politicians ought not speculate about attribution, they should ‘stick to their knitting’.
It’s tactically and strategically counterproductive.
They should attack the insane mitigation measures on economic and social bases, not scientific.

January 31, 2021 12:33 am

doesn’t the Guardian have a point? If climate skepticism didn’t make progress with US business and industry under a Trump administration, pushing at an open door… if coal didn’t come back or even hold its own… well, how is it going to make progress now?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 31, 2021 11:58 am

You’re trying to reason with a retarded eight years old

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 8:12 am

With Biden banning fracking, you can expect coal to start making a come back.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2021 9:27 am

If climate skepticism didn’t make progress with US business and industry under a Trump administration, pushing at an open door”

The cancel culture was alive and well. What business would want a bunch of morons screaming at them, figuratively and literally, because they weren’t sufficiently “woke”?

Reply to  griff
February 2, 2021 6:42 am

Wishful thinking on your part, Griffiepoo.

Vincent Causey
January 31, 2021 12:53 am

“The death knell for climate denialism”, lol! Always use the rule of opposites when reading fanatical papers like the Guardian (I’m thinking how they gushed over Macron’s election). So, Biden’s “working class” approach in fact is destroying profitable highly paid blue collar jobs. Going forward, the pain and destruction to befall Americans over this renewables fantasy will be like an adrenalin shot for “denialism”, rather than its death knell.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
January 31, 2021 1:47 am

denialism ?

I have asked the resident AGW trolls MANY times

What do we “deny” that they have solid empirical scientific proof for?

Never once have I had a coherent answer. !

When the facts are put forward, it is OBVIOUS that it is THEM that are the climate deniers.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  Vincent Causey
January 31, 2021 2:33 am

@ Vincent
“Going forward”

is purported to mean, “In the future” or “somewhere down the road” when in fact it is an attempt to dodge the use of these words, which generally indicates “I don’t know”.

Geoff Sherrington
January 31, 2021 1:07 am

The death knell of climate activism is in sight. It happens when countries realise that they have to rely on fossil fuel and/or nuclear, not renewables, to provide electricity to industry and people, including themselves.
It is under way in germany right now.

Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 31, 2021 3:35 am

its easier to take out a nice big row of turbines if/when SHFT aggression wise too,ditto a solar farm.
and wit XIden running the show its looking very likely to happen
(thanks to the otherWUWT commenter who used that moniker it fits SO well)

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 1, 2021 8:02 am

Even if you can’t hit the wind turbines hard enough to bring them down, if you can hit one of the blades hard enough to take a chunk out of it, you can unbalance the blades to the point where the turbine can’t be used.

You don’t have to completely destroy solar panels, sometimes just cracking them is enough to drop their power output substantially. Launch a fragmentation grenade so that it does off some 50 ft above the panel array should be enough to damage 100 or so panels.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2021 9:09 am

Forget the turbines and panels themselves. If you take down the transmission lines they become useless. A 30.06 bullet to an insulator on a HV transmission line can do a lot of damage.

January 31, 2021 1:09 am

I think it was the death rattle of climate stupidity!

Nothing bad happened when Trump dropped the Paris Climate Accord, except a bunch of bureaucrats didn’t get their bonuses!

January 31, 2021 1:18 am

One question that never seems to be asked: if all these ‘green’ policies are put in place, how and when will we know if they have been successful?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Damon
January 31, 2021 5:16 am

It depends on what you mean by “successful”.

Richard Page
Reply to  Damon
January 31, 2021 1:30 pm

Analyse the proposals, run some of the numbers and look at what scale of materials and money will be needed to implement them. Then come back and tell me if a single one of these pipe dreams is even possible let alone feasible. If we’re lucky these clowns will be voted out before they can get started – if we’re unlucky they will lose billions proving these ideas are unworkable.

Reply to  Damon
February 1, 2021 8:03 am

If the economy collapses, then the green policies were successful.

January 31, 2021 3:53 am

So far Biden’s plan appears to be to kill the fossil fuel industry, which generates massive tax revenues without government help, and replace it with a renewable industry whose representatives always have their hands out for government cash.

But renewables are already too cheap to meter – far cheaper than any other source of energy! They now don’t need any subsidy. They’re also the most reliable of all. They will win out through pure market forces. That’s why we will continue to subsidise them forever, and will distort the market in their favour by government fiat. Because it’s not needed. That’s why we’ll do it.

Likewise fossil fuel burning and nuclear are becoming too expensive, unreliable, unsafe and uncompetitive. They will fall away by pure market forces. That’s why we will destroy that industry through government fiat, through executive and legal means. Because it’s not needed.

That’s why day is night. That’s why wet is dry. That’s why man is woman, and that’s why I’m a democrat.

Matthew Sykes
January 31, 2021 3:55 am

I cant see any of this actually happening. It is all words, to appease the enviro freaks. Look at how few countries have put in a carbon tax. No leader will seriously wreck their economy.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 31, 2021 8:08 am

No leader would. That does not preclude Joe Biden and the current Democrat party from doing so.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 31, 2021 12:04 pm

Why put in a carbon tax? Mandatory prison for anyone who uses fossil fuels

Climate believer
January 31, 2021 5:24 am

Guardian predictions are notoriously wrong, they haven’t a clue, it’s all clickbait for the twitterati socialists.

The Guardian 1974 “Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast.”

willem post
January 31, 2021 7:09 am

The Guardian is often wrong regarding energy reporting, because its editors have blinders on, and talk only to people they agree with.

Biden this, Biden that.

Biden was 47 years in Washington, DC,
He hardly uttered a peep about the environment.

The New Dealers want to ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING

Let us look at just one aspect. “EVs everywhere”

GM announced no more gasoline vehicles, only EVs, by 2035.

I think that is utter nonsense, because the cost owning and operating a vehicle would greatly increase, and the CO2 reduction would be minimal, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis.

This article explains it in detail.

This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.
EVs are designed to be aero-dynamic, and to have low rolling resistance, efficient drive trains, and efficient batteries. This will minimize vehicle weight and maximize range. Tesla is the industry leader regarding efficient EVs.
Any economic analysis must include the amortizing of the difference in capital cost of EVs and equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicles.
Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis
It is important to assess the cost and operating impacts of large-scale use of EVs on electricity generation, grid capacity and energy storage capacity, on an A-to Z basis.
This article has six parts and an Appendix.
Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs
This article describes in detail why it may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:
1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging “on the road”.
3) The loss of valuable time when charging “on the road”.
4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.
High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs
The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:
1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next 10 years
2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home 
3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh
4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.
Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:
1) They are cost competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.
2) They have none of the EV downsides, such as:
– Not requiring EV chargers,
– Not inducing range anxiety
– Refilling in minutes, instead of hours.
3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from.
Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions,
Replacing them with electric cars would only help a little. See table and Part Five
“Electrify Everything”, an easily uttered slogan
It would require:
– Additional electricity generation plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro
– Additional grid augmentation/expansion to carry increased loads for future EVs and heat pumps
– Additional battery systems to store the midday solar electricity surges for later use, aka, DUCK-curve management.
– Major command/control-orchestrating of:
1) Charging times and duration of EVs, and
2) Operating times of major appliances, and
3) Control of electricity demands of commercial/industrial businesses, to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids.
New England Poor Wind and Solar Conditions: New England has the worst wind conditions, except for the US South, and the worst solar conditions, except for the rainy Seattle area.
“Electrify everything” would be a major challenge just to figure out (never mind the cost and environmental impact of implementing it), how all this would actually be working during:
1) Five to seven-day periods, when both wind and solar are minimal (such periods occur at random throughout the year), and
2) Multi-day periods of cold weather, 0 F or less, with snow and ice on solar panels, while electricity demands of heat pumps and EVs would be maximal.

Carlo, Monte
January 31, 2021 7:20 am

Who is going to pay for this insanity?

The GameStoppers demonstrated how fragile the debt financial system really is.

T-Bills? Go from 100% of GDP to 200%? 400%? 1600%?

As they raise taxes and kill energy, GDP will drop, along with tax receipts.

Xidon’s America:

No jobs.
No heat.
No food.
No hope.

But it will be “green”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 31, 2021 5:42 pm

I tried my hand at Daytrading some years ago, and the first thing I noticed was you were required to have and maintain a minimum of $25,000.00 in your trading account, otherwise you could not Daytrade.

I always wondered why this rule was in effect. The only explanation I ever heard for implementing this was the powers-that-be were afraid if they didn’t set a limit, that anybody could come in and Daytrade and would end up losing all their money.

I guess they thought someone with $25,000.00 was smarter than someone with $5,000.00.

But I never did buy that excuse, and now with this Game Stop fiasco, it appears that the reason they set a $25,000.00 minimum is they just don’t like competing with the peons in the market, so they limit their numbers by requiring a huge cash requirement right up front, before they are allowed to play with the Big Guys.

I hear some young Republicans are raising cain about this issue and holding demonstrations. One thing they should demand is that this $25,000.00 penalty on Daytraders should be thrown out the window.

Anyone with any amount of money ought to be able to Daytrade. Some guy with $500.00 could become wealthy depending on his skill. But today, the powers-that-be won’t even give him a chance. And they can’t justfiy this rule.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
January 31, 2021 7:32 am

Gov. Abbott Signs Executive Order Directing All State Agencies to Prepare to Challenge ‘Federal Overreach’

Abbott made the announcement Thursday saying the state was going to take steps to protect the oil and gas industry while also promising to veto any “new green deal” type of legislation, should it be passed, while simultaneously proposing legislation to prevent the banning of natural gas appliances.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  PaulH
January 31, 2021 5:32 pm

The Red States are not going to take Biden’s Dictatorial Pronouncements laying down.

Walter Horsting
January 31, 2021 7:45 am

China Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal Plants

January 31, 2021 8:17 am

The bald faced disingenuousness of Schumer is astounding!
Trump used this emergency for a stupid wall, which wasn’t an emergency. But if there ever was an emergency, climate is one,

Caravans of thousands of people were crossing our borders almost daily and children were being inducted into M13 or “trafficked”. That’s not an emergency, but if Mike Mann says we face disaster in 50 years (with no observational data), “Climate Change” is.

Earth to Chuck: Even John Kerry says going to net zero will have no impact. Unless you get China and India to slow down (and Biden and Obama gave them until 2030 to consider such a change) the situation can hardly be called an emergency.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  George Daddis
February 1, 2021 12:19 am

China won’t slow down, and no one will stop them.

Cheshire Red
January 31, 2021 8:45 am

Guardian gaslighting. As usual.

John Pickens
January 31, 2021 11:45 am

Let’s all step back a bit. The reason “renewables” cost more to operate is that they take more energy to produce. Show me a solar PV or wind turbine production facility powered solely by PV and wind, or shut the f up. There aren’t any, because they are not net energy producers. Prove me wrong.

Reply to  John Pickens
February 1, 2021 8:07 am

Renewables are also more expensive because you still have to pay for the rest of the energy infrastructure. You need to have something that is capable of supplying all of your customers energy needs for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. This means you need to pay for twice as much capacity as you need.

Kevin R.
January 31, 2021 12:31 pm

Biden destroys the economy and makes a good portion of weary, impoverished and desperate people seriously consider breaking way from the union that is the United States and I’ll tell you what – it’ll be the end of America. That’s what I see.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Kevin R.
January 31, 2021 12:54 pm

The first thing that is going to happen is that people are going to stop paying taxes to support the Democrat hell holes. They are already leaving NYC, LA, and Seattle.

At some point the stuff will hit the fan when all those government dependents find themselves abandoned. Again, its already happening in NYC, Baltimore, LA, Seattle, etc. It’s only going to get worse.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kevin R.
January 31, 2021 5:48 pm

Don’t panic. There is a long way to go. Biden isn’t going to have everything his way.

January 31, 2021 1:28 pm

The perception that political action can make CO2 responsible for climate change is lunacy. Observations demonstrate that CO2 does not drive climate change but follows it.

paul courtney
January 31, 2021 1:28 pm

Went through entire string, no comment from mcswell. He recently took umbrage over an etank cartoon, fulminating that Biden had said “CARS” and we were clowns for laughing at the cartoon. Guess he’s busy posting at the Graun, “he said CARS!” Mr. Swell, you may post your regrets here-

January 31, 2021 4:05 pm

unease among some unions”

To describe tens of thousands of wrecked livelihoods as “unease” of “some” pretty much defines the state of the modern “left”. They are the new plutocrats. They are the Chamber of Commerce “as long as out biggest members can do business we are happy” type.

The Trump effects means that US politicians are forced to either go out of the closet as totally Chamber of Commerce or totally non-Chamber of Commerce.

January 31, 2021 4:37 pm

Climate denialism will never disappear because a warming planet is more beneficial than detrimental to the vast majority of fauna and flora.
As time passes the world will come to believe climate change or global warming to be more of a religion than science.

Jackie Pratt
January 31, 2021 5:08 pm

Now that’s real engineering going on……. social engineering that is.

I see philo (i think it was) saying hybrids are efficient and greener (which is BS
as plants will argue that more CO2 is greener) than ICE. I thought when the costs of charging, and the costs of the massive batteries were included that they were not. Huh?

February 1, 2021 8:49 am

I keep getting “Subscription fault” when trying to subscribe, pretty much every page today. But I seem to be able to post without a problem. Is it just me? Is there something I’m doing wrong perhaps? (Same email as always)

Reply to  TonyG
February 1, 2021 10:31 am

Oddly, I seem to have been subscribed despite the error message.

%d bloggers like this: