Biden & Democrats emission reduction schemes misguided, unrealistic, costly & globally irrelevant

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The WSJ published a recent article allegedly describing how U.S. future energy and climate plans of the Biden administration are being developed.

The article described various approaches and organizations involved in this process and the schemes that are being considered to significantly increase future U.S. GHG emission reduction commitments.

The article noted the following:

“Biden administration officials have said they plan to unveil a new U.S. target for emissions reductions during a global climate-change summit in Washington next month. It will set a goal for reducing U.S. emissions over the next nine years.”

“In private meetings in recent weeks, according to people involved in the discussions, outside environmental groups and climate data analysts have encouraged the White House to nearly double the emissions reduction target that then-President Barack Obama set in 2014. At the time, Mr. Obama promised to slash U.S. emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.”

“The groups have presented modeling to the White House making the case that a target in the range of 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 is achievable, the people said, if it accounts for actions already being taken by cities, states, businesses and local governments. Last year, total U.S. emissions were about 21% lower than in 2005 in part because of the pause in economic activity driven by the pandemic. 

The WSJ article grossly understates the huge economic damage that the Covid 19 pandemic played in reducing estimated year 2020 U.S. CO2 emissions from year 2019 levels.

The reality is that between 2005 and 2019 the U.S. GHG reduction level was about 12.5% with that reduction level increasing hugely to 21.5% for the period between 2005 and 2020 when the reductions from pandemic year 2020 are included. 

Thus 42% of the 21.5% reduction that occurred between 2005 and 2020 occurred in the pandemic year 2020. This is inappropriately characterized in the WSJ article as the emission reduction between 2005 and 2020 as being 21.5% which was due “in part” to the pandemic.

The average emission reduction of U.S. GHG emissions between 2005 and 2019 was under just 1% per year. The reduction in GHG emissions in the pandemic year of 2020 was over ten times greater (10.3%) than the average in the prior 14-year interval. 

The source document for the year 2020 estimated GHG reductions figures used in the WSJ article includes the following descriptions of the overwhelming unsustainable economic impact of the pandemic on the GHG reductions in year 2020 and the implications, or lack thereof, for these reductions occurring in the future. 

“Based on preliminary 2020 data, we estimate that net economy-wide US GHG emissions fell by 10.3% in 2020, to 5,160 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent.[1] That represents the single largest drop in annual emissions in the post-World War II period, and far outpaces the record 6.3% drop in emissions in 2009 during the Great Recession. As a result, US emissions drop below 1990 levels for the first time in three decades. Compared to 2005 levels, the US reduced emissions by 21.5%, exceeding its Copenhagen Accord commitment of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.”

“Unfortunately, 2020 tells us little about what we can expect to see in 2021 and beyond. It certainly shouldn’t be considered a down payment toward meeting the 2025 US target under the Paris Agreement of 26-28% below 2005 levels. The enormous toll of economic damage and human suffering as a result of the pandemic is no cause for celebration. The vast majority of 2020’s emission reductions were due to decreased economic activity and not from any structural changes that would deliver lasting reductions in the carbon intensity of our economy. If COVID-19 and the resulting recession hadn’t happened, we estimate that US emissions would have declined by only around 3% this year, driven in large part by the decline of coal-fired power generation and to a lesser extent the reduction in heating demand due to warmer winter weather.  With growth expected to bounce back in 2021 (most forecasts currently project GDP growth of 3 to 4%), emissions will likely increase as well absent a concerted effort.”

“Several of the hardest hit economic sectors—including transportation, electric power, and industry—are also the leading sources of US GHG emissions. With the possible exception of the power sector—where coal’s decline has been driving a steady reduction in power sector emissions over the past decade—emission reductions in 2020 resulted largely from reductions in overall economic activity. Travel demand faced the steepest drop-off this year, leading to a 14.7% decline in transportation sector emissions between 2019 and 2020 (Figure 1). Power sector emissions dropped 10.3%—driven by a nearly 19% reduction in emissions from coal generation, year-on-year. That’s the largest year-on-year decline in recorded history, breaking last year’s record fall. Industrial emissions were down 7.0% and emissions from buildings were down 6.2%, year-on-year.”

These critical assessments addressing the huge economic impacts of the pandemic on U.S. GHG reductions in year 2020 are simply ignored in the WSJ article and hidden from view by inappropriately noting that the level of U.S. 2005 through 2020 GHG reductions of 21.5% were driven “in part” by the pandemic. The far reaching and huge negative economic impacts of the pandemic lockdowns on the U.S. economic sectors are presented in more detail in the information discussed below.

Figure 1 (from the Rhodium Group study) shows that about 90% of the U.S. GHG reductions prior to the pandemic economic decline (the period between 2005 and 2019) were provided by the Power sector with EIA data showing that about 62% of the CO2 reductions (the great majority of all GHG emissions) are accounted for by fuel substitution with increased use of natural gas in place of coal and about 38% due to increased use of renewables.

The increased use of lower cost, higher efficiency and lower emissions natural gas obtained through fracking technology successfully drove the great majority of U.S. emissions reductions between 2005 and 2019. Year 2019 U.S. CO2 levels last occurred in year 1979 some 40 years ago.

Yet astoundingly the WSJ article notes that “Since his inauguration in January, Mr. Biden has suspended new oil and gas leases on federal land,”. This action by the Biden Administration clearly demonstrates the extraordinary energy and climate policy incompetence of Biden, Democrats and their media cabal where the huge benefits of natural gas are destroyed by misguided political fiat without regard to the massive success that fracking technology has created in the U.S. by delivering lower cost, higher efficiency and lower emission natural gas that has produced the largest U.S. CO2 emissions reductions ever achieved by our nation.

The U.S. is gifted with an abundance of lower cost, higher efficiency and lower emissions natural gas resources with the availability of fracking technology to obtain these resources. If Biden and his Democrats were competent in trying to cost effectively reduce U.S. CO2 emissions they would recognize that 60% of U.S. electricity generation emissions result from the use of coal fuel despite the huge reduction in the use of this fuel resource that has occurred since 2005. 

Rather than stifling the use of natural gas in the future they should be promoting its use to further reduce coal fuel being used in the electricity generation sector which would decrease CO2 emissions from coal by over 60% while lowering costs and increasing generation efficiency.

Using fuel substitution of natural gas in CCGTs to replace the remaining coal generation through year 2030 would reduce resulting CO2 levels by over 600 million metric tons. CCGT generation is fully dispatchable (unlike renewables) and enhances the reliability of the electric grid while providing grid stability features including voltage, frequency, synchronization, spinning and standby reserves that cannot be provided by renewable energy resources.

Biden and his Democrats have been incredibly foolish and incompetent to stifle the continued and growing use of abundantly available natural gas in the U.S.              

The huge reduced economic activity during the pandemic period most significantly impacted the Transportation, Industry and Buildings economic sectors and accounted for about 70% of the total GHG emissions reductions during the year 2020 pandemic period as shown in Figure 4 below from the Rhodium study.

The emissions reductions in the Transportation, Industry and Buildings sectors are not reflective of structural changes in the economy and will see increased emissions in the future as normal economic activity is resumed unless the economically damaging “lockdown” tactics of Biden and his Democrats are continued as part of their new national energy and climate policy plans. The dramatic economic impacts of the pandemic “lockdown” in the Transportation sector which represented about 50% of the GHG emission reductions in year 2020 are shown in Figures 2 and 3 below from the Rhodium study.

The GHG emissions reduction changes in the Power sector derived from fuel substitution changes using natural gas and renewables in place of coal fuel with natural gas providing about 70% of the increased generation production outcomes shown in Figure 5 below from the Rhodium study.

Regarding the proposed future U.S. emissions reduction target mentioned by Biden’s study group of 50% below year 2005 levels by year 2030 as being achievable based upon emissions reduction results achieved to date (including pandemic year 2020 reductions) this target is clearly unrealistic given the administrations flawed decision to suspend oil and gas leases on federal lands thus destroying the ability to increase use of natural gas in continuing to cost effectively replace use of coal fuel which still accounts for about 24% of  U.S. electricity. 

Also retaining the huge emissions reductions achieved in other than the Power sector in year 2020 in the future is completely unfeasible unless the economically and incredibly destructive lockdowns of year 2020 are mandated as a permanent part of our future by Biden and his Democrats.  

“Ms. McCarthy declined to preview the coming target. “This is not going to be about what’s my favorite idea, or what might I want to hope for.…We’re going to let the data drive the result,” she said, referring to climate modeling and other analytics that will help administration officials decide what emissions cuts are possible.”

This is the Democratic Party’s contrived political speak which falsely claims that we are “following the science” where unproven and unvalidated computer “models” are employed to supposedly support their infallible policy schemes when in fact these “models” are completely unsuitable for credible policy action decisions. The historian Daniel Boorstin wrote: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge” which certainly applies to the Democrats “follow the science” political slogan shenanigans.     

“As the April 22 Earth Day summit approaches, the White House has launched an all-of-government analysis to craft a target that is both ambitious and achievable, according to administration officials.”

So Biden and his cohorts want to use Earth Day to launch yet another flawed and failed scheme to follow all the other clueless and failed environmental schemes launched at Earth Day events over the last 5 decades.

An even worse failure of the WSJ article and the Biden Administration efforts to ban natural gas and mandate misguided, unrealistic and costly increased emission reduction targets for the U.S. is the concealment of the global picture regarding energy use and emissions that clearly shows the world’s developing nations dominating all global energy use and emissions. The developing nations have made continuing commitments to future additional growth of fossil fuels that will only further enlarge their energy use and emissions dominance regardless of any politically contrived actions the Biden administration takes regarding future U.S. energy and emissions policy. 

The developing nation fossil fuel energy driven nations now control about 65% of all global emissions and are committed to increased use of coal and other fossil fuels in the future. Their actions make the energy and climate emissions reduction scheme policies of the Biden administration irrelevant with increased global emissions being inevitable thereby demonstrating that Biden’s policies on energy and emissions are both incompetent and unnecessarily destructive to our nation’s economy. 

The year 2020 BP global statistical energy data report provides detailed global energy and emissions data for the period 1965 through 2019. 

The BP data shows the U.S. CO2 emissions peaking in year 2007 with year 2019 U.S. CO2 emissions now about 16% below peak 2007 levels amounting to a reduction of over 900 million metric tons (more than any other nation in the world) with these reductions driven predominately by increased use of lower cost, higher efficiency and lower emissions natural gas obtained through fracking technology to replace coal fueled power plants.

In contrast to the significant U.S. CO2 emission reductions in the period 2007 through 2019 the world’s developing nations have increased CO2 emissions by over 5.7 billion metric tons with China and India’s contribution to this huge increase being about 3.7 billion metric tons. The developing nations accounted for ALL global energy growth in the period 2007 through 2019 with increased energy use of over 43%. These nations also accounted for ALL growth in global CO2 emissions during this period as well with increased emissions of over 35%. The only nations increasing total global energy use and emissions growth are the world’s developing nations. The world’s developed nations reduced both their energy use and emissions during this period by 2.5% and 12% respectively.

China and India have both announced plans to further increase their use of coal and other fossil fuels regardless of what Biden and the Democrats decide to undertake to damage the U.S. economy in the name of computer “model” driven speculative and exaggerated claims of climate change impacts.

China’s CO2 emissions are now double those of the U.S. with China consuming 50% more energy than the U.S. Additionally China continued to increase its use of coal fuel and in year 2019 used 2.5 times the amount of coal as all 37 nations that make up the world’s OECD developed nations which includes the U.S. and EU nations. In 2019 the world’s developing nations used fossil fuels to meet 87% of their energy needs while also using less than half the percentage of renewable energy in their energy mix than the world’s developed nations. 

Biden, his Democrats and his media cabal ignore and conceal the reality that his administration’s actions to mandate economically damaging emissions reductions, increased use of costly and unreliable renewables and decreased use of lower cost, higher efficiency an lower emissions natural gas are destructive to the U.S. economy and its people while being completely irrelevant to the ever upward climbing fossil global energy use and emissions outcomes resulting from the world’s developing nations present and future growth policy that require significantly increased use of coal and other fossil fuels.

The famous American philosopher Forest Gump once said: “Stupid is as stupid does.” That clearly applies to Biden and his Democrats energy and climate policy and politics. 

5 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 14, 2021 6:13 am

Costly and misguided describes most Leftist programs.

Reply to  Spetzer86
March 14, 2021 6:46 am

“… most Leftist programs” and may I add of those “let’s get on the band wagon, there is money to be made here by milking governments’ subsidies” from taxpayers and consumers’ who are end victims.
Most renewable sources, solar panels, wind turbines, vegetable oils and wood chips burning are more expensive, bad for environment increase cost of energy and hurt the most those who least can afford it.
Once someone demonstrate that peak oil and peak natural gas are firmly behind and not in front of us, let’s then start thinking about renewals.
CO2 does have an effect but it is minuscule in relation to natural factors.

Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 7:42 am

ThorCon offers cheap reliable CO2 free electricity. Lars does an excellent presentation……and he is talking about powering the whole globe.

Last edited 1 year ago by antigtiff
Reply to  Anti_griff
March 14, 2021 10:53 am

If it is as good as they say hopefully someone will build full production plant to be fully assessed and move on forward.

Reply to  Anti_griff
March 14, 2021 1:32 pm

He lost me when he started going on about particulate matter and coal plant.

Any coal plant built today will have basically zero particulate output !

Reply to  fred250
March 14, 2021 2:42 pm

China..India…Indonesia…are free to build coal plants as they please…particulates or not. There is something called microscopic air pollution and many major US cities can be identified by their microscopic air pollution profile…..requires a powerful microscope to see the particles. The air is sampled by a fan device that blows the air thru a special filter….these particles enter your lungs but don;t come back out. The bottom line is ThorCon is trying to beat coal on cost….and as Lars pointed out….about 30% of California’s air pollution is from China.

Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 7:43 am

If he is around, might have done it to all of them again, as he did 70 years ago on today’s day.
Happy 142-nd birthday Al !

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 8:29 am


While you’re noting birthdays, don’t forget Lenin’s birthday next month!

“As the April 22 Earth Day summit approaches, the White House has launched an all-of-government analysis to craft a target that is both ambitious and achievable, according to administration officials.”

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 14, 2021 10:38 am

Hi Frank,
I noted Al’s birthday for very good reason, he gave us formula for a sustainable non CO2 and non polluting fuel when it is engineered properly. If so we do not need any of the other craaaap energy sources, wood chips, solar panels or wind turbines.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 8:23 am

“wood chips burning are more expensive, bad for environment”
Nonsense. If the chips come from well managed forests- it’s good for the forests, Mr. Vuk. You know nothing about the subject.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 8:56 am

The chips may come from well managed US forests but transporting them to Gt. Britain is insane.

Reply to  Oldseadog
March 14, 2021 9:35 am


Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Derg
March 14, 2021 10:35 am

bingo bango bada bing bada bang- I hope you buy nothing that was ever on a boat from another country.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 10:44 am

Stuff that’s needed should be brought on a boat. Stuff we don’t need (wood chips) don’t need to be on a boat in the first place.
See? It’s not that difficult to understand.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
March 14, 2021 10:46 am

So, the world should first talk to you about such matters so you can give them your wisdom, right? I’m sure the EU will bow to your wisdom.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 11:13 am

I’m just putting you straight in the comments section on a (rather excellent) website. Do I expect or demand that the movers and shakers consult me? Nope.
(Although, if they want to get in touch I’m always ready to have a chat.)

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
March 14, 2021 11:46 am

You can’t put me straight regarding an industry and profession that I’ve doing since Nixon was in the White House.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 2:46 pm

If you’ve been in the industry that long and still believe the daftness you’ve been spouting then you need to think about a long-overdue career change.
The UK doesn’t need woodchips shipped from the US. It’s pointless and expensive. Drax should be burning coal, not wood.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 4:53 pm

You mad bro?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Oldseadog
March 14, 2021 10:34 am

Why? They’re put on a huge boat- everything you buy gets to you on a huge boat.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 15, 2021 5:06 am

That is right,Joseph, I commanded some, but they are very expensive to buy and to operate and if the cargo isn’t necessary it shouldn’t be sent. US wood chips across the Atlantic is silly.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Oldseadog
March 15, 2021 5:23 am

Silly because you say so? If the economics of shipping chips across the ocean were prohibited- then it wouldn’t happen. I don’t know the number other than the fact that the chips are cheap- so shipping a vast amount in a huge boat wouldn’t be done if it didn’t make sense. Saying that it’s “silly” isn’t much of an economic argument. As for “if the cargo isn’t necessary”- that’s your opinion. If you don’t like wood chips- then don’t buy any- if some company wants them- that’s their right to buy them.

Reply to  Oldseadog
March 14, 2021 10:42 am

It’s craaap energy source costing every UK household lot of money
“Two UK power stations got more than a £1bn in subsidies and were excused from paying carbon taxes totalling more than £300m.”

Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 1:34 pm

That’s the bite.

If it wasn’t subsidies to the wazoo, in the pretense that it is “green” energy,

It wouldn’t happen !

I don’t have any issues with using wood as a source of electricity.

As Joseph says.. so long as its well managed and not clear fell.

But let it compete without the green subsidies and mandates.

AND FFS stop PRETENDING its any “greener” than coal.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 9:51 am

You assume what you cut down will be regrown. In reality 80 years of growth on any unit area of land is cut down for 1 year of fuel. 40 years later you are still short half the original growth, plus have had to cut down 40 times the original unit of forest land to continue fuel consumption. This is not even close to sustainable on a limited forest land, even by replanting quick growing species.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DMacKenzie
March 14, 2021 10:40 am

While some wood is burning- forests are at the same time sequestering more carbon- so don’t do carbon counting at the smokestack, do it at the forest. There is more forest now than a century ago- since so much farm land in the east has been abandoned. The idea that the same piece of ground must now recapture that much carbon is severely myopic. Take the scales off your eyes and look at the rest of the forest. And, to prove your ignorance, there is no need to plant any trees at all- in many areas- like here in New England. The forests plant themselves just fine. But after some decades, many of the trees are defective or less valuable species so we need to thin it and retain the most valuable healthiest trees- and we need a market to do that. We used to have a pulp market but that’s on the way out. So, the chip market is ideal- to help keep the forests as forests they must be economically productive. Besides, why do you worry about carbon, are you a climate alarmist? Most others here aren’t worrying about carbon. The chip industry isn’t about replacing fossil fuels- it’s about doing better forestry and it just so happens to replace a limited amount of fossil fuels in case anyone cares- most forestry people aren’t worried about carbon- we like CO2, it makes the trees grow faster- and if you lived in frigid New England, you’d be hoping for MORE global warming.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 10:46 am

So why isn’t the wood burned in furnaces in the US? Transporting it all the way to the UK for a supposedly “green” energy source is beyond nuts.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
March 14, 2021 10:59 am

Because is a rip-off system and Trump and hard nosed USA private business has more sense than our stupid governments.
“Two UK power stations got more than a £1bn in subsidies and were excused from paying carbon taxes totalling more than £300m.”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 11:15 am

Spot on, Vuk.

Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 3:06 pm

Joseph is correct – I also have experience going back decades. But, standing by itself, it only works where the utilization site is very close to the wood source – transport costs rapidly dilute the economic feasibility. This goes for the material be it wood chips or pulp.
But, that all goes out the window when Governments choose to distort the markets, be it with subsidy’s, tax breaks, or tax penalties to alternate technologies. At that point, the economic feasibility is whatever a politician wants it to be, and that is why shipping wood chips across the ocean works. Hell, I would take a bet that the Stevedore costs alone would blow the stand alone economics out of the water

Reply to  Davidf
March 14, 2021 3:54 pm

“Two UK power stations got more than a £1bn in subsidies and were excused from paying carbon taxes totalling more than £300m.”

It’s us the UK consumers subsidising the business, while old people have died of hypothermia because they can’t pay their heating bills.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 1:40 pm

I’m mostly with Joseph on this one.

Well managed forests, are better for the environment than greenie type “leave it and let it do its own thing”

Better a clean forest than an out of control bushland.. especially where I live in Australia.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fred250
March 14, 2021 2:45 pm

Good forestry doesn’t have to be monoculture and the trees don’t have to be cut in a few decades. That happens in some areas but not in most forestry in North America. Here in Massachusetts- well managed forests will have 5-15 species of trees. Many of us practice uneven age silviculture. I never clearcut- I just thin every 15-20 years and often leave large trees. But I’m the first to bitch about bad logging. Most logging in the US Northeast until recently was high grading where they took the best and left the rest- truly degrading the forest. Good forestry does indeed improve the forest but to do this we need markets for low value wood. Regarding suppossed subsidies- almost everthing in modern economies is subsidized in one way or another.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  fred250
March 15, 2021 2:24 am

The forestry people in Switzerland have exactly this “leave the forest alone” problem. The trees were cut, and most of the wood was left there to rot. Then the damage by blights and insects increased, which was blamed on climate change. The rotten wood they left behind was a perfect breeding ground for all sorts of insects and fungi…

William Astley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 2:22 pm

How much virgin forest is it OK to cut down? The alternative is burning natural gas.
You need to scale up the madness to react the end game of the crazy scheme, zero CO2 emissions.
The electrical grid will need to be expanded by roughly a factor of three (every country).

“The UK electrical grid power supply output would be required to INCREASE by a factor of THREE (with zero emissions) as all heating, manufacturing, and transportation, is going to be powered from electricity”

Let’s say the UK, UK, Germany, and so on, tried to get to carbon zero using wind and sun gathering and burning forests and they expanded their electrical grid by a factor of three.
Currently the UK (best location in Europe for wind power) get 24% of its energy from wind. The best capacity factor for wind is large scale for UK region 35% (average).
The current wood/biomass burning, in the UK and EU, has burned all of the waste wood.
To expand the wood burning scheme, Virgin forest must now be cut down to power the scheme.
So the new wood chip power plants must provide roughly 65% of current electrical grid x 2 = 170% of the power from the current (let say UK grid which is the best in EU for wind)
And the UK will need to install more than as many wind farms as current (roughly 3 times as many and the new wind farms need a CF of 35%).
Finally, the wind farms start to wear out at 15 years (30% to 50% reduction in nameplate power is required, to protect against blade failure) and the wind turbines and their supports must be replaced before failure at 20 years. There is an immense changing load on the wind supports which causes fatigue failure. Structures that must take large changing loads wearout,

The wind scheme continues to use energy as it physically wears out and musts be replaced. Also the energy cost of new power lines, expansion of the electrical grid by a factor of three needs to be include in the calculations.

As an aside…. When a forest is burned all of the carbon stored is converted to CO2. When a forest grows it takes time for it to store all of the CO2 that was stored in the original forest.

The UK is the world’s biggest importer of wood pellets. In the move away from coal over recent years there has been a switch towards burning biomass to generate power.

Last year in the UK, biomass powered 6.5% of the National Grid. Biomass can be scaled up when needed to support the increasing use of wind and solar.
It is classed as renewable energy – and subsidies have been committed to the industry by the government until 2027.

But Mr van Ypersele, who was chairman of the IPCC – the body which assesses science on climate change – says burning wood pellets creates a ‘carbon debt’ and accounting rules don’t properly take into consideration the time it takes for replacement trees to grow back.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  William Astley
March 14, 2021 2:53 pm

Old growth forest should NOT be cut down. First of all, there’s not much of it left- good reason to retain it.

NOBODY IS BURNING FORESTS. They only burn the dregs of the forest as part of long term forest mgt.- but you’ll never understand as your mind is locked shut.

No virgin forests are being burned down for energy- you nitwit. No forests are clearcut to convert it all to chips- NONE. The better trees go into the sawlog markets so YOU can live in a wood home with wood furniture and paper products.

I hate wind and solar as much as you. It’s a huge mistake to put wood chips in with wind and solar- because it doesn’t eat more land, it’s renewable, it’s sustainable and when done right- THE FORESTS are not a carbon source even if some chimney is- it takes an open mind to understand that.

The carbon debt thing- I know ALL ABOUT it because the theory originated right here. It’s a bad theory. It’s as bad as the theory that carbon emissions are going to toast the planet in a few decades. I just hope the fans of this site who like fossil fuels and hate wind and solar will stop including wood energy as just another phony “clean and green” energy- because it’s the ONLY clean and green energy.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 15, 2021 2:37 am

At least in Europe, the Politicians (who have no idea) came up with a new paradigm: the current forest is not suited to withstand the ever warming temperatures… so yes, entire swaths of forest are being cut down, and replaced by saplings of so-called “better suited species”. A lot of them die out since they are completely exposed without the cover of a forest and they lack water. Thus they cash in the CO2 certificates for replanting… every year, on the same plot of land … very practical. Whether the trees they plant really survive … who cares !

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  William Astley
March 14, 2021 7:32 pm

Virgin forests? Let’s not get all Freudian with some kind of Puritan Victorian emotional sexual hangup neuroses. There are no such things as pure unadulterated virgin maiden forests anywhere in the real world.

Human Beings, actual Homo sapiens, have burned, chopped, planted, tended, and otherwise impacted all forests, grasslands, and even deserts on this and every other continent for thousands and tens of thousands of years. This may shock your delicate sensibilities, but people have been having intercourse with forests for millennia.

All old growth trees are cultural artifacts. People chose which trees to leave. Selected by humans. Cultural.

This side discussion has nothing to do with the post, which is about enviro crazies body slamming the economy to satiate their New Dark Age superstitions, while not crazy people watch in shock and horror. If the WSJ editors keep this up, someday they will jump out of their skyscraper windows in realization of how badly they screwed up. Short the WSJ; they’re headed for self-inflicted bankruptcy by stupid.

Well, maybe there is a connection. Stupid superstitions like virgin forests and CO2-induced Thermageddon lead to crazy policies and catastrophic failure of real world endeavors.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 14, 2021 6:46 pm

so you are all for acts that are possibly detrimental to the carbon sink AND release CO2 into the atmosphere…

Tilak K Doshi
March 14, 2021 6:23 am

Even the WSJ, thought by many to be not so “woke”, joins in on the fallacies of the Biden energy and climate polices. Pity…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tilak K Doshi
March 14, 2021 8:24 am

The Woke Street Journal?

Alan Robertson
March 14, 2021 6:40 am

in re: The article’s headline:
I think they know all that is true, but do it anyway.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
March 14, 2021 9:09 am

The WSJ is trying hard to maintain relevance for a paper newspaper in a digital world. Unfortunately, the paper WSJ costs about 3 times as much as the only local rag. That paper has gone almost completely liberal woke on any national news, unfortunately. It’s very hard to “woke” high school football, local politics(road repairs, etc).

March 14, 2021 6:46 am

It’s not as if Biden will be around for the lived experience of these policies.

When he was elected I gave him a year before being put out to grass. I stand by that judgement.

Reply to  fretslider
March 14, 2021 8:23 am

Homo stupidius nonfixabilitus. And those who voted for him.

Reply to  DrEd
March 14, 2021 12:33 pm

Biden administration backs nation’s biggest wind farm off Martha’s Vineyard

Reply to  fretslider
March 14, 2021 9:38 am

JoeBama isn’t in charge anyways. As long as the guy has a pulse we will see Weekend at Bernie’s in perpetuity.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Derg
March 14, 2021 10:49 am

Reminds me of someone…

Reply to  Derg
March 14, 2021 6:16 pm

Speaking of Joe Biden, I was inspired to attempt some variations to The Who’s classic song “Substitute”. (For Obama?)

I think we look pretty good together
I gotta say my shoes are made of leather

But I’m a substitute for another guy
I look pretty tall but my heels are high
The simple things I say are all complicated
I look pretty old, and I’m not updated, yeah

Substitute my lies for fact
You can see right through my media stack
I look all white, but now I gotta be black
My fine-sounding speech is really one big sack

I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth
The north side of my town faced east, and the east was facing south
And now I dare to look you in the eye
Those crocodile tears are what I cry
It’s a genuine problem, I won’t try
To work it out at all I just pass it by, pass it by

Substitute me for him
Substitute my coke for gin
Substitute me for your mum
At least I’ll get my washing done

Dudley Horscroft
March 14, 2021 6:55 am

Just think. Supply of natural gas and oil is cut due to the suspension of oil and gas leases on federal lands. What happens when supply is cut, but not demand? Price goes up!. So what do the power stations do? Convert from gas or oil to coal. CO2 emissions go up.

Is this really what Joe wants?

Bring back that man of common sense, Donald Trump!!!

Ed Reid
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
March 14, 2021 8:43 am

You assume the choice of generation fuels will be dictated by economics rather than politics. Conversion from gas to coal or oil will not be a politically acceptable option.

Reply to  Ed Reid
March 14, 2021 10:58 am

It will be politically acceptable when the power is about to go out. That’s what happened in ultra-green Germany. After they decided to phase out nuclear starting in 2000, instead gambling on unreliable wind and solar, they quickly faced electricity shortfalls. They found out that they couldn’t count on their neighbors to bail them out. What did they do? They quietly built about two dozen lignite burning plants over the last two decades. Lignite is dirty coal. The did it so quietly while loudly proclaiming their green status that many so-called “environmentalists” are still unaware of what they actually did.

Reply to  Meab
March 14, 2021 1:51 pm

And Germany is a hotspot for tsunamis. Nuclear had to go pronto.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Ed Reid
March 14, 2021 12:08 pm

I’d bet that once the power becomes both more expensive and rationed (i.e., rotating brownouts), it won’t take long before the choice will no longer fall to the federal government but back to the consumer and producer.

March 14, 2021 6:57 am

In the past, these policies seemed just stupid. Now it seems obvious that those pushing them are deviant and malevolent.

Xi behind a green Greta mask is an apt analogy.

March 14, 2021 6:59 am

It is odd, that as dishonest as the Democrats are, they expect that others will play by the rules they set-up. It is if they think others will somehow be like the Republicans and will either be cowed by faux-public pressure or be bought off eventually.

The United States shot is wad with the Gulf War and when it crashed the world economy in 2008 as a result of bad policy and mismanagement, and is now in no position to lead the world anywhere. And now we have moved the world into the era of “fortified elections”, “woke culture” and “free” printed money.

If they persist in this, the only thing that will transpire is a further erosion of America’s leadership in the world. China, India and Russia are well aware of the phony science behind all of this and must be amazed at the bungling naiveté and obtuseness of the likes of John Kerry as these guys have no ability to lead the world based upon reality as it is.

So, like everything else the United States does under our current leadership, after a decade or more of failure and economic pain, we can expect to be greeted by erudite talking heads on CNN (former CIA operatives, who happened to get wealthy in the process) saying: “we underestimated humanity’s desire to live in autonomous nation states”. (oops)

Last edited 1 year ago by Anon
Reply to  Anon
March 14, 2021 9:48 am

I really believe that the only thing keeping the US from hyperinflation is if US economy crashes, the global economy crashes. If the US economy goes under, it will crash China’s economy because they will sell significantly less goods. There will be less American tourists, which means less money pumped into countries that depend on tourism. European stock markets will crash too. And so on.

The problem is, sooner or later the bill must come due. You cannot keep printing money without repercussions. You cannot making energy unaffordable and unreliable without repercussions. When things start to go down, they will go down hard. And the people who believed in the ideas that led to things getting bad will see just hard life really is.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Anon
March 14, 2021 12:22 pm

It is odd, that as dishonest as the Democrats are, they expect that others will play by the rules they set-up. It is if they think others will somehow be like the Republicans and will either be cowed by faux-public pressure or be bought off eventually.”

Why do you think Pelosi still has the chainlink fences, concertina wire and National Guard on hand? She knows full well that the majority of the voters don’t like the policies she is implementing and is scared poopless of any possible reaction. D.C. reminds me of my trip to Spain back when Franco was still in charge, machine guns on every street corner.

Rich T.
March 14, 2021 6:59 am

Forrest said it best when applied to the current Democrats (COMMUNIST!!) POLICIES to destroy the economy of the US. And place us under the economic control of the CHINESE! How much did the chinese pay to get this result? Have to change this policy before it’s too late. Then we will all be in the dark, broke, hungry and for what.

March 14, 2021 7:23 am

If there was any doubt that the opposite of diversity of thought was university nowadays this certainly nails it-
I want to retire in ‘a liberal-thinking area’ on $3,000 a month, including rent — where should I go? (
Where can he retire cheap with a like minded bunch of Groupthinking librul yarts regurgitators? Try the usual suspects dude.

Reply to  observa
March 14, 2021 8:30 am

He can go to hell. In a few years, his $3000 will buy as much as $1000 will today due to his liberal buddies’ economic policies. Tighten your seat belt, lib idiot, you voted for this coming ride.

Reply to  DrEd
March 14, 2021 9:34 am

The taxation office suspected a fishing boat owner wasn’t paying proper wages to his deckhand and sent an auditor to investigate him.

Auditor: “I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them.”

Boat Owner: “Well, there’s Clarence, my deckhand, he’s been with me for 3 years. I pay him $1,000 a week plus free room and board. Then there’s the mentally challenged guy. He works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of the work around here. He makes about $10 per week, pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of Bundaberg rum and a dozen Crown Lagers every Saturday night so he can cope with life. He also gets to sleep with my wife occasionally.”

Auditor: “That’s the guy I want to talk to – the mentally challenged one.”

Boat Owner: “That’ll be me. What’d you want to know?”

Reply to  observa
March 14, 2021 3:14 pm


Gregory Woods
March 14, 2021 7:27 am

Renewable Means UnAffordable
Renewable Means UnAbundant
Renewable Means UnReliable
Renewable Means UnSustainable

Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 14, 2021 8:59 am

Renewables means you have to renew them every 15 years or so.

Reply to  Oldseadog
March 14, 2021 2:26 pm

Wait for it, renewable vaccines.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 14, 2021 3:09 pm

Renewables means you never have to say you’re sorry.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 15, 2021 8:45 pm

Renewables Means Ponzi Scheme

Reply to  Mikee
March 17, 2021 3:30 pm

Renewables means Made in China.

Bruce Cobb
March 14, 2021 7:27 am

“The increased use of lower cost, higher efficiency and lower emissions natural gas obtained through fracking technology successfully drove the great majority of U.S. emissions reductions between 2005 and 2019.”
Er, no. The War on Coal which was (and is) an abomination, in addition to fracking technology resulted coincidentally in a reduction of life-giving, entirely beneficial CO2. If given a level playing field, coal can compete with NG, and that competition is healthy for the energy market, and ultimately, consumers. People keep forgetting, NG isn’t everywhere. Expensive infrastructure has to be built for it. Furthermore, it is subject to huge price swings, in a way that coal is not.

March 14, 2021 7:39 am

No one, not ONE single person outside a small circle of those paying close attention in the energy field has ANY idea that these ‘CO2 reduction’ memes and schemes are so shortsighted and myopic its laughable, truly laughable in light of new developments just these last couple of years.

First off, become familiar with gas chromatography (GC) then TRY and absorb a little of what is being conveyed in this technical report (ppt format):

UNDERSTAND the importance of this experiment (WHICH was repeated later with same results) before commenting …

John Bell
March 14, 2021 7:39 am

Climate-change? Is that hyphen-abuse?

March 14, 2021 7:49 am

Yes sir. Globally irrelevant.
The other issue is the use of the word Net.

Pls see

March 14, 2021 8:31 am

WUWT gets an honorable mention on Sky News in Oz-
‘Every single windmill and solar panel is money for Communist China’: Dean (
How can grown adults believe this fantasy in this day and age beggars belief. Something about the bigger the lie I suppose.

March 14, 2021 8:35 am

While China spends $billions to expand its influence and trade opportunities via the belt and road initiative, the west dilutes its influence and currencies by hugely subsidizing wasteful and uneconomic windmills, solar panels, and biomass energy projects.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  skeptic
March 14, 2021 4:29 pm

I hear the Chicoms have 70 members of the UN ready to sign off on the Chicoms cracking down harder on Hong Kong.

The Chicoms are winning friends and influencing people through various means. To the detriment of everyone else.

Sleepy Joe can’t fix this problem. It takes a Trump.

Frank from NoVA
March 14, 2021 8:36 am

Note to WSJ – climate articles featuring back-lit photos of water vapor emanating from cooling towers can safely be filed under “garbage”.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 15, 2021 1:36 am

I don’t know why people get so exercised about that: any article has its photos selected from stock images by a junior member of staff… they just pick the first one labelled ‘power station’ or the next one to the one used last time.

Or should I complain about the Watts article headed up by a disused wind turbine with a nest on it, entirely untypical and unrepresentative and selected for propaganda effect?

Reply to  griff
March 15, 2021 3:36 am

Poor griff,

You really don’t like the UTTER AND COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the bog standard climate apologist being EXPOSED , do you, petal !!

You are a pathetic ignorant little worm.

So true that you would only see a nest on a defunct windmill..

….. a functional one would chop the birds to pieces.

Abolition Man
March 14, 2021 8:38 am

The ChiComs read articles like this WSJ piece, hear the bleating of the subservient Bai Den Regime, laugh loudly and return to working on the next variant of their biological warfare weapon!
The first iteration crippled the US and European economies without a shot fired; the next will be targeted at a younger, non-Asian demographic. They saw what occurred on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and figure it’s safer and easier to cripple the US military first! If the DemoKKKrats are not soundly defeated in 2022, there may be little military might left to destroy!
I guess radical leftists would rather work with the deadliest, mass murdering, criminal cabal in human history; the Chinese Communist Party, than permit rights and freedoms for dissidents against Progressive orthodoxy!
The greatest beneficiaries of DemoKKKrat policy are China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela! Those most harmed are the American working and middle class; as well as poor people the world over! Do we still have to fund the Wuhan Lab with our taxpayer dollars?

Reply to  Abolition Man
March 14, 2021 9:53 am

Did somebody say: “Hold my beer”?

Reply to  Abolition Man
March 14, 2021 10:06 am

Demrat Party admires and wants to become the CCP…..Joey the Clown may appoint his son Hunter as Ambassador to China.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Anti_griff
March 14, 2021 12:05 pm

I thought Hunter was official bag man for the Bai Den Regime!? Joey doesn’t have enough functional brain power left to be a clown; he makes a good puppet as long as no one cuts his strings!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anti_griff
March 14, 2021 4:38 pm

I think Biden is looking to put his son, Hunter on the Board of Directors of a few Mexican Drug Cartels. There’s a lot of money to be made now that Biden has opened up the door for the Drug Cartels.

Joe should probably ask for more than his regular 10 percent cut of the profits from the Cartels. After all, Traitor Joe is doing them a big favor and making them a lot of money. They say everyone coming over the border has paid the Cartel money to do so.

Joe Biden is enabling a huge criminal enterprise with his opening of the southern border to all comers.

Political pressure is building on Biden. Let’s see if it has any effect.

Kit P
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 14, 2021 12:33 pm

They saw what occurred on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and figure it’s safer and easier to cripple the US military first! 

What do you think happened on the carrier?

The deal with learning the lessons of history is to learn the right lessons.

What was learned with no precautions like mask or SD is that covid-19 is not Spanish Flu.

This why I call it a panic demic. There is comprehensive report on the results. I was a navy nuke on surface ships. Medical personnel who were more at risk had a lower infection rate because they properly used n-95 masks on a routine bases.

Nuclear trained personnel had a higher infection rate. We work in close quarters and have to make an effort to go outside to get some sun when not working.

The lessons were learned and problems avoided on other ships. Only one active duty military person has died to date.

Another lesson to be learned when China does something provocative is that a second nuclear carrier group shows up off the coast of China. For all intense purposes, China does not have a blue water navy.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Kit P
March 14, 2021 12:48 pm

I agree with you, but remember, the carrier shut down operations due to the panic being generated by ChiCom propaganda and disinformation! The next Wuhan generated bio-weapon will probably be targeted at a younger demographic; specifically military age! Do you have any confidence that the political officers being installed in the Pentagon will have the requisite toughness and smarts to counter the growing strength of the PLA?
I’m very concerned that our military is designing maternity flight suits and welcoming transgenders into the ranks; while the ChiComs are stealing ALL of our latest technologies and developing weapon systems specifically to counteract our strength!

March 14, 2021 9:04 am

I came across an excellent article that used a series of animated graphs showing the effects country by country of changes in demographics. Too bad I lost it. Maybe take shot looking for it.
The graph for China shows the most dramatic change occurring over the next 20-40 years and the results of the 1 child policy take effect. The OneChildPolicy has resulted in about 44 million single men who will take over and leave the most productive tier in the population over about 20 years. They will have a huge, unknown effect on China policies-whether they go conservative or more liberal(less restrictive society). By that time the restrictive communist policies and programs we’ve seen for the last 40 years, as the war generation aged through the most productive tier, will change dramatically and unpredictably.

The same applies to India, but the effect of age on policy will also be moving through the population. India has a different age distribution. Again, policies will change as different ages hit life milestones and they grow older.

The USA has(had?) the most advanced and productive economy as the “baby boom” aged through. It had dramatic effects on productivity and social ideas. It took another turn with the boomer children coming into the most productive years recently. That has resulted in a large increase in the productivity, wealth, and stratification of the population which is causing a lot of trouble right now(~1990-2000).

I did my stuff at the end of the baby boom quite successfully making some innovative candies. Lately, the child-teen dearth has hit that industry badly. Candy is very profitable, but has less of a target market.

Reply to  Philo
March 15, 2021 1:34 am

You might also note the continued male/female births imbalance in China and India…

March 14, 2021 10:13 am

Never in US history has a President inflicted so much economic damage in just 50 days.

Oil prices have skyrocketed from $35/bbl to $65/bbl (85%) just since the election and will eventually blow past $100 as the economic repercussions of Biden’s war on oil play out.

The spoils of victory in a war on oil are: blackouts, high inflation, US$ destruction, massive tax and regulation increases, high unemployment, recession, high interest rates, stock and real estate markets plummet, rising trade deficits, manufacturing sector implodes, falling GDP, exploding national debt, ME unrest, etc….

Oh, goody…

Abolition Man
Reply to  SAMURAI
March 14, 2021 12:57 pm

Domo arigato, Samurai-san!
We must never forget that Premier Zhao Bai Den was installed by massive DemoKKKrat voter and ballot fraud, and he is being controlled by some of the MOST radical leftists while the US is gutted economically and militarily! The ChiCom elite are celebrating their victory in the battle for world hegemony; it may be early, but who and what can stop them at this point!?

John Chism
March 14, 2021 10:26 am

This is called “Political Virtue Signaling” that as your cost of living increases – by these partisan policies – it will not make any difference in future Climate Change, while “Under Developed Countries” increase their Carbon Footprint above what the “Developed Countries” are doing to reduce theirs. This the Van Gogh Effect of cutting off your ear because the one you love doesn’t want your advances and finally shooting yourself to end your life. The psychological madness of the Liberal Mind is the hypocrisy of Virtue Signaling actions that they themselves will not do, while telling others to do something. When these Affuent Modern Liberals in high government offices tout that they’re against Inequality and Inequity and support policies that will increase the cost of living of the poorest in their country, more than those that are Affuent… that’s Virtue Signaling.

Al Miller
March 14, 2021 10:33 am

to the Democrats it’s not misguided- it is what it always was- a front to bring in communism. Simple, dangerous and evil, but simple.
I sure hope the moderate Democrats wake up soon.

March 14, 2021 12:29 pm

Biden & Democrats emission reduction schemes misguided, unrealistic, costly & globally irrelevant
Team Biden Motto;

“I Think That This Situation Absolutely Requires A Really Futile And Stupid Gesture Be Done On Somebody’s Part.”

March 14, 2021 2:48 pm

The graph for electric power CO2 emissions is only for operating and not investment phase. Significant CO2 emissions occur for solar (coking, mining), nuclear (cement, steel), wind (cement, mining, fiberglass), oil and gas (diesel, steel, cement),coal (steel)..

Please, someone quantify emissions during the investment phase and come up with a similar graph to emissions during operating phase.

March 14, 2021 4:06 pm

We may be surprised at what will actually happen.
John Kerry is the leader appointed by Biden to move this project.
The statements he made, all recorded on TV etc. may come to kill him and any suggested projects.
Remember this one:

Kerry said we have only a few years left to avoid a climate catastrophe.
“Well, the scientists told us three years ago we had 12 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis. We are now three years gone, so we have nine years left,”

And more junk available here:

Yes, the “scientists” told him 9 years left!

Good luck John Kerry.

March 14, 2021 4:57 pm

Im cheering on Biden to saddle the US with his economy-killing policies. This will hasten America’s decline and make the world a safer place with fewer wars. China on the other hand will surge past america to become the world’s number 1 asshole.

Reply to  Joe
March 15, 2021 1:32 am

Already happened. Sadly, the US is now a declining nation.

Reply to  griff
March 15, 2021 3:40 am

“the US is now a declining nation”

Yep, the Democrats are seeing to that

They were going GREAT GUN, becoming GREAT AGAIN before covid,

… then the Democrats and their AntiFa, BLM thugs, and the green slime socialist agenda..

… all equally nasty infections.

March 14, 2021 9:24 pm

Delusional drivel-
Woodside sells first carbon offset condensate cargo from Australia (
It’s fossil fuel for energy you idiots.

Matthew Sykes
March 15, 2021 1:03 am

Insane. How can the west continue to let blood while whoreing itself to China on imports?

Tom Kennedy
March 15, 2021 4:26 am

The WSJ has joined the rest of the MSM constantly repeating Global Warming fallacies (e.g. CO2 is the single control knob for climate) and touting the future is all electric cars and trucks.

This once reliable, balanced news platform has become another left wing joke. There must be something in the water in New York that causes insanity.

March 16, 2021 5:58 am

it’s only short term arguing ! long term vision works only without fossils ! try to think a little bit …

Bill Everett
Reply to  Hubert
March 17, 2021 7:21 pm

The average annual human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere from 1980 through 2019 was one tenth of one ppm if a five percent human contribution is used in the calculation.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights